Homosexuals Gets Duck Dy-Nasty

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke   12/19/13
When I saw the headline yesterday about how “Duck Dynasty” patriarch Phil Robertson had commented on a certain sexuality-defined group, I wondered how long it would be before he got the “treatment.”

I saw the next headline no more than a few hours later.

In case you haven’t heard, the faith-filled Louisianan wound up in hot water after being asked what was sinful by a GQ interviewer and offering the following answer, as presented by the magazine:

“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,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.”

Can you guess which of the above groups caused what subsequently befell Robertson: suspension from his A&E show?

It wasn’t the greedy.

Or the idolaters.

It wasn’t bestialists, though there’s an effort to legitimize their behavior now, too.

The swindlers?

Nope — not the slanderers, either.

Hint: One of the organizations whose complaints got Robertson suspended was GLAAD, and that doesn’t stand for Guiding Light Advocates for Adulterers and Drunkards.

Of course, we all know the answer. GLAAD characterized Robertson’s comments as vile and “extreme,” and now he joins Dr. Laura Schlessinger and others whose careers were hobbled by the Velvet Mafia.

This is probably where I’m expected to ask, “Where’s freedom of speech?” or whine about how the left should respect the other side’s beliefs. But this would ignore reality, which is that every civilization has its “values.” And as someone once pointed out, stigmas are the corollaries of values; if we’re going to value certain things, it follows that what contradicts or condemns them will be de-valued.

People who don’t understand this will utter refrains such as “I don’t care what you do in your private life, just don’t shove it in my face,” as if something can be completely de-stigmatized but then, somehow, remain in the closet. Those who do grasp it, however, might say something such as what homosexual activists Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk wrote in their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s. They said that once homosexuality was normalized, those who would “still feel compelled” to oppose it would be “cow[ed] and silenced…as far as possible” and that if homosexual activists can “produce a major realignment solidly in favour of gay rights, the intransigents (like the racists of twenty years ago) will eventually be effectively silenced by both law and polite society.” And what do we see 20 years later? Criticism of homosexuality will get overseas Westerners punished through law and Americans punished through social pressure.

How’s that tolerance workin’ for ya’?

“Tolerance,” as it has been marketed, was always a con. Aristotle said that “tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society,” but it’s also the vice that kills it. And it so often is a vice because it’s generally misunderstood. For one thing, tolerance always implies a negative, real or perceived; you wouldn’t have to tolerate a beautiful car or a delectable meal — you relish those things. But you might have to tolerate a cold or bad weather. Thus, tolerance is only noble in two situations: One is when dealing with something objectively negative that cannot be eliminated, such as irremediable pain. The other is when confronted with something you don’t happen to like and could avoid, but that is objectively good or neutral; an example would be tolerating a food you detest in order to avoid offending your hosts.

So while we might admire a person who can bear a cross with a stiff upper lip, what if he abides a negative he needn’t put up with? He then is either a doormat or a masochist.

That’s us.

The doormat, that is.

This brings us back to that modernistic “I don’t care…just don’t shove it in my face” attitude. This is a pipe dream and the first step toward degradation and tyranny; it is a false Americanism. As John Wesley said, “What one generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace.” And once this happens it is ridiculous to wonder why the thing in question is out of the closet; accepted things by definition always will be. At this point those with an affinity for it will take the next step: marketing.

This is precisely what Madsen and Kirk prescribed with respect to homosexuality, writing that Americans needed to be desensitized to the behavior via a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising,” a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” Madsen, mind you, was a marketing man by trade.

And when this marketing is successful enough and the newly exalted product is considered a good, what will that which condemns it be considered? This is how good becomes bad, bad becomes good, and those conned into being tolerant come to be seen as intolerable (I discuss this in-depth here).

And thus is Christianity being suppressed. Make no mistake, the concept of sin is central to Christianity — and sexual sin is part of that centrality. Lust, correctly defined as disordered sexual desire, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. So saying you cannot talk about sexual sin — in its entirety — is to say you cannot talk about Christianity in its entirety. And this is part of the process of relegating Christianity to the closet.

This tolerance trap is why Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen wrote in 1931:

America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.

…Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil, and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. …Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in their laboratories….

Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.

Our culture war is a fight to the death. The barbarians are inside the gate, and they don’t listen to reason. Show them the same tolerance they show you — and then show them the door. In the case of A&E, what should happen is that they be boycotted till brought to their knees.

To their knees.

Unless we can rediscover virtue and muster total intolerance for the intolerable, our decline will be inexorable.
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (1873 views)

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Homosexuals Gets Duck Dy-Nasty

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    A principle I first articulated a little over 20 years ago is that if I have to choose between 2 bigots, I’ll choose the one bigoted for me over the one bigoted against me. I would be perfectly willing to tolerate private homosexual behavior (in fact, I have a friend who’s a local homosexual activist of sorts), but not at the price of shunning those who disagree (no matter how mildly) or are merely believed to. (In the Bill Shedd case in Louisville about 15 years ago, local fag-boy bars boycotted Shedd — a liquor distributor — because they ASSUMED his wife opposed them.) Note that according to conservative lesbian Tammy Bruce, Schlessinger in fact was not at all anti-homosexual; she was boycotted and driven out for explaining a religious view on the subject that she didn’t care.

    The fact is, if our choice is between Jamaica and A&E as the sole alternatives, I will side with the Jamaicans. And as long as the likes of GLAAD are the face of the homosexual movement, I will oppose every aspect of their agenda — just as 13 years ago I decided to reject any liberalization of trade with Castroland after Janet Reno’s kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Thanks for pointing out the huge propaganda war being waged on mainstream Americans. The libertine Left has been worming away traditional values for many decades. To do this, they have slowly oozed their way into various institutions which shape our culture. Kirk, Madsen, Hoffman and others like them intentionally give words false meanings, try to change the language, ignore history, biology, tradition and do their best to brainwash the populous into believing black is white, up is down and deviancy is normal.

    Organizations like GLAAD accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being hateful and using dishonest stereotypes against the LGBT community. But all one has to do is look at some of the so called LGBT parades given each year and it becomes clear that a significant percentage of the LGBT community are simply exhibitionist perverts who apparently have a deep need to humiliate themselves. Look at the promiscuous behavior rampant in the homosexual community, where HIV/AIDS spread like wildfire, but didn’t in the heterosexual community.

    Now there are many kinds of deviancy in any population and I am not talking about sexual deviancy only. Deviancy is part of the human condition and is not something which can be totally eliminated. People should not be condemned for “being” something. It is action which counts.

    That being said, a society should not encourage deviant action through social policy.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Now there are many kinds of deviancy in any population and I am not talking about sexual deviancy only.

      Starting with those who watch “reality” TV for kicks. 😀

      Selwyn has done a splendid job parsing the con job and problematic nature of “tolerance.” I’ll only add that it is unlikely that any free society can be maintained if the family is not the main support structure for the individual and for society itself.

      Let gay people stick whatever the hell they want up their asses. But we should not have gay marriage. If you make a joke out of marriage, you undermine the primacy of the family. This is also true in regards to feminism. Making the state a surrogate spouse or daddy is a bad idea.

      This goes for old farts as well. You can’t expect the younger generations to be your de facto slaves so that you can enjoy decades of “free” entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.

      Gay marriage, and all the pathologies of the fascistic gay lobby, are manifestations of the same thing: When family is demoted, the state rises to take its place. And this is quite central to this discussion because it is the state acting as a deep-pockets backstop that allows for all this Utopian nonsense to have even a chance of sounding reasonable or being enacted.

      “Gay marriage” in a society of independent, self-sufficient people is probably unthinkable. Marriage isn’t a “social construct.” It’s a reality that in order to make it in this world, and for society to prosper, you need a stable family, and one that can produce and raise decent and healthy children. You therefore can’t just play around with Mother Nature with things such as “gay marriage” unless you have the state stepping in financially to backstop all the pathologies that result from such tinkering.

      And all Leftist ideas have pathologies that must be dealt with on the back end. The are sometimes not readily visible, as Thomas Sowell often notes. But they are the wreckage of lives caused by all this Leftist nonsense, including abortion, entitlements, gay marriage, and all attempts at Utopia. And there will be social program after social program to try to deal with this wreckage. And just the existence of such programs exacerbates the problem because such “help” works to deny the causes of the problem in the first place.

      But a juvenile, sex-centered society of low-information voters who are ungrounded in little more than “self-esteem” or their own narcissistic impulses can, and will, have no healthy response to the fascistic gay lobby. After all, if all is to be permitted for them, how can they deny others? We live in a society where “freedom” is defined by all being allowed, no matter if this eventually causes society to come crashing down. There is no thought of tomorrow. And any society thus oriented is doomed.

  3. LibertyMark says:

    “America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. ”

    So well said, it breaks my heart for my country.

    On the other hand, I draw hope from the outpouring of support for Mr. Robertson.

    Is there hope?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      An article on the Daily Caller site mentions that Don Lemon (a homosexual newsman at CNN) opposed the assault on Robertson by the ever-PC British import, Piers Morgan. Similarly, at least a few homosexuals opposed the Chick-fill-A boycott last year. Thus, the enemy is (as always) the organized Left rather than homosexuals per se, though naturally those homosexuals caught up in identity politics (such as GLAAD) are part of this persistent effort to crush anti-leftist dissent. So, yes, there is still hope.

      • LibertyMark says:

        Yes. Indeed. I see on Breitbart where Camille Paglia interviewed on Laura Ingraham show has some pretty harsh words for A&E’s actions.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Is there hope?

      No, not unless the men stand up and face this down. The homosexualization of America isn’t about tolerance for gays. It’s about dumbing-down men. It’s about the expansion of feminism.

      You’ve all surely heard about Pajama Boy by now. That is the vision of the American male by the Left. Juvenile. Weak. At least slightly gay or androgynous. This isn’t the Marlboro Man.

      I always talk about games within the game, or the larger game. And we need to. It’s not enough, for example, for people to understand that Obamacare is expensive and won’t work. That would suggest that perhaps somebody else’s plan would work. What Americans need to understand is that socialism doesn’t work.

      And they need to understand the same thing about men and families. We need them. We need strong men guiding good families.

      The problem with homosexuality and gay marriage is that it represents the tip of the spear regarding the emasculization of America. And if you want to create a dependent class hooked on government, this is vitally important. Kevin Williamson has a somewhat daring article today, Ladies’ Man. Kevin, being far more polite than I am, hints as the fact that Big Government is big with the ladies because ladies are into security.

      Actually, for an NRO article, Kevin is fairly explicit. But Big Socialist Government is indeed a big hit with the ladies. And Kevin is right to point out that it is absolutely central for men to be providers. But feminism has taken that away. Now men are on the slow road to becoming irrelevant. And the femi-nazis might cheer that. But the alternative to men as heads of a household is government as head of the household, and even the worst man is far better than the ills of government trying to be a daddy.

      Yes, as Prager notes, women are as unhappy and depressed as ever with this new state of affairs. But the fact is, women drive socialism. And men, being quite flexible when it comes to pleasing ladies in order to get to Home Plate, are amenable and flexible regarding ditching their own masculinity if need be.

      And that’s where we are now. Men, as a cultural stereotype, are shown to be dumb, juvenile, effeminate, goofy, and irrelevant. But we need men and society to have the Marlboro Man, not Pajama Boy, as their ideal. And the homosexual agenda plays into the emasculation of men. And all this is covered under “Well, if you don’t support the gay agenda, you are a homophobe.” Same excrement, different day.

      The ultimate question is when will men — and women — man-up and stare down this emasculation agenda and call it what it is: The vision of the wimpy and weak male promoted by statists for an agenda that has little or nothing to do with “tolerance” of gays.

      Here’s another great image of Pajama Boy. Or this one.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I think there are two main points to be said:

    First, there needs to be a distinction (but not an absolute disconnection) between people who live a gay lifestyle and the gay lobby itself. The former is full of wonderful, law-abiding, and productive people. The latter are Nazis, for all intents and purposes (truly, Jonah’s “Liberal Fascists”).

    Second, what the hell is “Duck Dy-Nasty”?

    • LibertyMark says:

      “Second, what the hell is “Duck Dy-Nasty”?”

      The show, the pun, or the double entendre? Either way, it quacks me up.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Thanks, Mark. I’ve been getting filled in on what Duck Dynasty is here and there. As I’ve stated here before (for better or for worse), I’m mostly tuned out TV…except for old movies. And reality shows are out. Most of them are not reality at all.

        The only one to my mind that was good was Mike Rowe’s “Dirty Jobs.” It worked because, well, it was reality instead of staged BS. And he had a good sense of humor. And you could learn interesting stuff. And because (perhaps like Duck Dynasty) he wasn’t a metrosexual type of wussy man.

        • faba calculo says:

          I share your loathing of reality TV in general, but I will put in a good word for the The Biggest Loser. It’s a show where a number of couples (sometimes husband and wife, sometimes mother and daughter or something else) who are obese try to loser weight. There are only about 1000 ways this could have been done in a tasteless way, but it managed to avoid just about all of them. They live in a compound where professional trainers push them (and when I say push I mean PUSH) them through their exercises. At the end of each wave of couples, their changes in appearance can be just shocking.

  5. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    “Men, as a cultural stereotype, are shown to be dumb, juvenile, effeminate, goofy, and irrelevant.”

    This has been going on for about forty years. In the 1950’s and 1960’s fathers were portrayed as strong, mature men who their children looked to for advice and guidance. The Beaver’s father, Ward, was the father children looked up to. Robert Young’s character in “Father Knows Best” was successful insurance man who held the reins in his home. In “My Three Sons”, Fred McMurray was a high power aeronautical engineer who raised a family after his wife died, and he had Uncle Charlie to help him.

    There are other examples, but I have concentrated on these as they were fathers in families. Today’s programs portray fathers as lowlifes or absent or both. Viewers will naturally come to the conclusion that fathers are optional and families would be fine without them. Of course, the fact that this is a lie doesn’t bother the Leftists in control of the media. That the surest path to poverty is to be an unmarried female with an illegitimate child or two, does not appear to bother the scoundrels who write this drivel.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Ditto, Mr. Kung.

      One of the prime themes of Cultural Marxism is to make any sense of honor, decency, sacrifice, commitment, or nobility to be a joke. It’s considered cool to goof on these things because they’re supposedly not real. And this is proven (to these goofed-up minds) every single time they see someone who doesn’t live up to the standard.

      Instead of coming to the conclusion that the man (or woman) was imperfect, a sinner, and/or simply failed to meet the standard, the Cultural Marxist generation has instead decided to do away with standards as simply a joke to be laughed away.

      Conservatism could (in the present circumstances) said to be no more than about honoring standards, whether the standard is that of marriage or something else. We can’t all forever live like nose-picking, unserious pajama-juveniles who forever snigger and giggle at any mention of such obviously un-cool things such as, well, the manly virtues such as honor, self-responsibility, commitment, excellence, perseverance, morality, and self-control.

      So we get Pajama Boy. We get (and you’ll forgive my frank use of words) treating sticking your penis inside another man’s anus as something not just worthy, but so in need of protection and distribution that we must use fascistic techniques of intimidation to force unbelievers to swallow down this dogma.

      Screw that. If you want to practice the gay lifestyle, then do so. But don’t expect any gold stars. I’m not married. But I know that it’s still in my interest, and the interest of my nation, to support good, strong man-woman families. No society can be good and free without that. It’s time we understood that “tolerance” does indeed mean tolerating something that otherwise isn’t healthy or good.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        A certain amount of cynicism is desirable, but it can be toxic when it becomes too powerful. This is where you get people who don’t do anything about corrupt politicians (of their own preferred party, of course) because “they all do it” — which may be true, but if those who do are punished, some of the others will refrain if only out of fear of the consequences. Similarly, there’s the convenient (for sociopaths) idea that if people who hold standards are imperfect in living up to them, then the standards don’t really exist. (I call this the Draka Fallacy from a series of dystopian novels by S. M. Stirling.)

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          The Leftists want a society of plebs predominantly made up of completely cynical materialists.

          If people do not believe in honor, decency, self sacrifice, the pursuit of higher ideals, even if all cannot achieve such ideals, then people basically become livestock and can be led to the trough of big Daddy government. If all a person desires is material things then that person is much easier to control, by giving or withholding material things, than a person who has ideals.

          Damn it, people who believe in something are such a pain in the ass for rulers.

    • griffonn says:

      That the surest path to poverty is to be an unmarried female with an illegitimate child or two, does not appear to bother the scoundrels who write this drivel.

      By making them dependent on government, The Left guarantees they’ll have no choice but to vote for the socialist.

      It’s not a coincidence that the same people who promote the sexual revolution also happen to be the people who promote marxism.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    “Here’s another great image of Pajama Boy. Or this one.”

    Ralphy protests!!! He was forced to put on that outfit and he wanted a BB gun, unlike pajama boy who wanted a Barbie Doll or maybe a Ken Doll.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *