"The Duck Dynasty Fiasco Says More About Our Bigroty Than Phil's," argues Brandon Ambrosino, identified in this Time.com post as a Baltimiore-area dancer with same-sex attraction.
You don't have to share the writer's support for same-sex marriage and related sexual rights to respect his call to engage in reasoned discourse rather than personal attacks.
Ambrosino quotes G.K. Chesterton, among others, and asks why homosexual activists can't "engage" rather than "silence" their opponants on "marriage equality."
G.K. Chesterton said that bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” If he is right — and he usually is — then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.
Ambrosino breaks the news that Phil isn't the only person on the planet to oppose same-sex marriage. Pope Francis is in the same camp.
Even though Phil used crass, juvenile language to articulate his point, what he was getting at was his belief that homosexual “desire” is unnatural and inherently disordered. This opinion isn’t unique to Phil.
It’s also shared, to some extent, by the Pope. Yes, that Pope — the one on the cover not just of TIME but also of The Advocate.
I agree with Ambrosino's comment about the crass language Phil used to describe why homosexual sex is a turn off for most men.
Ambrosino also explains why the Duck Dynasty patriarch's comments should not be confused with Pope Francis' message of deep respect for persons with same-sex attraction, and the Church's more complete articulation of natural law principles that guide its teaching on marriage and sexual ethics. Check it out here.
But I've also wondered why people care so much about Robertson's suspension, but seem oblivious to the larger problem of attacks on individual conscience rights.
My question for the 113K Duck Dynasty fans that called on A & E to reverse Phil's suspension: Why do you care about Robertson's conscience rights, but ignore the struggles of ordinary people who have lost wedding-related businesses, or faced other challenges, because they won't accomodate same-sex couples who want to tie the knot?
In National Review, Ryan Anderson explains what's going on under the radar regarding atacks on conscience rights at the state level:
In August, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a photographer’s right to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony — even though doing so would violate the photographer’s deeply held religious beliefs as a Christian.
Christian adoption and foster-care agencies have been forced to stop providing those services because they object to placing children in same-sex households. Other cases include a baker, a florist, a bed-and-breakfast, a T-shirt company, a student counselor, the Salvation Army, and more.
Phil Robertson and his supporters should broaden their campaign for conscience rights to embrace the ordinary people who have put their livelihoods on the line. They are the real heroes. Do they need a reality show to get our attention?