Previous Post
Next Post

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson (courtesy

The recent flap about Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s comments on homosexuality got me thinking. While I don’t share Robertson’s belief that being gay is a sin – at all – I support his right to be wrong, in public. That said, the remarks themselves were inexcusably crass. Vagina vs. anus? Really? Robertson must have known that this comment would inflame both homosexuals and heterosexuals. To what end (so to speak)? It’s certainly not the kind of language I’d expect from a “true Christian”; someone who loves the sinner but hates the sin. Nope. The comment was needlessly, heedlessly insensitive. And it reminds me of nothing so much as the comments I’ve heard as a gun guy. Or should I say “gun nut” . . .

Fag. Gun nut. Critics use these terms to the signal the “fact” that the recipient’s behavior is unacceptable. Beyond the pale. That they’re genetically, morally and spiritually abhorrent. Both words are designed to marginalize otherwise acceptable members of society. To ostracize them. More than that, people use the terms fag and gun nut to condemn the person themselves. To make the recipient wish they’d never been born. The terms are, in short, hate speech.

I’ve been called both. The first because that’s what boys called each other at Moses Brown, the all-boys school I attended for ten years. If I did anything that didn’t fit the macho ideal I was a fag. Soccer instead of football? Fag. Cool shoes? Fag. Close friendship with someone artistic? Fag. The term didn’t bother me per se. In almost all cases, it was just a word used by bullies to put someone down, regardless of their sexual orientation. Truth be told, I used it myself more than once.

But I knew that calling someone a fag was wrong. My parents’ gay friends were funny, intellectual and creative people (just like their heterosexual friends). I never once thought of calling them—or anyone else outside of school—a fag. That would be like calling a black man a nigger or a Jew a kike. A decent person didn’t go there; using the term for real would have revealed me as intolerant, uneducated and classless. As the child of the late 60’s, I embraced society’s movement towards what’s now called diversity, what was once called tolerance and brotherhood. A trend that, eventually, included gays.

Personally, I didn’t experience much prejudice. Sure, there was some anti-Semitism. But like the fag thing, it was mostly background noise. The only time I got a real taste of what it was like to be “different” was when I hitched a ride home from Mount Hermon summer school with an all-black basketball team. It sounds silly but that was a genuinely eye-opening, sensitivity-enhancing experience. As was the February, 2013 Washington Post front page profile ‘This gun rights backer, armed with his Glock and his blog, is always on alert.’

Back home, Farago greets his daughter, Lola. His nanny calls a cab. Lola is in third grade and attends a Quaker school. That’s a bit awkward for the gun blogger, and he tries to keep his interests “on the down-low.”

Closeted? Moi? Be that as it was (before I moved to Texas), the WaPo article is fair enough; writer Joel Achenbach accurately represented my views on guns and gun control. The comments are . . . startling. At a rough guess, I’d say 80 percent of the 4108 comments are unapologetically, viciously antagonistic. Here’s beefchop423’s response, currently sitting at the top of the pile:

“Once you put a gun on, you gain situational awareness,” he says.

What a load of hooey (I wish I could use the word I want to). Once you put a gun on, you have the proverbial hammer and every problem you come across will look like a nail.

Paranoid, frightened little man. And millions like him. 10-15,000 accidental deaths and murders are on your shoulders.

That’s a relatively light-hearted example. Here’s another one from ronsattler:

It is far more likely that the house will blow up from the incorrectly installed water heater in the basement than anyone invading his house. Poster children for delusional dummies. No wonder he’s divorced twice, clearly he has mental issues that need professional help and care. Maybe his tin foil hats will protect him?

The term “gun nut” is the anti-gun equivalent of “fag.” In short-hand and in no uncertain terms it says that anyone who exercises their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is mentally defective.

American gun owners must not allow themselves to be mischaracterized as mentally ill. Just as African-Americans had to fight for their civil rights, gun owners must stand up for theirs against the antis’ ignorance, prejudice and hatred. We must counter these character attacks and embrace any and all opportunities to openly and loudly defend and extend our Second Amendment protections, and declare our determination to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

More than that, gun owners cannot afford to be anything other than completely inclusive. We don’t have to agree with or even like our fellow gun owners…or non-gun owners for that matter. But our rights depend on taking the moral high ground and leaving our divisive beliefs below. Or at least voicing them with respect. As Benjamin Franklin put it, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Literally.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I see your thought process and agree with it, but not on this issue… lends itself to Political Correctness too much. The man was asked a question…and he answered it. And he did so by quoting the bible. Nothing wrong with that. If PC get itself rooted, just about any conversation, no matter how opinionated, can be deemed to be offensive. The man has his beliefs, and it doesn’t matter if you or I agree with them…those beliefs that he spoke of are held by the majority of peoples i this country. This pisses PC fans off something terrible.

    A fine example is to take a look at the marriage issue, every time it goes on the ballot in our states, its gets voted out by the populace…lol..even in the people republic of California (what was it two separate times it got voted out,,hahaha). But, if someone puts a microphone in front of them..they say they support gay rights to marriage. …mind boggling honestly. Everyone wants to present themselves as a “better person”….but in order to do so, you must first cast away your core values and beliefs. Phil has cast away nothing. and that is why I respect him.

      • I challenge all people who support gay marriage and believe that there is no rational argument against it to listen to this video.

        There were ONLY TWO outside persons invited to congress to speak for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and this person was one of them. See if if you still think the same way after listening.

        • The content in that Youtube link is nonsense. This really isn’t that difficult of an issue. Mind your own damn business. That’s it. I don’t care if someone wants to get married to two or three people, an animal, their cousin or a damn refrigerator.

          I believe in the consent clause. If two or more adult people clearly show consent, and their actions cause no harm to anyone outside their situation then it’s not my business, it’s not your business and it’s certainly not the government’s business.

          It’s disappointing to see all these conservatives who are so concerned with the liberals who want to establish a nanny state getting so riled up about what adults do in their bedroom. How about you live your life and stop worrying so much about what other people are doing? Sound good?

          This is why I can’t take conservatives seriously. They get so riled up about the government enforcing laws they don’t agree with but the very second they have an agenda they want to push, using the government to see it through is A-OK. Just mind your own damn business folks. There’s WAY more important issues out there than gay marriage. If this is your primary concern you have too much free time on your hands.

        • @Ace

          Is your comment an example of that progressive “nuanced” thinking that I keep hearing about?

          Interesting that in that exact video Prager comments on how the left never has an answer for his objections.

        • @BradN

          Strange, conservatives and most of the world were “minding their own business” and then the Gay Lobby decided that they wanted to redefine the institution of marriage that was a happily minding its own business for the past 3,000 years or so.

          I’m sure you feel that you are finer, kinder, smarter, and better human beings for supporting gay marriage…but you know what….your not.

          Then you go to the old leftist well and say how the opposition gets “so riled up about what adults do in their bedroom” when in fact it’s impossible for society not to get inundated with stories, films, movies, newspapers yapping about the glory of homosexuals and gay marriage. Seems like YOU FOLKS are the ones so insecure with our bedroom practices that you have to announce to world about how simply fabulous your lifestyle. Hey guess what, I don’t give a flying F what hole you fill up.

        • @doesky2

          I’m not understanding this perception of something being pure and good just because it’s old. If something doesn’t cause harm then it is inconsequential if it is old or new. It’s old and tradition for many thousands of years to stone disobedient children, should we bring this practice back? Should we reject new developments in technology simply because that’s not how they did things in the old days?

          I’m not a “gay marriage supporter”, I’m a “do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others” supporter.

          What’s so hard to understand about that? Gay people or polygamists getting married do absolutely diddly squat to influence anything in your life in any negative way. Therefore it’s not your business.

          YOU think marriage is between a man and a woman? Fine, then YOU don’t get married to your same sex.

          It’s the same as firearms to me. These gun-grabbers don’t like guns? That’s perfectly fine, they don’t have to own one, just don’t stop me from owning one.

          As far as what this Duck Dynasty dude said, I really don’t care. Even though his comments about Black people (which I am Black) were ignorant, I really don’t care what comes out of his mouth and people should leave him be to believe whatever he wants and say whatever he wants. It is his right.

          PS, I hate Liberals and Conservatives equally. They are both full of BS and are holding this country back with their views. This is America, we are supposed to be free to do whatever we wish. Limiting what free adults can do and treating them like children is UNAMERICAN. PERIOD.

        • doesky2, please cite to this “(definition) of the institute of marriage” that you refer to. We’ll wait.

        • @ El Mac

          No. Remember, consent clause. Not infringing on others rights yadda yadda yadda, you know everything I just stated in that huge wall of text I submitted.

        • @BradN

          Thomas Sowell described most leftist thinking as “Stage 1 thinking”. He details how most leftist policy is based on making people feel good about themselves and that is typically the extent of their thought process of social policy changes. Very rarely (if ever) do leftists ever consider the consequences of their actions. The results of Stage 1 thinking brought us the destruction of the black family (Stage 1 thinking about welfare), the destruction of the manufacturing capability (Stage 1 about unions), and the death of millions of Africans (Stage 1 thinking about eliminating DDT).

          So now the left wants to discard the concept of male/female social standard that was the underpinning of society for the past thousands of years.

          The left and YOU keep saying things like “Gay people or polygamists getting married do absolutely diddly squat to influence anything in your life in any negative way”

          Well lets list just a sampling of things that already have occurred since the advent of gay marriage.

          1) Businesses have been FORCED to cater gay marriage ceremonies even if it violates their religious beliefs. Do you believe a baker should be forced to violate his religious beliefs so that a gay couple can make a political statement rather then to just walk down the street to another baker?

          2) The largest child adoption agency in America (Catholic charities) has stopped activities in two states because they were FORCED to place gay couples at the same level of equivalence as a male/female couple? Do you believe your father and mother both gave unique value to your upbringing? Well tough luck for adoptive kids in those 2 states. Adoptive kids in those states may very well get cheated out having a mother or father because YOU want to feel good about yourself concerning gay marriage.

          I could go on for pages. This is just a small SAMPLE of unforeseen issues of gay marriage that Stage 1 thinking enables. These issues may not impact me TODAY but it impacts SOCIETY in the long run.

          I’m not understanding this perception of something being pure and good just because it’s old.

          Spoken like a true narcissist who thinks they are smarter then everyone born before them. The hubris is typical of the left.

          The left just thinks “civil society” is just a given natural state of things. In reality it took centuries to achieve and the left has done a spectacular job of dismantling it over a few short decades.


        • @BradN

          I don’t care if someone wants to get married to two or three people, an animal, their cousin or a damn refrigerator.

          Well there you go. Glad we got that settled that allowing gay marriage for the justification that “It’s about love” starts society down the path to polygamy, brother/brother, brother/sister, parent/child marriages because they would have the same “right” to a marriage as gays since it is based on “love”.

          Or we can NOT go down that colossal and dangerous societal experiment by saying that marriage should remain defined as the traditional male/female bonding.

          But hey, what the F, lets just roll the dice and see what happens because right it makes me feel so darn enlightened, smart, and special.

        • Mr. Prager is in the class of “Oppression is coming for us, so oppress back” class of individuals.

        • @Gray Peterson

          Mr. Prager is in the class of “Oppression is coming for us, so oppress back” class of individuals.

          Does that make you feel all warm and superior when you wrote that?

          What you call oppression has been called “societal standards” for centuries. The left is great at lowering standards and then not accepting the blame for the chaos that ensues. I presented just a sampling of major negative repercussions to allowing gay marriage and you completely ignore them because you don’t have a valid response. You want to allow gay marriage because you feel good about it and society be damned.

        • I once read a series of articles in which Dennis Prager argued for religion/Christianity over atheism in a back-and-forth against noted published atheists. Those articles are what turned me atheist.

        • @doesky2

          The problems you list so far are not issues with gay marriage per se, but rather with the state forcing ideology down the throats of private citizens. As private entities, the Portland and CO bakers and Catholic Church should NEVER be forced to participate in and support practices that are against their core values. Tyranny, pure and simple.

          But it doesn’t have to be this way. In theory, the law could provide gay couples important legal protections without forcing non-consenting others to participate.

          And this is something the other side of the issue may wish to consider: Many, perhaps most, people are willing to tolerate you. To live and let live. I personally don’t care what one or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, and this essentially libertarian stance is becoming more common (particularly among young people).

          But if you won’t accept tolerance as an end goal, if you must go a step further and shove your morality down other peoples’ throats by force of law, you might find that people will not put up with it forever.

          • Herein lies the problem. For too many, tolerance is not nearly enough. What they are really seeking, perhaps unconsciously, is love and acceptance. They can have one, but to seek them both is asking too much. Some folks can’t learn where “enough” is.

        • @Cdotsen

          Those articles are what turned me atheist.

          Well we now established that you are not able to comprehend basic arguments.

          Atheism is the the most nonsensical of all belief systems. Yep atheism is a belief.

          So which of the flavors of atheism do you agree with?
          1) Something spontaneously formed from nothing
          2) Something has been around forever

          See when you put atheism in those easy to comprehend terms it’s very easy to see how stupid atheism is.

        • @Old Ben

          But it doesn’t have to be this way. In theory, the law could provide gay couples important legal protections without forcing non-consenting others to participate.

          Well there’s your 1st stage thinking optimism. However we live in the real world where the Gay Lobby is assisting in these lawsuits against the general public and winning results from judges.

          I personally don’t care what one or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home

          Neither do I. That has nothing to do with favoring gay marriage.

          … if you must go a step further and shove your morality down other peoples’ throats by force of law, you might find that people will not put up with it forever.

          Sure seems like the Gay Lobby is shoving THEIR morality down the throat of society. You just refuse to accept the valid arguments against gay marriage because you want to feel superior.

          Hey I realize Prager and I are on a losing track. The general public is too stupid and lazy to have a real national conversation about it (and the media wouldn’t permit it either). However, even if it’s a losing battle, at least as time goes by and people wonder how our society got F’d up a bunch more due to gay marriage, at least I will have a clean conscience and say I did my best to prevent it.

        • Ho, hum. Here we go again on the Gay Marriage bandwagon.

          As far as I’m concerned, gay marriage ought to be a straightforward matter of Freedom of Religion if you simply consider marriage as both a religious institution and a civil / legal status.

          As a matter of personal religious belief, feel free to apply your own standards to any union and consider it valid or invalid before God.

          As a matter of religious freedom, a religiously-neutral government should apply a different set of standards that reflect the wider opinions of our country on what ought to constitute a legally-protected union.

          If the government model for a legal union doesn’t meet your personal standards for a “marriage” then feel free to consider the use of the term “marriage” to describe such a union as incorrect (or incomplete). But, as an American, please consider that honoring a right to religious freedom means that gaps may exist between your personal beliefs and the laws of this country.

    • Having a “core value” that a segment of the population is second class is just as bad as waiting firearms banned.

      If you support the right to own a gun, you sure as hell better support the right of gays to marry, and buy guns as well. It’s the only way to win the second amendment fight in this country, by supporting liberalization of ALL personal rights, not just gun rights.

        • Anyone can “marry” anyone else they want. No one has kept anyone from that. There is no requirement that others have to recognize it.

        • Really? Because I’m 100% sure that if you are gay and want to get married, there are still a lot of states where you can’t do that.

        • You can indeed call yourself married in any of the 50 states. That doesn’t mean it has to be recognized by anyone, including the government.

        • Nick, homosexuals can marry or otherwise cohabitate in all 50 states. Period. What you are talking about is forcing the State to endorse gay marriage through the issuance of marriage licenses and forcing other citizens, at gunpoint, to accept homosexuality as normal despite their religious, moral, and medical objections to it. Homosexuals desire this governmental endorsement for 2 primary reasons: 1) their belief that this will help normalize their sexual preferences in the eyes of most people; and 2) financial benefits accorded to spouses of employees, etc.

          It is rather amusing that this vocal subset of citizens screamed bloody murder for decades about getting the government out of their bedrooms, yet the moment they accomplish this, they turn around and DEMAND that the government get back into their bedrooms pronto.

        • @Nick

          So Nick the “gay marriage lobby” says that if two people love each other they should be allowed to marry. If three people love each then they should be allowed to marry right? If two brothers loved each other should they be allowed to marry? If a brother/sister loved each other they should be allowed to marry too right? (Don’t bother mentioned incest, that can be prevented) Where exactly are you going to draw the line?

          A man/woman marriage has been the standard for thousands of years. You and your ilk believe you are smarter, kinder, and wiser then everyone that has come before…and I’m sick of it.

        • If the government is going to be in your bedroom (by issuing a marriage license), then it needs to be in everyone’s bedroom equally.

          Really, gay marriage is a non-issue. A percentage of the homosexuals (already a minority) in this country will get married (or civil-unioned, or whatever they end up calling it), have the same legal rights and benefits as everyone else, be treated equally under the law, and life will go on. Straight people will keep right on getting married and crankin’ out screwed-up straight kids, who will grow up and get married and create more dysfunctional straight people (and some dysfunctional homosexual people too).

          Let’s just get over it and get past it already. It’s not like they’re demanding anything the rest of us (straight people) don’t already have. So what if it becomes “normal” for two homosexuals to get married and walk down the street holding hands or whatever? So what?
          If the thought of that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe that’s YOUR problem.

        • H.R., sorry, but you cannot make it normal. I truly do not care what homosexuals call their relationships whether they call them “marriages” or “purple cows”. I have a problem with the State trying to force me to support them. Now, I would agree that government has no business being involved in marriage in the first place, but suggesting that inappropriately intervening in all relationships makes it better is simply foolish.

        • Peter, so you admit that homo- and hetero-sexual people don’t have the same rights in many states. Thank you for that.

        • Stilicho, in the past, inter-racial marriage wasn’t “normal”. What is your point? 1. Define “normal”, 2. Explain how “normal” is a legal limitation on Constitutional and Civil Rights.

          I don’t see anything in the Constitution that allows the government to define marriage. Technically, it would be prohibited from doing so under the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. And I take “reserved… to the people” damn seriously.

        • “Stilicho, in the past, inter-racial marriage wasn’t “normal”. What is your point? 1. Define “normal”, 2. Explain how “normal” is a legal limitation on Constitutional and Civil Rights.

          I don’t see anything in the Constitution that allows the government to define marriage. Technically, it would be prohibited from doing so under the First, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. And I take “reserved… to the people” damn seriously.”

          1) “normal” was used in the sense of the natural order of sexual congress between man and woman. 2) It imposes no such limits.
          3) Not only does the Constitution grant no authority to the government to define marriage, it grants no authority to regulate it period.
          4) My turn: 1) where do you think this alleged “right” to gay marriage comes from? 2) By what right do you expect to compel me to recognize and accept gay marriages?

      • “If you support the right to own a gun, you sure as hell better support the right of gays to marry, and buy guns as well.”

        PC has consumed you. ….sadly

        • PC hasn’t consumed me to any degree. I just realize that gays should be able to marry, it doesn’t matter! It’s just like how assault weapons shouldn’t be banned because they’re scary looking; gay people shouldn’t not be able to marry just because it hurts your feelings. Get over it.

        • -201. If that’s “PC” then anything and everything is PC. What Nick said is correct, it’s the height of irony to want your own personal freedoms protected while at the same time pushing for the freedoms of others (ones that have no real negative effect on you at least) to be restricted.

        • “It’s just like how assault weapons shouldn’t be banned because they’re scary looking; gay people shouldn’t not be able to marry just because it hurts your feelings. Get over it.”

          Lots of people do lots of things that I may not be 100% comfortable with.
          But that doesn’t matter. As long as they don’t harm me or threaten my liberty, I just need to deal with it. Liberty isn’t always a tidy thing, and if I want mine respected, then I’d better do my best to respect the liberty of others.

          • I respect their liberty. I don’t respect them and their militancy. Why do they want to “get married” in a church? Simple: they want to break it off in Christian’s asses because Christians don’t support that lifestyle. They want to rub Christian’s noses in their filth.

            But Christians are supposed to smile and bend over and spread their cheeks with glee?

            Riiiight……. not in my lifetime.

        • “Why do they want to “get married” in a church?”

          What does or doesn’t happen in a church should be up to the congregation.
          My parents were married by a Justice of the Peace and kept it together for over 30 years. You don’t need a church to be married.

          But do you need a law that allows you to be treated equally.

          • Sure, they can find a congregation to marry them. Plenty of Satanic churches out there would be happy to accommodate them.

            I guess it all boils down to whether or not one has any morals or not. Whether one believes in right or wrong. Or whether one just wants to live in a grey zone all their lives…moral soup…otherwise known as a toilet bowl.

        • I am eternally perplexed by gay marriage; the same people who touted gayness as an “alternative lifestyle” for decades – and I DO mean “touted” – now want, simultaneously, to be recognized as part of an “alternative lifestyle”, and to be able to marry, IN A TRADITIONAL SETTING.

          The lifestyle CANNOT simultaneously be “alternative” and “traditional”; that’s the height of absurdity, as well as cognitive dissonance.

          My second point is in the form of a question. These people who are attacking Phil Robertson – I’ve tried, in vain, to find ONE instance where they have mounted an attack against one single Muslim who expressed the identical opinion.

          We should not allow them to repeatedly get away with such a ridiculous double standard.

        • “Sure, they can find a congregation to marry them. Plenty of Satanic churches out there would be happy to accommodate them.

          I guess it all boils down to whether or not one has any morals or not. Whether one believes in right or wrong. Or whether one just wants to live in a grey zone all their lives…moral soup…otherwise known as a toilet bowl.”

          I know a few homosexual people, one of them pretty well.
          Just being homosexual doesn’t make you evil. A great many gay people live productive lives, go to work, pay taxes, don’t rob or beat old ladies, and are pretty much unremarkable except for the fact that they’re homosexual. And that’s only remarkable because everyone spends so much time arguing about it.
          Well, I’ll take that back – one of them is kind of unusual because he’s a Republican. He also goes to church and visits his aging mother twice a month. I can’t imagine him being a threat to anyone.

          As for morality, that’s a personal choice that we each make every day. No act of government can legislate away “immoral” behavior and I’d argue that the government doesn’t have any business defining what is moral and what isn’t anyhow. Remember, the Bible existed for centuries before our nation was created. The Founders could have based our government on it, but they wrote the Constitution instead.

          • 1) I didn’t call anyone evil. I said they would be welcome in a Satanic Church.
            2) I personally don’t care whether they do or don’t break laws, pay taxes, work, etc. That’s not what this argument is about.
            3) I’m not advocating morality enforcement by our Leftist Godvernment. In fact, just the opposite. I want the Leftist Godvernment out of my life. I don’t want them forcing there sinful, hateful, rotten beliefs on me or mine. What they do in their bedrooms is up to them. What I don’t tolerate is their “in your face or we’ll break it off in your ass” mentality. I do not accept that. I will not accept that. Ever.
            4) As for the Founders comment….you might want to go back and read a history book or two. Or read the Federalist Papers rather than spew that common pablum from the Leftist talking points.

        • Oh, you could say I’ve studied a little history in my time. I’ve studied it enough to know that Washington took his oath of office on a borrowed Bible and that Jefferson edited a Bible to his own liking. Every one of the Founders likely had one in easy reach… and they still wrote the Constitution. Though I’ve read countless books on various aspects of history from cover to cover, I don’t need one to explain the implications of that to me.

          Quite frankly, both parties seek to control people and I’m sick of all of it. I used to vote primarily Republican but they lost me, largely due to issues like this. Both sides need to get off everyone’s back and let us all be, let us all live our lives and pursue our own happiness in peace.

          As you said though, we’re getting off track.

          The issue at hand here is one of equality. The law is not treating a segment of our population equally. It wouldn’t be OK if it were discriminating against straight people or women or old white guys, so it’s not OK that the law discriminates against homosexuals. And though I suspect that I’ll never get any support from the very people I’m willing to stand up for when my own rights are threatened, my principles dictate that I still have to do it.

          I’m not any more ignorant than anyone else and I’m not a leftist. I just remember a pledge I used to say in school that ended “with liberty and justice for all.” And at least until I become too cynical, that’s what I’m going to push for. You can hate it all you want, but that’s how it is.

          • How about we just do away with the “institution” of marriage altogether? It’s demonstrably a failed one. We could substitute “civil unions”; they’re just as failure-prone, but a lot less messy to untangle.

            I believe one may find some “reverends” who actually perform “short-term marriages”. That’s just recognizing the current state of marriage, and improving upon it. The union can be dissolved simply by one party requesting it. And those drunken flings that end in a hangover and what-the-hell-is-THIS-on-my-finger moments would be a thing of the past!

          • Lots of verbage. Verbosity. Cool.

            BLUF: The sodomites don’t want equality, the want superiority. They want sanctification for their perversion. They want submission from the non-sodomites.

      • Gays have never been denied the right to marry. But as marriage is defined as a man and a woman, they choose not to marry. Same as saying that the handgun you’re carrying is really a shotgun. The two are defined differently.

        • I agree from a Christian standpoint. HOWEVER, what about non Christian gays? Then why can’t they be legally married?

          I’m atheist, should I not be able to get married either because it’s a Christian tradition?

        • I support gay marriage why shouldn’t the have the right to be just as unhappy as the rest of us?

        • “I’m atheist, should I not be able to get married either because it’s a Christian tradition?”

          Not in a Christian church, hoss. If you want to go get a woman, get the State to sanction your cohabitation, etc. you can certainly do so, but why do you think the legitimacy of your relationship depends upon State sanction? Do you think the legitimacy of your right to own firearms or your right to defend yourself depends upon State approval?

          • What about when individuals that are part of a gay couple are unable to do things that hetero married folks can do? Like file and reap the benefits of a joint tax return? Being prevented from visiting their significant other in the hospital because it’s “family only?” (I think that happens less these days.) Being able to make “end of life” choices for their SO? (I know that one still happens.) Rules having to do with inheritances and probate? All of those things require some degree of “state sanction of the legitimacy of the relationship.”

            I have a curious three-legged feeling about homosexuality. First, I personally think it’s somewhat odd and unnatural, but since it clearly occurs organically (someone’s not making it happen) I’m clearly wrong about the “unnatural” part. Second, I don’t care what other people do in the privacy of their own homes. And third, I recognize that any system that doesn’t treat everyone equally (like giving more rights and credence to Kim Kardashian’s latest marriage than to a three-decade monogamous relationship between two women or two men) is inherently unfair. When you come right down to it, that third leg of my platform is nothing more than contract law. Why are some contracts valued as being somehow less valid than others?

        • “Not in a Christian church, hoss. If you want to go get a woman, get the State to sanction your cohabitation, etc. you can certainly do so, but why do you think the legitimacy of your relationship depends upon State sanction? ”

          When a minister or pastor marries you in a church, he does the ceremony in a church, but the legitimacy for the marriage comes from the power vested in him (or her) by the state.

          Maybe we should take government entirely out of the marriage business. But if we’re not willing to do that, then everyone is going to have to be treated equally under the law.

        • “Maybe we should take government entirely out of the marriage business. But if we’re not willing to do that, then everyone is going to have to be treated equally under the law.”

          Bingo. The government should not be in the business of dictating the terms of social contracts between consenting adults. It should be up to the adults themselves to set the terms of their relationship.

          As long as the government is in the business of regulating marriage, it should not be enforcing gender discrimination while doing so. Saying that two opposite-sex persons may be married and two same-sex persons may not is explicit government discrimination based solely on the gender of the participants.

        • “Like file and reap the benefits of a joint tax return? Being prevented from visiting their significant other in the hospital because it’s “family only?” (I think that happens less these days.) Being able to make “end of life” choices for their SO? (I know that one still happens.) Rules having to do with inheritances and probate? All of those things require some degree of “state sanction of the legitimacy of the relationship.”

          Matt, 1) if gays want to pay the marriage penalty, let ’em. Any benefits that might accrue to a joint return are a problem with the tax code not marriage. If anyone wants to take on and support a dependent in order to file a joint tax return, let ’em. That’s a tax code issue. 2) End of life choices, medical decisions, etc. are already properly handled my powers of attorney, living wills, etc. If a hospital refuses to honor such legal documents, that isn’t a problem with marriage, it is a problem with the hospital refusing to follow the law. 3) As for inheritances, wills and trusts solve the issues (just like they do for everyone else). Any differences with tax treatment (i.e. spousal exemption) is a tax issue.

      • I could care less about gay people getting married, my only problem is if the government tries to force churches to marry people against their beliefs. Other than that, 2 consenting adults, go nuts.

        • That’s not what is on the table. It is the exact opposite in fact. Many churches marry gay people, that still dose not grant them the full rights afforded married straight couples.

      • Total BS brainwashing propoganda from the progressives and their sodomy lobby.

        In the US man can marry any woman that will have him. A queer has exactly the same “right” to the benefit of marriage as anyone else. BUT they don’t get a special “right” to marry their butt buddy, the german shepard, or the farmer next door’s prize Suffock (or donkey) just because “in love”.

        Phil added a religious observation or justification to his logical (and correct) observations. However no religious background is needed to recognize degenerate antisocial behavior. It is amazing how a logical incredulous observation might be “offensive” but the act/practice/lifestyle being discussed is somehow to be looked on as “normal” or something to be acceptable. Just amazing how quickly the chattering media/educrate class has been worked over by this europrogressive anything goes nonsense.

        Lecture that if support 2nd amendment must support sodomy? How this lecture – “you have no personal standards of behavior or values then you are the enemy of civilization or at least American Exceptionalism”.

        • Here’s my question, why are you so afraid of “sodomy”? Why are you so afraid of gay couples being able to enjoy the same legal/governmental/tax benefits that married couples are? How exactly does that hurt you? I find homosexuality weird myself, but I’m confident in my own sexuality, so I don’t harbor any ill-will towards gays. I actually find them to be nicer in general than the average straight person. To call their behavior antisocial is ironic because in fact consenual sodomy is the very opposite of antisocial behavior.

          I can understand Christians objecting to it on religious grounds, and being against the idea of churches performing the marriages, but then why don’t they make a fuss about all of the non-Christians who are allowed to get married? And if God is the final judge of all, why not let him deal with them once they die instead of playing God yourself? Didn’t Jesus teach us to love and not hate? Oh and John 8:7, let him without sin cast the first stone, and all that.

          It just amazes me how there are so many real issues in this world, people dying, government tyranny, personal freedoms being infringed upon, people losing their jobs, inflation, crime, etc., yet few things get a certain segment of the population’s panties in a bunch more than two people of the same sex being happy together (the horror) and being able to enjoy the same legal benefits as everyone else. Especially when FIFTY PERCENT of straight married couples get divorced and a significant portion of the 50% that don’t are probably unhappy.

          This country would be so much better off if everyone just minded their own damn business instead of judging others or trying to restrict their personal freedom.

        • Because in the minds of many of those who object to gay marriage on Biblical grounds, there is no difference between a man marrying another man or a man marrying a fish.

          I don’t pretend to understand that mindset, mind you.

        • This country would be so much better off if everyone just minded their own damn business instead of judging others or trying to restrict their personal freedom.

          Whether on the left or the right, it’s all about control of others, isn’t it?

        • ” This country would be so much better off if everyone just minded their own damn business instead of judging others or trying to restrict their personal freedom.”

          That’s probably one of the most logical statements I’ve seen in this discussion.

      • Actually, he didn’t say they were second class. Just that he didn’t understand the appeal of homosexuality and followed it by saying that those who don’t follow Christ and willfully disobey God’s law aren’t going to make it to heaven. There was no “second class” implication. He didn’t advocate stoning the gays,(though Muslims still do that) restricting their rights or saying anything hateful. He just had the gall to say there is still right and wrong, and that the Bible is where you find God’s laws. How dare he actually believe what his religion says.

        Also? In no way does this have sweet FA to do with guns.

      • “If you support the right to own a gun, you sure as hell better support the right of gays to marry…”

        That’s just F’ing crazy talk. Did you happen to go to grad school?

      • No, I support the idea that my owning a gun is none of the governments business just like marriage of any kind should be none of the governments business.

      • I’m bemused by most pro- and anti-gay marriage posts. If the question is “should G or L people be allowed to do what they do”? Well, of course they should. But that isn’t what is behind the gay marriage push. The motive power is a wish to garner the subsidies we extend to those in a heterosexual marriage, specifically the Social Security step-up for marriage partners with much lower earnings history than their partners, and the federal tax code benefits of tax free gifts both in life and by bequest.

        I think extending those benefits, subsidizing them, is absurd in the case of childless gay marriages, and questionable when extended to those in heterosexual marriages who have not raised children together. The benefits were created intentionally to subsidize (“support and encourage”) the bearing and raising of children. They should not be extended simply to government-seal-of-approval love relationships. The tax and social-security subsidies were meant to support procreation and the education, raising, of children. Yet everyday, practically, I meet people calculating the benefits of a social security marriage (or military pension marriage) without any plan to raise a child.

        The entire subsidy concept should be rethought. Now.

    • You don’t have to think that Phil should be hounded off the air to believe that his opinions offered on homosexuality are asinine.

    • Phil didn’t use the term “fag” in the interview; you should make that clear Robert. If I missed him using that term, you should post the sentence where he did use it.

      As for the message from the bible that being gay is a sin; I hate to tell you all; there are a lot of behaviors that are not beneficial or supportive of a strong and vibrant culture; most of the behaviors supported by the liberal/progressive indoctrination are actively hostile to and in fact are completely destructive to a healthy culture.

      The bible is based on love, love of G-d, love of self, love of all human beings; but it is a manual based on tough love; it tells everyone what happens when we violate spiritual law, and it is not pretty.

      The liberal/progressive message is that any behavior, no matter how depraved, selfish, self destructive, or hostile towards the children- (the murder of unborn children anyone) is completely fine and anyone that says otherwise is just being hateful. WRONG!

      The bible is simply saying in a very loving but graphic way what happens when a people violate spiritual law. We are just another example among many in history where what was once considered perverse or as sinful is now considered acceptable, cool or even beneficial, Abortion, same sex relationships, sex outside of marriage, having a child outside of marriage, being a “gangster” ect, is now the norm and also from history and the bible; it is the sign of the end of that culture and it’s descent into anarchy, mass death leading ultimately to tyranny.

      Yep; one of the lessons from history is that people don’t learn from history; and we will all will pay a most fearsome price for once again; running headlong off the cliff.

      • What if you’re not a Christian? Remember, this country is not based on Christianity, it’s based on religious freedom.

        • Partly right. The founding fathers were mixed between Christian, Deists, and Theists, with a large number leaning toward various denominations within Christianity. Some of these denominations were persecuted among Christians as much as other beliefs. Our founding fathers didn’t want a state sanctioned religion, nor did they want any religions persecuted because they believed differently (just as they had been persecuted for their views in England). However, with their own beliefs, they had no problems with religion having input and influence in government, as so long as it didn’t exclude any other view (“religious” or “secular”). In their eyes, the separation was one-way: Gov’t was to be hands off religion, but religion could influence gov’t.

        • Well Nick, There are behaviors that when enough people hold them builds a strong culture; A belief in a higher power, personal responsibility where the individual was responsible for providing their own food, shelter, warmth and self-defense with the idea that they would provide for the general defense of the community as citizen soldiers with one over riding purpose, to get married with the purpose of providing a safe place to raise children.

          This is the idea that built our nation; when this vision falls out of favor, this is what destroys a republic and brings in the police state; look at the end of the Greek and Roman republics, many of the same behaviors can be seen today; much of what the liberal/progressive promotes is strong central government, lack of personal responsibility; especially as the first line of defense as a citizen soldier, and hating on the idea of marriage with the intent of having children.

          In my opinion, the Liberal/progressive and those that support a Nanny state and the disarmament of the people because the “government will protect us” are of the same ilk that destroyed the Greek and Roman republics and are currently threatening ours.

      • +1

        You know a fitting example would be Germany just as Hitler rose to power. The citizenry had rejected his elections and political party time and time again, he was pretty much a joke and the laughing stock of Europe. The Jews were a large and influential portion of German society for as long as anyone can remember. Hitler convince an entire populace to disregard its beliefs because it was politically correct to do so..thru propaganda motion pictures, posters, speeches and later thru scientists, telling how warped the Jews were. The age old question thru WWII history is “how could and entire nation do such evil things to other human beings?”

        Simple…they disregarded their core values and embraced pop culture…

      • How is the Bible based 100% on love when it advocates stoning and tells the story of how God got pissed that the tribes of Judah didn’t kill every man woman and child of opposing nations as He instructed them?

        You can’t just pick and choose what to believe from the Bible – it’s all or nothing. And if it’s all, telling a white lie is the same in the eyes of God as homosexual sex.

        In other words, to God, we are ALL THE SAME. Christians and other religions focus on the homosexual thing because A. They are ignorant of what they supposedly believe or B. Homosexuality makes them uncomfortable and they can try to hid behind religion while expressing this fact; nothing more.

        • Well TB, you’re obviously not familiar with the bible; and I’m not saying I’m an authority, but I understand that Christ came with a new covenant, one that allowed for forgiveness as when Christ said too those that wanted to stone the prostitute, ” that those without sin, to cast the first stone”; Just one example how the New Testament and our agreement with G-d is different from the agreement that is spoken of in the Old testament. But the New testament was also clear about the idea of sinful behavior and how we are not to engage in such. Romans first chapter is specific on this in Paul’s letter to the Romans.

        • Jesus never said he invalidated the Torah.

          In some ways, Jesus actually avoided the issue, in fact.

          As for not knowing the Bible, I took Bible class for 5 years, read the whole thing through several times, and have done individual research for 10 years.

          I also read the Book of Mormon as well as all the supporting texts such as the Pearl of Great Prices. I’ve read the Satanist Bible. I’ve tried to at least get a handle on every major religion/religious text in the world.

          In my experience, the vast majority of “Christians” parrot whatever their pastor/priest says who themselves parrot what their teachers taught them. Such is Dogma.

          While it’s true that Jesus was the flesh of the new covenant, my understanding is that his teachings were merely more important than the teachings of the old testament, hence the shift within Christianity to not stoning people.

          PLUS, Jesus is one part of a three part trinity. This means that God the Father, who is both part of Jesus yet separate (within Christianity), gave the words or inspiration of the Torah.

          Keep in mind, while the Israelites were being punished by God for sexual immorality, Phinehas killed an Israelite man who was having sex with a Midianite woman with a spear and God said:

          ““Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites. Since he was as zealous for my honor among them as I am, I did not put an end to them in my zeal.”

          Please explain to me how this was not human sacrifice considering many of the Israelite men were having relations with Moabite women.

          …So the Bible and Christianity being all about love is a bold faced lie.

        • “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” Matthew 5:17

        • Well TB, Christ said he came to fulfill the Prophets, not to deny them; But the biggest thing to look at TB is Christ’s actions; he didn’t stone anyone, he fed the poor, helped the blind to see, taught that even lepers should be treated with kindness, his whole ministry and his action was based on love; and he also said to follow G-d’s laws and sin no more and then he allowed himself to be torn to pieces and nailed to the cross for us and our sins, that is love.

          But if all you want to see is hate, fear and vengeance, then there is nothing I can say that will change that, but I would suggest reading the new testament again and ask for Christ’s and G-d’s love to understand His message.

        • 1. Judging ancient Israelites (or any ancient culture, for that matter) by modern standards is foolish.

          2. You say that, “Christianity being all about love is a bold faced lie.” To support this statement, you use an example from the Old Testament, which occurred centuries before Christ was born and Christianity became a religion, invalidating your argument. Christianity is NOT the same thing as ancient (or modern) Judaism.

          3. Try reading/studying the New Testament, TheBear. Jesus was humble, loving, accepting, wise, and self-sacrificing, and Christians are supposed to follow his example. Granted, many of us (myself included) do a pretty sh*tty job of this, but our own shortcomings don’t negate on invalidate Christ’s message.

        • Guys.. you are both missing my point and proving it at the same time.

          Do you believe part or none of the Bible. ‘Cause guess what? You can’t believe /only/ the new testament. It doesn’t work that way. Jesus’ claim to fame was that he fulfilled the prophesies of the Messiah, but did so in a way the ancient Jews were not expecting, hence the resistance.

          See, here’s the rub – Jesus IS God. That means he is part of the same entity that ordered the death of every first born in Egypt who was not in a protected household.

          Which is what I say when I hear, “How could God have let my baby die!?!?” Well, uh… he kinda sent the Angel of Death (who many biblical scholars believe to have been Jesus himself) to kill babies and children.

          Also, I laughed a bit at the “reread the Bible and find love” thing. Guys, I consider myself at least mostly Christian, but I operate from a standpoint of reason and honesty.

          Believing Christianity is 100% love and compassion is bullshit. Actually read the Bible with a critical thinking cap on. I mean, Paul was afflicted with something terrible (thorn of the flesh) after telling of his Revelation.

          Sure, Jesus was a swell guy – and in my experiences with most mainstream Christians, Buddy Christ is the breadth of their knowledge and the point they have no desire to move away from in exploring their own religion; hence my disdain.

        • TB, how is it that you claim to have studied the Bible and religion for so long and yet you do not understand the ancient and universal concept of blood-guilt and redemption? If you truly do not understand that the old testament and it’s laws concerned a specific group of people at a specific time under specific circumstances, I suggest you revisit your studies. Was the old testament law harsh? Yes, yes it was. I could go into a long diatribe about how the religion of Yahweh and the people who followed it needed to be kept pure, and thus the reasoning behind stonings, etc, but this would require many long discussions of many side issues which are contentious and this forum isn’t the place for that. However, the entire reason for Christ’s appearance on the Earth was to free people from this bondage to the Mosaic law, through which they were justified before God. This is the essence of the gospel, and you don’t understand this? To be clear, when Jesus spoke of fulfilling the law, he was speaking of the Mosaic system of law, which symbolized his sacrifice; this is why the Mosaic law (and NOT the Ten Commandments) was nailed to the cross……and yes, that was an act of love.

        • Also, I could be wrong, but I imagine the response to what I just wrote along these lines: “Well then why did God put such a system in place in the first place if he is so loving?”

          Well, that’s a good question, and I’ll answer it, but it really demonstrates that you haven’t learned as much on the subject matter as you claim. First, that system being in place wasn’t God’s choice. It was Adam’s. God gave Adam free will (love), he gave him a choice whether or not to stay in paradise, or ignorance, or to be enlightened (love), he explained what the consequences were for being enlightened (love), and when Adam disobeyed the rules, he wasn’t immediately killed or burned alive for eternity, which God certainly was capable of doing(love again). Now, if Adam was to ever make it back into God’s good graces, which he had fallen out of due to his own enlightened choices, there would have to be a way for him to do that, wouldn’t there? So God provided one (love again. still.) The fact that the earth had become a place subject to harsh and cruel realities was not God’s choice, it was a choice he let mankind make for themselves. Just as you or I or anyone has standards for behavior and conduct, God does as well, and while he doesn’t do what is undoubtedly within his power to do to punish us immediately, the rules of reality state that actions have consequences. Anything else would be profoundly unfair. There is no justice in that, and certainly no love.

          Sorry to go off on the evangelical rant, but some things I cannot abide being so grossly misrepresented.

        • I am actually greatly enjoying this conversation/argument but this forum and format is not really the correct venue.

          I respect everyone’s opinion who has given me rebuttals but I’m going to bow out for the time being.


    • Would Mr Robertson be attacked if he were, say, a Muslim, and quoted the Qur’an (say, 7:80-84)? You have your answer right there. Really, if American Muslim was taken off the air not for bad ratings, but for one of the cast’s statements re. Islam and homosexuality, the executive responsible for sacking the show would find himself living under armed guard, in a hotel. The reality is that most major religions condemn homosexuality, and this includes groups like Orthodox Judaism and the Baha’i faith. I personally support gay rights, but think gay activists and their sympathizers are playing a very stupid and dangerous game, by attacking people’s religious convictions.

      Politics is playing with matches, but mucking about with religion is playing with live hand grenades. The attack on Duck Dynasty from A&E probably has nothing to do with religion or sexual politics, and everything to do with murky, dirty, messy network politics. But poking the religion button is an incredibly risky thing. Up in Ontario, the Provincial Government (now led by an openly gay Premier) pushed school boards to establish gay-straight alliance clubs. Religious groups, including Salafist Muslims and Coptic Christians, Hindus united in opposition. Think about that for a moment: groups who are slaughtering each other in Egypt and India are united against gay-straight school clubs. When push comes to shove, religion comes first, and secular proponents of gay rights ignore this at their peril.

      • This. Tibetan Buddhism (the only kind I’m intimately knowledgeable about) teaches against homosexuality, also. However, when imported to America, it attracted both gay Buddhist lay people, as well as gay scholars of Buddhism. Being a pragmatic religion, Buddhist lamas decided to make an exception for the West in general, and America in particularly. One of Tibetan Buddhism’s foremost scholars of Buddhism, Dr. Jeffrey Hopkins, of the University of Virginia, is openly gay, and has had access to any and all of the innermost teachings of Buddhism.

    • Lots of people vote for more gun control too.

      Just because someone, such as RF (who I think was spot on in this article) speaks out against people who look down upon others, doesn’t mean he’s being politically correct. Or maybe he is, but what’s wrong with that? I don’t recall RF ever saying that Phil should be charged with a hate crime, or the article shouldn’t have been released.

      • Where did you get the notion that Phil Robertson was looking down upon gays? He merely stated what the Bible states – that it is an abomination unto God?

    • Except that this isn’t true anymore, as gay marriage has been approved by voters in at least four states.

      Opposition to gay marriage reminds me of opposition to freer concealed carry laws. There’s all this hyperventilating about how the sky will fall if “those people” are allowed to get their way. Then it happens and life proceeds as normal. People get up in the morning and go to work, kids go to school, dogs are still dogs, cats are still cats.

      • Well put.

        The super anti-gays in this thread really need to take a step back for a second. Here we all are on a site that not only reviews guns but talks about gun rights, and the very same people who I’m sure get angry when people call them names (like “gun nut”), mock them (like “you’re just compensating”), make ridiculous accusations (“you probably like the thought of killing someone”), and actively try to restrict their freedoms… doing basically the exact same thing to other people.

    • I think the more important truth that needs to be pointed out is that he was quoting from the bible.

      If that is what the bible says and the bible is “the word of God”, then isn’t God the one everyone should be mad at?

      Why is everyone mad at someone quoting the words of someone else?

      Where are the calls to ban or burn the bible?

      • Because many prefer to hate the messenger, or shoot them, rather than accept or dispute the message, or the source thereof. And that holds true for more than just religious/moral/ethic issues too.

    • I agree 100%. He was not being “crass”, because “crass”, in his culture, is not applicable to the situation. He was speaking as someone who interprets the Bible, and used his beliefs to color his response. Nothing to see here, folks.

      It’s the same as if he’d been asked his opinion on abortion. And “vagina” and “anus” are socially-acceptable and proper terms; was he supposed to use crasser terms?

      Free speech, in an answer to a media question that was probably designed to elicit something even MORE controversial. And how the heathen rage…..

    • +1

      RF seems to be taking the Mom’s Demand Action tone on free speech… “If what you say makes me uncomfortable, it’s not protected”. You shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water; don’t chastise individuals with different values in an effort to unite everyone who has a love for guns!

      Another Bible verse… John 8:6-7 “They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
      … and…
      Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

      That should clear things up.

    • TTAG author says homosexuality isn’t a sin, based on whose definition of sin? His? The Bible clearly says it is a sin in various scripture verses, Old and New Testament. Don’t speaketh on things thou knowest not about!

    • Great post Robt. 480 comments and climbing…mjst be a new record. Sad to see POTG attacking one another over what is a personal freedom issue. Reminds me of the conspiracy theorists who say the media is inflaming jt to distract fm Obamacare.. Well duh that’s just boring math. Hey look there’s a squirrel!

  2. RF, gun nut or not, you are a master at provoking people, the headline of this article being a case in point.

  3. The terms are, in short, hate speech.

    If this type of speech is “hate speech,” when something can be classified as hate speech because it’s rough or coarse or disagreeable, then we are all fvcked.

    Call it hate speech when it is intended to cause violence against people and I’m with you. Otherwise, I’m not playing that game, because the next person accused of hate speech won’t be the Duck Commander. It will be me. Or you.

    • hey – I simply pointed out that Shannon used her home address in Zionsville to set up MDA’s State of Indiana filing . . . . 🙂

      • I hear this “hate speech” every week in church, as well as others in millions of other churches every week around the world. Saying a sinner will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven is a bit of a stretch for hate speech. This belief in sin is not restricted to Christianity. Really Robert, how does this equate to hate speech? Smh

      • “I call it hate speech but I do not call for it to be censored or banned” is like saying “I call it a crime but I don’t advocate punishment””

        Either you believe in freedom of speech or you believe in preventing hate speech. Can’t have both. Hate speech laws can be perverted/redirected too easily for it to co-exist with freedom of speech.

        • He clearly said he calls the speech “hate speech” based on its content, not as a legal distinction in speech that should be banned and punished

        • “Either you believe in freedom of speech or you believe in preventing hate speech. Can’t have both. Hate speech laws can be perverted/redirected too easily for it to co-exist with freedom of speech.”

          Uh, why can’t you have both?

          It is absolutely possible to say that “that speech is hateful” and simultaneously say “that speech is not and should not be prohibited by law.” There’s no conflict.

          It’s called tolerance. Tolerance isn’t for what you agree with. It’s for what you don’t agree with.

      • I’m not getting any malice out of what he said. This speech control needs to be rooted out of our society, like getting a bad potato out of the potato bin.

        Is “queer” the next on the list? Gays everywhere use the term fondly, or ironically. Or whatever.

      • According to them that wield the terms, they’re the same thing. ENOUGH of minorities and their liberal handmaidens, with their media filters set perpetually on “howl”.

      • Well its not, because intent has ALWAYS been a component in the law. If tat were not the case then there would either be no such thing as justified homicide or murder. The act of killing another person would be the same regardless of the motivation behind it.

        Obviously there is a world of difference between killing a man in self defense and killing a man for his wallet, there is a difference between killing a man for his wallet and killing him out of personal spite and yet another difference when doing so for political reasons.

        There is and should be a difference in how the courts treat a murder between two feuding individuals and a murder where one individual purposely targeted and killed a person .

        • That’s called WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, already incorporated into jurisprudence since at least the Magna Carta. It’s not “hate crime”.