The Genuine Conflict Being Ignored in the Duck Dynasty Debate

From evangelical Christian Larry Alex Taunton in The Atlantic:

Missing in the controversy over A&E’s handling of its golden goose—or duck, rather—is the fact that the real conflict here is not between Robertson and A&E; it is between gay activists and a solid majority of Christians who believe homosexual acts are wrong. As indicated above, Robertson’s views are hardly anomalous. Christians may disagree on the details, but the Bible strongly condemns homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments; the marriage model of one man and one woman is first given by God in Genesis 2 and reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19; and in Romans 1 the Apostle Paul denounces homosexuality as a hallmark of a degenerate culture. The point here isn’t that you have to believe any of this, but many Christians do believe it and feel morally bound to believe it. The Genuine Conflict Being Ignored in the Duck Dynasty Debate - Larry Alex Taunton - The Atlantic

Taunton quotes Pastor Rick Warren, whose point is worth considering: "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Is Taunton correct that A&E's decision "implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned"?

I think he may be. Perhaps the "endgame" here really is to silence orthodox Christians. If so, as Taunton asks, does this mean that we are becoming a nation of bullies who want to force conformity while calling it "tolerance"?

Believing an act to be wrong, based on religion, is no cause to make that act illegal; that would be an establishment of religion and prohibiting all from not adhering to that religion's views. Their is no victim, for society to protect, in any consensual sex act.

ttwtt78640 said:

Believing an act to be wrong, based on religion, is no cause to make that act illegal; that would be an establishment of religion and prohibiting all from not adhering to that religion's views. Their is no victim, for society to protect, in any consensual sex act.

Click to expand...

That is not totally true, altho you can argue it on technical grounds, but consensual sex between an adult and someone underaged, while he or she may consent, is protected by society.

Gaugingcatenate said:

That is not totally true, altho you can argue it on technical grounds, but consensual sex between an adult and someone underaged, while he or she may consent, is protected by society.

Click to expand...

That is covered by the age/mental ability of consent. Obviously a child or incapacitated adult cannot give consent.

nota bene said:

Taunton quotes Pastor Rick Warren, whose point is worth considering: "Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate."

Click to expand...

That's a pretty good quote. It's also worth pointing out that we're against all forms of fornication and adultery like divorce, sex before marriage, pornography, etc. It's not just homosexuals, but a society that treats sex as a casual activity.

nota bene said:

Is Taunton correct that A&E's decision "implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned"?

I think he may be. Perhaps the "endgame" here really is to silence orthodox Christians. If so, as Taunton asks, does this mean that we are becoming a nation of bullies who want to force conformity while calling it "tolerance"?

Click to expand...

I think Taunton is correct.

I somewhat went along with the live and let live ideals promulgated during my high school, college years and beyond..."... just let us be who we really are..." was the distilled cry from the left. Tolerance was all that was asked.

Now the call is far beyond tolerance, beyond condoning all the way past acceptance, into conformity. I drew the line at tolerance myself, do what you want to, legally, with those who are of age and who are consenting. Not in my face, not imposing your beliefs over mine, not expecting me to consider this normal, not expecting everyone else to just roll over and allow something they simply do not agree with in principle or in fact... no government nor any law can make me, or others, think this or agree to this.

This country is, indeed, at a crossroad in so many ways... this is just one of the more fundamental ways.

ttwtt78640 said:

That is covered by the age/mental ability of consent. Obviously a child or incapacitated adult cannot give consent.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that is only so by law... so society is protecting even those who may give consent as we believe them not to have that capacity, by law, to legally do so. You did use the absolute "any" without qualification... I might add that there are probably others, such as, even if consensual, sex acts performed at, say, a public beach that society can protect the rest of us from.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Yes, but that is only so by law... so society is protecting even those who may give consent as we believe them not to have that capacity, by law, to legally do so. You did use the absolute "any" without qualification... I might add that there are probably others, such as, even if consensual, sex acts performed at, say, a public beach that society can protect the rest of us from.

Click to expand...

Who is the victim at a public beach? Just because some find an act "icky" does not make them a victim - there is no right not to be offended or to not have your feelings hurt.

phattonez said:

That's a pretty good quote. It's also worth pointing out that we're against all forms of fornication and adultery like divorce, sex before marriage, pornography, etc. It's not just homosexuals, but a society that treats sex as a casual activity.

Click to expand...

And it's about more than just sex too. But back to Pastor Warren's point, these are two huge lies--that disagreement with someone’s lifestyle equals either fear or hate, and that if you love someone, you must agree with everything that person believes or does. I agree with him that compromising one's convictions isn't a requirement of compassion.

ttwtt78640 said:

Who is the victim at a public beach? Just because some find an act "icky" does not make them a victim - there is no right not to be offended or to not have your feelings hurt.

Click to expand...

I think we may certainly have laws against such things... you may not think it so, but perhaps sufficient numbers of the rest of us do, and I think laws that keep others from committing egregious offenses, other "icky" things like defecating in public offends many as well...or whatever or however they may be defined by the majority, or those representing us, is certainly viable, most assuredly is a doable thing in a republic.

nota bene said:

Perhaps the "endgame" here really is to silence orthodox Christians. If so, as Taunton asks, does this mean that we are becoming a nation of bullies who want to force conformity while calling it "tolerance"?

Click to expand...

Its the only game.