I think the term I used was "community", not "person".

There is no such thing as gay rights, anymore than there is any such thing as heterosexual rights.

Maph warped my statement into a phrase I did nor use in order to support his position. There are human rights which all humans share equally, which are inseparable from them regardless of race, sex, politics religion or whatever division you care to find.

Then there are privileges granted or denied baaed on community. THESE are determined by the community, such political forces that may exist, or religious doctrine. Here we will find such separation as disparacy between heterosexual and homosexual because the sociological intent is different between the two groups.

This is also where the conflict lies. Heterosexual unions, pair bonding, whatever label you choose have evolved for one specific purpose - propagation of the species by providing offspring with the most successful environment - protective, nurturing, educating home. The most fundamental aspect of this is of course the ability to reproduce.

In all of these areas the homosexual "community" can only "mimic" the successful pair bonding of heterosexual couples. They are the sociological equivalent to biological (or genetic) "mules". They cannot breed within their pair bonding. They see the successful hetro couples raising children and desiring their own, the must adopt since they cannot reproduce. Some revert to outside "help" in order to gain "offspring", that is not true reproduction within a pair bonded couple.

So lets briefly look at the moaning of the moment - marriage. Conceived is some time before history as a religious rite to consecrate the pair pair bonding, marriage eventually became one of the hallmarks of a successful life. Another was the birth and successful rearing of children.

Marriage eventually was codified into law, becoming the recognized political union of a man and a woman to each other. And in many countries privileges were granted to these couples based on their value to that nation - the value, my friends is that they can reproduce themselves.

In all of these things, the homosexual community fails. Such pair bonding as exists cannot itself reproduce. Such pair bonding's as occur may provide an emotionally warm home for a child, there are aspects of a male/female pair bonding that a homo pair bonding cannot offer. Argue as you may, they are not the same.

In all areas of pair bonding, homo attempts to mimic hetro. but fails. The call for homo "marriage" today is no less a cry for help than the rest. The most that can be offered is a civil union since the reason for biological marriage cannot exist. But civil unions are rejected as "not being the same" - really? No kidding?

Why is this most basic level political marriage, a civil union being rejected? At most, beyond the privileges granted to hetro pair bonding's are religious in nature. The State is not responsible for that aspect of marriage and by our constitution cannot interfere with the actions of the Church.

Tthe conclusion is that most religions reject homo "marriage" as an abomination and a corruption of doctrine. Today, there are no calls in this country for the killing of those professing to be homosexuals, but that's not the case in all countries.

Duck Sr. here made a statement that was his in line religious viewpoint. He has free speech, just as his detractors do. He can express his faith and offer his interpretation of their doctrines. So, again I say he had every right to offer his opinion.

"Phil is easily identifiable as being on an A&E show. He was dumb to give his opinion of controversial topics in a public setting."

I disagree. Phil owns himself, A&E does not own him...they employ him. If he has to stay silent, or not give his honest opinion when asked then he is not being true to his principles. And for the life of me I can't believe anyone is surprised by his answer... especially his employer. This is a game of appeasement that Phil is not going to play. If he gets fired over it then so be it. Phil wins either way because Phil didn't compromise himself. :)

I'm waiting for Tupperware to come out with a Si Tea Cannister and Cup set. (Never mind, bad idea.)

Yeah, this hit me sometime last night. Remember last year's big flap about not wanting them to pray on the show? Generated lots of publicity, and the show went on.

Oh yes, indeed. And making deer ones as well. Though I would think the market for deer and duck callers would be somewhat limited. But the show made them a lot more wealthy, and didn't seem to impact them that much. Except now they seem to have flooded Wal mart with Duck everything. I'm waiting to find Uncle Sy printed on rolls of TP and PT.

Because it does not exist. You have to be "different" in todays world, so the emperor and his minions can segregate you out and cater to your whims. If you are just one of the masses, well, you're one of the masses. That's why we need to embrace everyone who is "different", and cherish and respect their "difference". Then they vote for us and buy our things, and watch our shows. Pure CS to me...

Yes. Go check out your post about site issues.

See my post at bottom, A7E may not have taken into account the power of the "power behind the throne". These people got rich by accident, they never set out to do a show, it kinda fell on them. They have made more than enough, and have a brand of their own now, that the wives may pull the plug just because of the hullabaloo. Since I rarely watch DD, it would ne no loss to me, but I would cheer them on for standing up for their own family.

The 3 dollar bill thing was an old (back in the days of 2 dollar bills) way of stressing something. When 2 dollar bills went away, the saying shifted to a stressful remark. It is used to exaggerate a statement. The GLAAD people and other homosexual reactives like to go from 0-60 in 1 second in any discussion. They can't have a quiet discourse, it always ends up like a Hannity show shouting, screaming match. This is a perfect example, PHil expressed his opinion, and rather that just say "we disagree", they state he is an example of how ALL AMERICA HATES GAY PEOPLE AND WILL EXTERMINATE THEM IN 10 SECONDS GIVEN THE CHANCE UNLESS WE KILL ANYONE WHO EVER SAYS THE SLIGHTEST NEGATIVE THING!!!!!!! (caps indicate a shrill screaming voice). One reason I do not listen to any such arguments, I turn it off as soon as the shrill noise erupts. Which is never long in most discussion with a Liberal, Democrat, Minority or "oppressed" group. The only "minority" group I have not ever heard from is the the one representing overworked, underpaid, over taxed, unrepresented older white males. Maybe we are too rare to congregate in groups greater than 2?

I'm offended. Take it back.

It depends. Does verizon employee say on TV he works for verizon? How easily is he identified as a verizon public spokesperson-for example is he the face of verizon in commercials? Phil is easily identifiable as being on an A&E show. He was dumb to give his opinion of controversial topics in a public setting.
*This ultimately should be decided by the contract. If it wasn't in the contract it would not matter what he said. Not every opinion matters.* Many people have been fired by businesses because they said things on FB their employers felt did not meet the contract of employment.
I have already commented that this kind of thinking has lead to laws, my example was hate crimes. I do not see the flaw in my logic here. Try again.