Somehow this becomes a white privilege according to Jackson. What does being white saying stuff about how you feel about gays a white privilege?

 

Jackson charged that the Robertson family patriarch, who was suspended indefinitely from his reality show, is worse than the driver who told Rosa Parks to give up her seat.

 

“These statements uttered by Robertson are more offensive than the bus driver in Montgomery, Alabama, more than 59 years ago,” Jackson said in a statement. “At least the bus driver, who ordered Rosa Parks to surrender her seat to a white person, was following state law. Robertson’s statements were uttered freely and openly without cover of the law, within a context of what he seemed to believe was ‘white privilege.’”

 

Jesse Jackson: Phil Robertson 'more offensive' than Rosa Parks driver | Fox News

Black preacher against homosexuals. Is this a black privilege?

 

Black preacher spreads the Word ... against Obama - The Washington Post

Edited December 27, 201312 yr by mountain ref

Jesse is on his own with this one.

Are you sure you are comparing apples and apples here mtn ref?

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I get the feeling Jesse wasn't talking about Phil's paraphrasing God's words about homosexuality.

 

Maybe it was Phil's combined comments, but I assumed Jesse was focused on on Phil's comments about blacks in his town when he was growing up in pre-civil rights Louisiana.

^ I agree, but even if it was the comment about blacks, it doesn't even come close to bring near as bad as the bus driver .

^ I agree, but even if it was the comment about blacks, it doesn't even come close to bring near as bad as the bus driver .

No of course not.

Are you sure you are comparing apples and apples here mtn ref?

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I get the feeling Jesse wasn't talking about Phil's paraphrasing God's words about homosexuality.

 

Maybe it was Phil's combined comments, but I assumed Jesse was focused on on Phil's comments about blacks in his town when he was growing up in pre-civil rights Louisiana.

 

I'm not sure, I took it as he was referring to gays and what was said about them.

I took Robertsons comments about blacks as he felt the same as them and wasn't a racist.

I'm not sure, I took it as he was referring to gays and what was said about them.

I took Robertsons comments about blacks as he felt the same as them and wasn't a racist.

When Phil downplayed the plight of the southern African American during what he termed "pre-entitlement" and "pre welfare", I'm sure it ruffled the feathers of many. Even if the comments were taken out of context, I can understand the opposition to that thought process, especially coming from a now wealthy white guy. I have no doubt Jesse Jackson was in the ruffled group.

 

Several headlines I've seen thought Jesse's comments were about the racial issue and not the sexual immorality parts of Phil's comments. Here is an example from the Wall Street Journal.

I ask because of my ignorance, but truly, what struggle has Jesse Jackson known? Has he known any oppression uncommon to other black males? Is his history of riding the coattails of Dr. King the reason he feels that he's the mouthpiece for the black community? Serious questions, I'd like to know the answer to, because his comments never ring true to me that he has a genuine concern for what is the true struggle of racism in our country. Am I mistaken, because if I am, I'd like straightened out so I don't automatically throw up the bullcrap meter when he has something to say.

...and to add to that, I'm not remotely condoning what Phil said, this is just, in my opinion, another microphone in the face of someone (Jackson) where you know there's gonna be something on the extreme end of the spectrum come out of his piehole. Not unlike the microphone in Phil's face.

Okay, here goes my ONE rant on this whole thing. Phil Robertson has every right to voice his views on homosexuality. Just as any homosexual has the right to disagree. The freedom of speech goes both directions. Its just that Phil has a pretty big platform to speak from. A & E made a huge mistake on this one. Not real smart to alienate your breadwinner. On to Jesse Jackson. What an utter joke in our society. Keeps wanting to dredge out wrongs committed before his time. Yes, blacks were mistreated by SOME whites early in American history. I had no part of that, and neither did anyone I know personally. The fact is that there is a black president today, and I don't know of a more prestigious position in this country. It is time to move on. It can be done, but it takes hard work and commitment, not crying and boo-hooing. Yes, I am an European American.

My post will have very little to do with Jesse Jackson, and just say that I'm not a fan of his, and the straw that broke the camel's back for me was him somehow finding a way to support and back the group of unruly blacks kids that were causing crazy fights in the bleachers a few years back at a high school football game. How he could've ever thought that it was logical to back them is beyond me, and demonstrated quite well what a racist he is, all the while pretending that he isn't.

 

Perhaps I should place this post in the other "Duck Dynasty" thread, but since this is currently the hotter thread on the topic, I hope no one minds that I place it here.

 

The other day I was watching a video of a preacher's response to this whole Phil Robertson thing. I can't locate the video, and don't remember the preacher's name, but the general premise of this talk was that homosexuals were trying to destroy freedom of speech in America.

 

Personally, although I've been gay without choice for as long as I can remember, and battled with my own paranoia and closet-ness for all of my pre-adult life, as well as periodically in my adult life, I don't always stand 100% behind gay activists groups, especially if they are overzealous about pushing their agenda in a way that "demands" acceptance.

 

I understand their desire for acceptance, but pretty much also understand that asking for it from the entire society is futile, and that if some in society are to ease up about their objection, it won't happen overnight, and certainly not if being forced to.

 

I'm pleased that in general, it feels to be somewhat of a more acceptant world than it once was, but know that it probably won't ever be a completely, and won't be wasting my energies hoping that it will be, knowing that those chances are slim.

 

All I can do is live my life the best way I know how, and although it's not my duty to campaign for acceptance, I would never knowingly and purposely act in such a way in public to draw attention to myself that warrants or provokes objection to the way I'd carry myself.

 

If a straight couple were, let's say, making out with heavy petting in public, they too would, or at least should expect, if they have any sense about them, that passerbyers might object and think "why don't they go get a room?" With that said, most straight couples perhaps never give it a second thought if they were to be casually holding hands while taking a stroll through the town together, unless of course their courting was of a philandering or extramarital nature, but in general, society itself too would think nothing of it for a straight couple with nothing to hide, to move about freely without scorn.

 

Because it is odd to the general public, gay couples holding hands can rarely have this such freedom without receiving strange looks, giggles, or comments, and the self-awareness that they are on display in a more outward way than a straight couple would be doing exactly the same. Sure, they've the freedom to do it, but hardly can without care, and the knowledge that they're leaving themselves right on out in the open to perhaps encounter ridicule, and to what extreme, is always a huge concern.

 

This sort of response from the general public is understandable to a point, as we are living in a mostly straight world, that the average straight person doesn't typically see this sort of openness, so undoubtedly they naturally will take a second glance. I too might take a second glance because the whole gay acceptance topic is one that I myself can hardly escape just by living in this world that has always made it a point of topic.

 

Perhaps as time goes by, and if this type of open affection were to become a bit more commonplace, especially if done in the most non-threatening, and in a not so "hey everyone look at us, this is our right", fashion, then I could see where little by little society might warm up to it to the point they too could care less, but I'd be asking for the moon to think that a casual response from them could ever truly be 100%.

 

Gay acceptance is best received when conducting oneself as a decent human being, and with the hopes that your contribution to helping make your world a more acceptant one, by oneself setting an example is the best light possible, with still knowing that not everyone will, because of their strict beliefs, become OK about it.

 

Even I, who was obviously raised in an extreme predominantly straight world, was nervous as can be when first ever walking into a gay club, because I was certain that I would be surrounded by "those weird people". Guess what?, I instantly came to find that I was surrounded by "people" plain and simple.

 

Sure there were behaviors by some that I could describe as some over the top flamboyancy, but I came to understand it as some folks finally being able to open up, as they took hold of this freedom with an abundance of exuberance.

 

Sorta like kids running out of school on the last day of the year. But with that said, I've also seen college kids in clubs being just as exuberant after final exams. People will party hard to let off steam if they've been held back from doing so for whatever reason. Just as college students, the age of OTT gays at clubs would typically be in their early 20's, and just as anyone ages, you find, no matter gay or straight, people will settle down and become more reserved.

 

Ultimately though, I came to find that my nervousness of entering a gay club for the first time was provoked by a straight world full of fear and misinformation, offering me a bit of societal brainwashing, until I could see with my own eyes that they didn't know what the heck they were talking about.

 

Although I've had my share when I was younger, I don't frequent clubs but perhaps a few times a year simply because hanging out in clubs, gay or straight, is really not my scene. If anything, I'd rather go to a music club to see a band, and personally I'm ok with navigating through the real world for I don't feel the need to just be hanging out only with gay folks.

 

Gay activist groups that expressed being offended by Phil Robertson's were exercising their freedom of speech to state their distaste for what Phil said while he was exercising his. I can't speak for them, and I won't go as far as saying that all gay activists act or speak in logical terms, but I have to believe that most of them could see an irony if they suggested that he not have a right to exercise his rights to freedom of speech, for if they did that would be terribly illogical and hypocritical of a group that's primary premise is equal rights. If they are, then they certainly don't have my support.

 

In reference to the preacher's comments that homosexuals are trying to destroy freedom of speech is that, as he cleverly spinned his words in a way that appeared to be logical, he seems to lack any understanding how difficult it is for gays, who's primary desire in life is to live with the same freedoms, and acceptance to love in this life as anyone, and that them feeling offended for anti-gay comments should not be too surprising, nor could it ever be suggested that gays are ridiculously calling for, or trying to perpetrate an end to freedom of speech, but just a freedom to be able to live life just a freely as any straight folks can, as it should be understood by anyone who has any sense, that it's a grave infringement on the human spirit to condemn someone who's without choice being who they are, just because they are who they are, and desire to live as they are without the fear of condemnation.

 

Being straight and backward, this preacher has no idea how ignorant he sounds with his logic while bashing folks (with his freedom of speech) who are tired of being oppressed, and call it an attempt at silencing freedom of speech when they express being offended, when he and every straight person has the freedom to be as such, while gays always typically have some level of difficulty having the same unencumbered freedoms. He clearly doesn't get it, and delivers his freedom of speech in such a smug arrogant way that suggests that he's so clever and right on the mark, while he couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Many, including myself are a bit tired of the whole gay topic, but some express this displeasure with the tag attached that they, "Wish that gays would just stop throwing their lifestyle in everybody's face". Some gays certainly could be overly-overt about this, but in general I don't believe it's so much a throwing a lifestyle in everybody's face, to finally, after so many years of ridiculous closet-ness, bullying and even years ago, shock treatment, arrest, and in some parts of the world even death, to once and for all say "Enough is enough, I'm going to live my freakin' life while I can, as who I am". If some gays are frustrated with some in this world's expression of hatred and objection, I'd have to believe that anyone who has any sense or compassion would understand this frustration.

 

If any straights have this sense of this "tired of having it thrown in their faces" they might want to consider that gays have had anti-gay rhetoric, and an over abundance of "being straight is the only acceptant form of existence" rammed down their throats their entire lives. You can hardly blame gays if they can be a little bit "OVER" that, and want to finally rise up from being stuck under that sort of oppression forever.

 

Poor poor anti-gay straight folks for having the burden of having to face this sort of reality, because it's certainly been a reality for the entire history of humanity, and I'd bet my life savings that it will continue to be a reality, for although it's a bit difficult for science to prove it, but c'mon - let's be real, homosexuality, although a minority in the MULTI-MILLIONS, is without doubt as real to the human condition as anything is.

 

Honestly, why would all of those multi-millions of people choose to be something that is instantly received with such scrutiny and condemnation? And just as straight folks never chose to be straight, they just are. Gays too never chose to be gay, they just are. I don't know why it's such a stretch for some straight people to comprehend that in it's simplicity.

 

Some people like liver and onions and some people don't. I don't, but I'm not about to tell those who do that they're weird. If their taste buds get excited about the thought, who am I to say they shouldn't enjoy a dish of it?

 

I say this jokingly, although not entirely, but if anti-gay straight folks want homosexuals to "go away", then they might want to consider to quit giving birth to them.

When Phil downplayed the plight of the southern African American during what he termed "pre-entitlement" and "pre welfare", I'm sure it ruffled the feathers of many. Even if the comments were taken out of context, I can understand the opposition to that thought process, especially coming from a now wealthy white guy. I have no doubt Jesse Jackson was in the ruffled group.

 

Several headlines I've seen thought Jesse's comments were about the racial issue and not the sexual immorality parts of Phil's comments. Here is an example from the Wall Street Journal.

 

Phil's comments about African Americans during segregation I took more to be Phil's ignorance of what it was like to be African American back then rather than an offensive and or racist comment made by Phil. Did anyone else get that same feeling?

Jesse Jackson is a idiot. If it wasn't for stirring the pot these days, he'd be broke….THIS type of stuff is his job.

Phil's comments about African Americans during segregation I took more to be Phil's ignorance of what it was like to be African American back then rather than an offensive and or racist comment made by Phil. Did anyone else get that same feeling?

I agree and honestly I struggled with how to word that last sentence. I settled on calling it "racial" comments because it was about race, but like you, I didn't think he was being racist.