Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,605
Default What walks and quacks like a duck...

Rabbi Shmuley on Duck Dynasty and Biblical Homophobia
What Walks and Quacks Like a Duck

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


I tend to side with my bearded brethren on most things. Men of facial
hair like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Ernest Hemingway and, of
course, Jesus clearly demonstrate that whiskers are the prerequisite of
greatness.

But Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty, might have broken the
unshavenness-is-weightiness rule with his silly and gratuitous remarks
about gays.

Hardly a week goes by without some religious guy in America blathering
on about how homosexuality is like bestiality. Last week, it was the
Duck pop’s turn: “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.” From there, Robertson turned to the
Bible, calling homosexuality a “sin” and ended with this humdinger: “It
seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a
man’s anus. That’s just me.”

No country in the world is more obsessed with homosexuality than
America. And judging from the constant religious attacks against gays,
you would think it’s the only sin in the entire Bible. One might easily
forget the fact that the word “abomination” appears approximately 122
times in the Hebrew Bible, including eating nonkosher food (Deuteronomy
14:3), a woman returning to her first husband after being married in the
interim (Deuteronomy 24:4) (did anyone say Elizabeth Taylor?) and
bringing a blemished sacrifice on God’s altar (Deuteronomy 17:1).
Proverbs goes even further, labeling envy, lying and gossip “an
abomination to the Lord” (3:32, 16:22). Still, if you’re religious, the
only abomination you’ve ever heard of is homosexuality, which gives you
the right to compare it to man-on-dog relations 24/7.

A good many of the religious people condemning homosexuals as perverts
because of the word “abomination” seem to forget the New Testament,
where the world “abomination” appears in its original form only twice
(Luke 16:15, Revelation 21:27), where it seems to be implying that love
of money is an abomination, which might give some of the televangelists
flying in G5s pause before going after gays.

And for those religious people accustomed to equating homosexuality with
immorality, I remind them that God gave the Ten Commandments not on one
large stone but on two separate tablets. The reason was to distinguish
between two different types of transgression: religious and moral. The
first tablet involves transgressions between God and man, such as the
prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy and desecration of the Sabbath. The
second tablet contained moral sins between man and his fellow human,
like adultery, theft and murder.

The essence of an ethical violation, as opposed to a religious
infraction, is injury to an innocent party. This is not the case with
two unattached adults entering a consensual relationship that is not
based on deception or lies.

I am an orthodox Rabbi, and I freely acknowledge that the Bible clearly
labels homosexuality a sin. However, it is not a moral sin but rather
akin to the prohibition of lighting fire on the Sabbath or eating bread
on Passover. It may violate the divine will, but there is nothing
immoral about it.

So if religious people were serious about their faith, they would treat
those who smoke on the Sabbath with the same opprobrium they reserve for
gays. The fact that they don’t shows that their opposition to
homosexuality has little to do with religion and a lot to do with
homophobia.

Judaism, I feel, has a very healthy approach to homosexuality. It’s this
simple. There are 613 commandments in the Torah. One is a prohibition on
homosexual relations. Another is an obligation to have children. I tell
gay couples all the time. “You have 611 commandments left to you. That
should keep you busy. Now, go give charity, honor the Sabbath, put a
mezuzah on your door, keep a kosher home, and pray to God three times a
day for you are his beloved children and He seeks you out.”

As to Duck dad’s most creative line, let’s be straight (no pun
intended). A heterosexual male who focuses only on his wife’s
genitals—to the exclusion of her hair, elbow, arms, legs, shoulders,
lips and elsewhere—makes him an incredibly boring lover and a sexually
monolithic man. Because most men today treat foreplay as if it’s a kind
of golf club, the rate of male to female orgasm is 8-to-1, and the
average sexual encounter between husband and wife lasts seven minutes at
a time (which includes the time he spends begging). Sexuality is
instinctual, and preference is unique to the individual.

Faith-based opposition to homosexuality as a religious sin is
understandable, just as religious opposition to eating on Yom Kippur is
understandable. But all this other stuff—it is immoral, doesn’t lead to
procreation, is part of a promiscuous lifestyle—seems more relevant to
the revolting and growing culture of drunken hookups, particularly on
the American campus, where women are treated by men as little more than
fleshy masturbatory material. Yet we almost never hear religious leaders
decrying the promiscuity of the heterosexual club culture with anything
near the intensity with which they attack gays. Indeed, the strangest
thing about traditional people attacking gay marriage is that the only
men left in America who seem eager to marry are gay. While homosexuals
petition the U.S. Supreme Court for the right to marry, straight guys
are living with their girlfriends for half a millennium and still
struggle to commit.

As an orthodox Rabbi, I am not pro-gay marriage. I feel the best
solution to the same-sex marriage debate is simple: marriage for none,
civil unions for all. Let our government withdraw fully from the
marriage business, opting instead to grant civil unions to the couples
who seek them, be they straight or gay. This is simply a question of
equal rights for government matters like tax and inheritance benefits
and end-of-life decisions. But marriage, a religious institution, should
be consecrated by priests and clergymen as dictated by their conscience.

By ending the gay marriage debate once and for all, we might even
address the real values corrosion in America, such as the 50 percent
divorce rate, the lack of a national year of service and the death of
family dinners. But obsessing over gays guarantees that we’ll forever
duck America’s problems. Just because it walks like a duck, sounds like
a duck and quacks like a duck doesn’t always mean it’s a duck. And just
because religious people blame gays for the moral decline of marriage
doesn’t mean that we straight people haven’t done a mighty fine job of
ruining the family ourselves.

(Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whom The Washington Post calls “the most famous
Rabbi in America,” will shortly publish Kosher Lust: Love Is Not the
Answer. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley, and “like” Rabbi Shmuley’s
Facebook page.)

- - - - - - -

Shmuel, by the way, is a Republican. Merry Christmas, righties.
--
Religion: together we can find the cure.
  #2   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,972
Default What walks and quacks like a duck...

On 12/24/2013 12:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Rabbi Shmuley on Duck Dynasty and Biblical Homophobia
What Walks and Quacks Like a Duck

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


I tend to side with my bearded brethren on most things. Men of facial
hair like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Ernest Hemingway and, of
course, Jesus clearly demonstrate that whiskers are the prerequisite of
greatness.

But Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty, might have broken the
unshavenness-is-weightiness rule with his silly and gratuitous remarks
about gays.



Here's what I don't get:

First, when all this hullabaloo started, I had to go google up "Duck
Dynasty" to see what all the fuss was about. I've never seen the show,
nor do I think I have any interest in seeing it.

But my understanding is that this Robertson character made his
"objectionable" remarks in a magazine interview. He didn't make them on
the A&E television series.

So, unless there's some provision in his contract with A&E, I don't see
why his personal views have any bearing on the TV series, or why he
would be fired.



  #3   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,663
Default What walks and quacks like a duck...

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:54:42 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Rabbi Shmuley on Duck Dynasty and Biblical Homophobia
What Walks and Quacks Like a Duck

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


I tend to side with my bearded brethren on most things. Men of facial
hair like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Ernest Hemingway and, of
course, Jesus clearly demonstrate that whiskers are the prerequisite of
greatness.

But Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty, might have broken the
unshavenness-is-weightiness rule with his silly and gratuitous remarks
about gays.

Hardly a week goes by without some religious guy in America blathering
on about how homosexuality is like bestiality. Last week, it was the
Duck pop’s turn: “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.” From there, Robertson turned to the
Bible, calling homosexuality a “sin” and ended with this humdinger: “It
seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a
man’s anus. That’s just me.”


Lotta trash snipped.

The guy was asked what he considered sinful. He responded...homosexual behavior, etc. Many, many
folks consider homosexual behavior to be sinful. That's his opinion on the *behavior* of
homosexuals. He also considers bestiality and fornication sinful. So what? That's his opinion.

As to the vagina vs anus statement, I'd have to agree with him...it seems to me that would be a true
statement. But, that's just me. Some folks just enjoy having something up their butt. I don't think
I would.

I suppose I'm just a real bad person.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


  #4   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,663
Default What walks and quacks like a duck...

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:20:06 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/24/2013 12:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Rabbi Shmuley on Duck Dynasty and Biblical Homophobia
What Walks and Quacks Like a Duck

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


I tend to side with my bearded brethren on most things. Men of facial
hair like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Ernest Hemingway and, of
course, Jesus clearly demonstrate that whiskers are the prerequisite of
greatness.

But Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty, might have broken the
unshavenness-is-weightiness rule with his silly and gratuitous remarks
about gays.



Here's what I don't get:

First, when all this hullabaloo started, I had to go google up "Duck
Dynasty" to see what all the fuss was about. I've never seen the show,
nor do I think I have any interest in seeing it.

But my understanding is that this Robertson character made his
"objectionable" remarks in a magazine interview. He didn't make them on
the A&E television series.

So, unless there's some provision in his contract with A&E, I don't see
why his personal views have any bearing on the TV series, or why he
would be fired.



I'd be willing to bet big bucks that if he'd made a comment about heterosexuals, in the same vein,
he'd be in no trouble whatsoever. If he'd said, "I think an anus would be better than a vagina, but
that's just me," he'd be hailed as a hero and put on 'Glee'.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!


  #5   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,605
Default What walks and quacks like a duck...

On 12/24/13, 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 12:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Rabbi Shmuley on Duck Dynasty and Biblical Homophobia
What Walks and Quacks Like a Duck

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


I tend to side with my bearded brethren on most things. Men of facial
hair like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Ernest Hemingway and, of
course, Jesus clearly demonstrate that whiskers are the prerequisite of
greatness.

But Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty, might have broken the
unshavenness-is-weightiness rule with his silly and gratuitous remarks
about gays.



Here's what I don't get:

First, when all this hullabaloo started, I had to go google up "Duck
Dynasty" to see what all the fuss was about. I've never seen the show,
nor do I think I have any interest in seeing it.

But my understanding is that this Robertson character made his
"objectionable" remarks in a magazine interview. He didn't make them on
the A&E television series.

So, unless there's some provision in his contract with A&E, I don't see
why his personal views have any bearing on the TV series, or why he
would be fired.




Perhaps A&E doesn't want to be connected with a racist, homophobic asshole.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.


  #6   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,972
Default What walks and quacks like a duck...

On 12/24/2013 4:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 12:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Rabbi Shmuley on Duck Dynasty and Biblical Homophobia
What Walks and Quacks Like a Duck

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


I tend to side with my bearded brethren on most things. Men of facial
hair like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Ernest Hemingway and, of
course, Jesus clearly demonstrate that whiskers are the prerequisite of
greatness.

But Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty, might have broken the
unshavenness-is-weightiness rule with his silly and gratuitous remarks
about gays.



Here's what I don't get:

First, when all this hullabaloo started, I had to go google up "Duck
Dynasty" to see what all the fuss was about. I've never seen the show,
nor do I think I have any interest in seeing it.

But my understanding is that this Robertson character made his
"objectionable" remarks in a magazine interview. He didn't make them on
the A&E television series.

So, unless there's some provision in his contract with A&E, I don't see
why his personal views have any bearing on the TV series, or why he
would be fired.




Perhaps A&E doesn't want to be connected with a racist, homophobic asshole.


That may be, but unless they had a provision in the contract that
prohibits it, what he offers as personal opinions in a unrelated venue
or media outlet is none of their business.



  #7   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,605
Default What walks and quacks like a duck...

On 12/24/13, 4:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 4:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 12:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Rabbi Shmuley on Duck Dynasty and Biblical Homophobia
What Walks and Quacks Like a Duck

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


I tend to side with my bearded brethren on most things. Men of facial
hair like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Ernest Hemingway and, of
course, Jesus clearly demonstrate that whiskers are the prerequisite of
greatness.

But Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty, might have broken the
unshavenness-is-weightiness rule with his silly and gratuitous remarks
about gays.



Here's what I don't get:

First, when all this hullabaloo started, I had to go google up "Duck
Dynasty" to see what all the fuss was about. I've never seen the show,
nor do I think I have any interest in seeing it.

But my understanding is that this Robertson character made his
"objectionable" remarks in a magazine interview. He didn't make them on
the A&E television series.

So, unless there's some provision in his contract with A&E, I don't see
why his personal views have any bearing on the TV series, or why he
would be fired.




Perhaps A&E doesn't want to be connected with a racist, homophobic
asshole.


That may be, but unless they had a provision in the contract that
prohibits it, what he offers as personal opinions in a unrelated venue
or media outlet is none of their business.



Really? I doubt that. Whatever image A&E has of its business, they think
he violated it and there probably are terms in the contract that discuss
that very matter. I think it is their business, no matter what. What he
says publicly reflects on A&E.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.
  #8   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,972
Default What walks and quacks like a duck...

On 12/24/2013 4:56 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 4:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 4:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 12:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Rabbi Shmuley on Duck Dynasty and Biblical Homophobia
What Walks and Quacks Like a Duck

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


I tend to side with my bearded brethren on most things. Men of facial
hair like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Ernest Hemingway and, of
course, Jesus clearly demonstrate that whiskers are the
prerequisite of
greatness.

But Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty, might have broken the
unshavenness-is-weightiness rule with his silly and gratuitous remarks
about gays.



Here's what I don't get:

First, when all this hullabaloo started, I had to go google up "Duck
Dynasty" to see what all the fuss was about. I've never seen the show,
nor do I think I have any interest in seeing it.

But my understanding is that this Robertson character made his
"objectionable" remarks in a magazine interview. He didn't make
them on
the A&E television series.

So, unless there's some provision in his contract with A&E, I don't
see
why his personal views have any bearing on the TV series, or why he
would be fired.




Perhaps A&E doesn't want to be connected with a racist, homophobic
asshole.


That may be, but unless they had a provision in the contract that
prohibits it, what he offers as personal opinions in a unrelated venue
or media outlet is none of their business.



Really? I doubt that. Whatever image A&E has of its business, they think
he violated it and there probably are terms in the contract that discuss
that very matter. I think it is their business, no matter what. What he
says publicly reflects on A&E.


Like I said, if there are terms in the contract with A&E that cover and
prohibit bringing bad press, etc. on the show, then A&E is justified in
their actions. If not, it's none of their business, even if they don't
like it.


  #9   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,344
Default What walks and quacks like a duck...

On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 17:05:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 12/24/2013 4:56 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 4:52 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 4:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 2:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 12:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:

Rabbi Shmuley on Duck Dynasty and Biblical Homophobia
What Walks and Quacks Like a Duck

By Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


I tend to side with my bearded brethren on most things. Men of facial
hair like Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Ernest Hemingway and, of
course, Jesus clearly demonstrate that whiskers are the
prerequisite of
greatness.

But Phil Robertson, patriarch of Duck Dynasty, might have broken the
unshavenness-is-weightiness rule with his silly and gratuitous remarks
about gays.



Here's what I don't get:

First, when all this hullabaloo started, I had to go google up "Duck
Dynasty" to see what all the fuss was about. I've never seen the show,
nor do I think I have any interest in seeing it.

But my understanding is that this Robertson character made his
"objectionable" remarks in a magazine interview. He didn't make
them on
the A&E television series.

So, unless there's some provision in his contract with A&E, I don't
see
why his personal views have any bearing on the TV series, or why he
would be fired.




Perhaps A&E doesn't want to be connected with a racist, homophobic
asshole.


That may be, but unless they had a provision in the contract that
prohibits it, what he offers as personal opinions in a unrelated venue
or media outlet is none of their business.



Really? I doubt that. Whatever image A&E has of its business, they think
he violated it and there probably are terms in the contract that discuss
that very matter. I think it is their business, no matter what. What he
says publicly reflects on A&E.


Like I said, if there are terms in the contract with A&E that cover and
prohibit bringing bad press, etc. on the show, then A&E is justified in
their actions. If not, it's none of their business, even if they don't
like it.


We'll have to wait for the lawsuit or settlement.
--

Have a Blessed Chrismahanukwanzakah and a Spectacular New Year!

John H
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duck hunting? John H[_2_] General 40 August 9th 11 03:40 PM
BE - Duck PM\(ZTB\) Tall Ship Photos 0 April 11th 09 09:01 AM
BE - Duck PM\(ZTB\) Tall Ship Photos 2 October 3rd 07 06:00 PM
OT Duck, duck....goosed! JimH General 1 January 30th 06 04:21 PM
If it walks like a liberal duck and spends like a liberal duck Vito ASA 10 December 7th 04 06:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017