Duck Dynasty Part 2: Why the Battle between Religion and Gay Rights will never go Away

(See Part I)

The main point of contention here is sexual perception.  Secular society’s sexual values have been “Kinseyed”, i.e. developed and nurtured according to Dr. Kinsey (a zoologist, by the way). In his 1950’s report on human sexuality, he equated sex to simple genital friction. From that point of view, one source of friction is as good as another. Also, it would mean that human beings are no different from any other animal on the planet. That’s how many in the secular left look upon sex. That is also why they can’t, or to be more exact, refuse to understand the religious perspective.

I’ve heard it said that religious people look on sex as filthy and disgusting, and that they believe it should be a male dominated subjugation of women.  I’ve also heard that there’s no joy possible in sex between religious people – images of Puritans copulating between a hole in the sheet are often brought up.

But what’s the truth?  How do religious people look upon sex? For starters, it is not seen as something filthy or disgusting.  Rather, it is something mystical and spiritual.  After all, in having sex, couples are imitating God in the creation of life. Neither is sex joyless. Studies have shown that religious couples often have a busier sex life than non-religious couples, and walk away more satisfied.  A Google search will find numerous blog posts and articles concerning sex and marriage among religious couples that are quite open and frank. As for female subjugation, Pope John Paul II wrote The Theology of the Body, and argued in previous books (1950’s) that men should take great pains to ensure a woman’s pleasure.  Even the Pilgrims and ancient Israelites allowed women to divorce if their husbands weren’t pleasing them.

God blessed them saying be fertile and multiply; fill the Earth and subdue it. Gen 1:28

So much for all the stereotypes.  Then why does secular society persist in perpetuating them? And why do religious people get painted as domineering control freaks ready to burn at the stake anyone who disagrees with them? The simple answer is that liberal secularists are actually the control freaks.  They can’t stand anyone disagreeing with their point of view, whether it be gay rights, abortion, civil rights, etc.  And heaven forbid that you might convince other people to your way of thinking. Therefore anyone who does disagree must be portrayed as evil and close-minded, regardless of how vocal they might be or how much power they actually have.  The current treatment of Phil Robertson proves it.

Phil does not hold a public office, nor can he enact any laws. He is in no position to deny anyone’s civil rights. Also, he only said that he doesn’t see any logic to homosexuality (nor does any high school biology textbook). He was basically practicing the art of Apologetics: here’s what I believe, and why I believe it. Apologetics is never meant to convert, indoctrinate, or threaten one who refuses to change sides. Phil has no real power over anyone, nor was he proselytizing.

However, it is Phil’s popularity with the masses that makes him a threat to left wing activists.  People admire him and listen to what he says.  And since Phil doesn’t believe what secularlists believe, he is dangerous and must be crushed out of existence. I can almost see the boots, the uniforms, and hear both German and Russian accents. Sadly, the voices of the vicious left speak modern American English.

Until the secular left learns to tolerate other viewpoints – as they preach we should all do – then no, the battle between Religion and Gay Rights will never go away.

5 thoughts on “Duck Dynasty Part 2: Why the Battle between Religion and Gay Rights will never go Away

  1. I think it was all just a PR stunt, and invented TV characters don’t make me feel threatened. This family used to wear designer duds, and they were all clean-shaven until after they got their first show on the Outdoor channel. They’re fake. Like all “reality” TV, the situations are set-up, and whatever they shoot is heavily edited. What the Robertsons and A&E have most in common is the desire to sell more product, so both sides found a way to allow that to continue.


  2. Phil Robertson didn’t realize how dirty it was under the bus until A & E threw him under there to check it out. Aren’t these media types supposed to support the freedom of one’s viewpoints? I’ve heard the First Amendment being thrown around by a surprisingly large amount of people, but I submit it is not a First Amendment issue, since A & E is a private company and not a government office. This is solely a Civil Rights Act of 1964, Article VII issue. This law clearly states an employer may not discriminate against his employee due to religious reasons; Phil Robertson quoted the Bible and was suspended by his employer. A & E violated federal law, but I doubt the Executive Branch will pursue enforcement of that law considering they don’t enforce any of the other ones, like border security, security of a foreign embassy, etc.

    I have summed up the Liberal ideology into one phrase: “Freedoms for we, not for thee.”

    This explains the lack of tolerance on the left and the expected tolerance for those on the right.


  3. Well said Brett! I’ve also heard that the producers have on occasion made him alter his prayers.
    Of course a true Libertarian course would have been “Do nothing:. If A&E saw their ratings drop, then they would’ve been justified in their actions. All they did was succumb to some intense arm-twisting.


  4. By the way, I read “Stasis” today on my Nook. Without revealing too much content, I’ll simply say you used excellent examples of the government protecting people from themselves. How frustrating it is!!


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s