In the GQ interview that started this whole thing, Phil Robertson said:
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. 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.”
This is a “Slippery Slope” logical fallacy, by the way, that is often used by people who are anti-homosexual.
The problem with his comments – while COMPLETELY protected by the First Amendment – is that he equated being a homosexual to having sex with animals.
That’s what the problem with his comments were, and that’s what pissed off the LGBT community.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what any celeb says about anyone else, but I’d like a little help understanding the conservative outcry about this a bit. Specifically:
- The Dixie Chicks spoke out against President Bush specifically because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and conservatives got pissed and wanted to ban their albums and performances.
- Martin Bashir gets tossed off of MSNBC for calling Sarah Palin an idiot because she wasn’t being factual in interviews, and conservatives got pissed.
Both of those are examples of famous people expressing their First Amendment rights – except that those people pissed off the conservatives, and got chastised for it. One of those groups of people were talking about injustice and the deaths of innocent people, and the other was calling someone out for uneducated and inaccurate commentary in public discourse.
Why were conservatives out for blood there, but they’re defending Phil Robertson saying that being gay is, essentially, the same thing as having sex with animals or being promiscuous/an adulterer?