Phil Robertson’s Suspension is Over

December 27, 2013

Comments

Via The Hollywood Reporter: A&E Welcomes Phil Robertson Back to ‘Duck Dynasty’

The network and the Robertson family announced Friday that Phil will still be part of the series — and since he didn’t miss any filming, his temporary suspension will have no effect on the upcoming fifth season.

While I do not think that the whole thing was a PR stunt (i.e., I do not think that Robertson’s statements were calculated), I do think that the PR people at A&E played the whole thing quite brilliantly. The suspension made the network seem sensitive to those Robertson may have offended while at the same time generating huge amounts of press for the show. Further, the show’s fans are now more loyal (and many, no doubt, bought more DD merchandise during the holiday shopping season). I predict a record premiere for the show in January.

While I do think that the whole thing certainly hit some culture war fault lines, I maintain that the main lens through which to view the whole thing is economics. Like I said the other day: Never Forget: It’s Really about the Money.

71 responses to “Phil Robertson’s Suspension is Over”

C. Clavin

December 27, 2013 at 10:34 pm

Of course it’s money.
And that inevitably means appealing to the lowest common denominator.
It’s the American way.
john personna

December 27, 2013 at 10:38 pm

So, how has this helped Republicans with those groups they wanted … youth and minorities, was it?

Robertson sure gave straight up “messaging,” and the base rose to support it.

That has to help, right?
Jenos Idanian #13

December 27, 2013 at 10:56 pm

From A&E’s statement:

While Phil’s comments made in the interview reflect his personal views based on his own beliefs, and his own personal journey, he and his family have publicly stated they regret the “coarse language” he used and the mis-interpretation of his core beliefs based only on the article. He also made it clear he would “never incite or encourage hate.” We at A+E Networks expressed our disappointment with his statements in the article, and reiterate that they are not views we hold.

Which means from now on, Phil should say things like this:

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Which, oddly enough, is from the original interview in GQ.
Wr

December 27, 2013 at 11:10 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the last person in the world who believes this was anything but a money grab by all sides. Which is only right, since he’s no doubt bought all the DD merchandise he can find.
Jenos Idanian #13

December 27, 2013 at 11:28 pm

@Wr: Oh, look, wr said something stupid and demonstrates that he has no clue what is actually going on.

In other news, water is still wet and night is still dark.
HarvardLaw92

December 27, 2013 at 11:42 pm

In other news, few people beyond the nimrods who are brain dead enough to actually watch this tripe care one way or the other.
Jenos Idanian #13

December 27, 2013 at 11:47 pm

I knew that A&E was going to cave as soon as Jesse Jackson started his shakedown routine. They had to end this before Jesse started demanding “contributions” to call off his wrath.

And I wonder just how much GLAAD made off this tempest in a teapot. I find myself agreeing with Mark Steyn: “Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It’s quicker and more effective to silence them.”
HarvardLaw92

December 27, 2013 at 11:49 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13:

Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don’t oppose the right of gays to advocate it.

Which would explain the boycotts they keep bringing against companies like JC Penney, whose only apparent crime was having a gay spokeswoman?
Wr

December 28, 2013 at 12:03 am

@Jenos Idanian #13: And here comes Jenos, in Duck Dynasty onesies, demanding the world acknowledge he’s the last dope anywhere who still doesn’t get it. Just like with his former idol Zimmerman.
jd

December 28, 2013 at 12:18 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:
Let’s try this:

…whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, Jenos’s, terrorists.

Do you get it now?
James Pearce

December 28, 2013 at 12:24 am

@Jenos Idanian #13: Yes, Jenos, because gay people love nothing better than to be lumped in with terrorists by a guy who spouts the whole “Let God sort em out” crap.

While I do think that the whole thing certainly hit some culture war fault lines, I maintain that the main lens through which to view the whole thing is economics.

True, but from a “culture war” perspective, here’s one economic consequence of the brouhaha: Every dollar spent on Duck Dynasty merch cannot also be spent on campaign contributions. Obviously one party will be more affected by this than the other.

(Although, I admit, not by much.)
Steven L. Taylor

December 28, 2013 at 12:25 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

I knew that A&E was going to cave

Yes. I expect that the line will be that A&E “caved”–but that is contradicted by the fact that the suspension was never real in the first place, nor was the show ever in jeopardy. The clear evidence of this fact is that during the entire brouhaha A&E has been showing DD nonstop. This was all about PR and turning, as a friend of mine said, chickensh*t into chicken salad.
Facebones

December 28, 2013 at 12:33 am

A&E’s problem was that most of the people who took offense at his comments weren’t watching the show in the first place. All those who were offended at his suspension were the fans of the show.
john personna

December 28, 2013 at 12:50 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

Dude, can you comprehend winning the battle and losing the war?

Make me a deal, repeat “homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out” in 2016, as Republicans make their pitch for a national majority.

You literally have spent this week reinforcing the GOP as the crazy old man party.
Steven L. Taylor

December 28, 2013 at 12:53 am

@Facebones:

A&E’s problem was that most of the people who took offense at his comments weren’t watching the show in the first place. All those who were offended at his suspension were the fans of the show.

Indeed. But I don’t think that that was a problem, per se, and why I think they handled it brilliantly. They distanced themselves from Robertson’s statement so they could assuage those who might have been offended. However, since the suspensions also caused fans to rally around the Robertsons, A&E wins on that front as well.
anjin-san

December 28, 2013 at 1:27 am

@ Jenos

We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—

I want to give Phil Robertson (and you) the good news about Jesus. He does not want anyone to hate anyone. I’m not even a Christian and I know this.

I guess you don’t realize that cherry picking a holy book to justify bigotry, while casting oneself as being in God’s special grace is more or less what jihadists do.
ernieyeball

December 28, 2013 at 1:35 am

I can’t wait to miss this show again…
Jenos Idanian #13

December 28, 2013 at 7:13 am

@ernieyeball: I can’t wait to miss this show again…

I never bothered to watch a complete episode before this, and actually forced myself to watch a couple of episodes over the last week or so just so I could have an informed opinion about it. It was cute and fun, but still not something I’m gonna make an effort to see.

So what you said works for me, too.
Jenos Idanian #13

December 28, 2013 at 7:18 am

@john personna: Here’s a counter-offer, johnny: you make the Democratic party’s official position “Free speech should be used to defend great men and great thinkers.”

No, on second thought, no deal. There’s too good a chance you’d get enough people to go along with that. Hell, I can see the Regular Gang of Idiots here going along with that.
Jenos Idanian #13

December 28, 2013 at 7:25 am

@HarvardLaw92: Harvey, the proper analogy would be that gay marriage proponents tried to treat JCPenney like certain militant gay marriage advocates tried to treat Chick-Fil-A. And as I recall, the main consequence of that move against Chick-Fil-A was an attempted mass murder by an outraged gay activist. (You might have missed that one; it got unsurprisingly little coverage, as it didn’t suit the narrative about mass shootings because it involved a gay liberal shooter who explicitly said he was motivated by the SPLC calling the FRC a “hate group.”)

But I was talking about specifically targeting individuals for their activism on the matter, not corporations. Kind of like how supporters of California’s Proposition 8 were sought out, identified, and targeted for harassment. I don’t see that kind of action ever taken against those who support gay marriage.
sam

December 28, 2013 at 8:16 am

Not that this will (or should) come as a surprise to anyone, but have y’all seen this: Why Duck Dynasty Is A Fraud.

And, “I do think that the PR people at A&E played the whole thing quite brilliantly.” I dunno. Reminds of the the New Coke fiasco, if anyone remembers that. The uproar was so great that the then-CEO of Coca-Cola had to hold a press conference. Somebody accused CC of engaging in nothing more than a stunt to increase the sales of Old Coke (Classic Coke, as they called it). The CEO said, “Look, I’m not stupid enough or smart enough to do something like this.” I think the PR guys at A&E were just Tolstoyan chips on the wave of media history. From their perch they may have thought they were on top of the situation, but from the ground, it was pretty clear that they didn’t know what the fvck was going on.
Jenos Idanian #13

December 28, 2013 at 8:28 am

@sam: ZOMG! The four guys, as they grew older, changed how they dress and groom themselves!

How dishonest and hypocritical of them.
James Pearce

December 28, 2013 at 8:46 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

And as I recall, the main consequence of that move against Chick-Fil-A was an attempted mass murder by an outraged gay activist.

Actually, the main consequence of that move was that Chick-Fil-A shut up about the subject.

PS. First time I heard about that shooting. Fits a certain meme on the right, but I don’t think it would win much endorsement on the left.
James Pearce

December 28, 2013 at 8:57 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

The four guys, as they grew older, changed how they dress and groom themselves!

Sure, but in a weird way though. They started out clean-cut then went all redneck? Doesn’t it usually go the other way?
sam

December 28, 2013 at 9:05 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

As usual, the point goes right over the point.
Jenos Idanian #13

December 28, 2013 at 9:06 am

@James Pearce: PS. First time I heard about that shooting.

My first reaction was that you were lying. How the hell could you not have heard about it?

Then I reconsidered. This was a shooting incident that didn’t fit the narrative, and actually portrayed certain demographics from the left’s base that are cherished, so it was downplayed as much as possible in the media. Hell, as far as I can tell, it only got two articles here at OTB, and it was pretty much in several other author’s back yard. So I apologize for my first reaction; that was uncharitable fo me, and I do believe you hadn’t heard about it before now.
sam

December 28, 2013 at 9:16 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

Just a question. Doesn’t the burden of victimhood weigh on you? I mean, Jesus, every blog post here seems to be an opportunity for you to do your Joe Btfsplk sthick, where that cloud is the vast left-wing conspiracy to keep Jenos down.
Jenos Idanian #13

December 28, 2013 at 9:18 am

@sam: What point? The only “point” of that was purely cosmetic. I suppose that if one is so shallow as to judge solely on appearances, that would be quite radical.

Now, if someone had uncovered evidence that one of the brothers was a vegetarian, or had converted to Judaism or Islam, then you might have something. Hell, even if you found pictures that they shaved off the beards when not filming might be something. But old photos of uncertain vintage? BFD.
Jenos Idanian #13

December 28, 2013 at 9:22 am

@sam: Sucks when some nut screws up your narrative, doesn’t it, sammy? That was as clear a “hate crime” as I’ve seen in a long time, and stands in stark contrast with all the fake “hate crimes” of the last year that did fit your narrative.

That reminds me: someone finally got charged with a “hate crime” in the rash of “knockout game” assaults.
C. Clavin

December 28, 2013 at 9:31 am

Mr. Duck and Jenos… Poster boys of today’s GOP.
C. Clavin

December 28, 2013 at 9:36 am

@C. Clavin:
… And if Jenos does not exemplify the LCD…no one does.
rudderpedals

December 28, 2013 at 9:48 am

@James Pearce: It’s the first time you heard about it because it didn’t happen. It was a shooting at the AFA not Chik Fil A
James Pearce

December 28, 2013 at 9:49 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

This was a shooting incident that didn’t fit the narrative, and actually portrayed certain demographics from the left’s base that are cherished, so it was downplayed as much as possible in the media.

Well that certainly fits your narrative.

I think the real reason this wasn’t a big story is that no one died. After all, “if it bleeds, it leads” is a well-known observed phenomenon in the media. The whole “the media is conspiring with the left to advance a narrative” is just a running joke on Fox News.

(And come to think of it, I do remember hearing this story. It was reported widely, but since everyone survived, they moved on to other things. As should you too. Don’t forget, Jenos, when this shooting happened, Denver hospitals were still full of people who had been shot up in a theater less than a month earlier. Forget the conspiracy, man. Just follow the blood trail.)
James Pearce

December 28, 2013 at 9:58 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

That reminds me: someone finally got charged with a “hate crime” in the rash of “knockout game” assaults.

And it was a white dude! What a scandal.

Did you see the tape of him knocking that 79 year old man out? World star!

(It’s funny, your implications –to appease the PC left, a white guy was charged for what is quite clearly a “black” crime — are not the implications that I would draw from that story.)
HarvardLaw92

December 28, 2013 at 10:14 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

Harvey, the proper analogy would be that gay marriage proponents tried to treat JCPenney like certain militant gay marriage advocates tried to treat Chick-Fil-A

Um, no, because in order to preserve that analogy, you have to concede that the folks you are so upset about acted against A&E, not personally against Phil Robertson.

Which is, obviously, bullshit. The boycott against Chick-Fil-A was, obviously, intended to hurt Dan Cathey personally, just as the boycott against JC Penney was intended to hurt Ellen personally. Not even you are that disingenuous.

But I was talking about specifically targeting individuals for their activism on the matter, not corporations.

No, you were, again, trying to build some bullshit construction in which your guy is somehow different. Again, even you aren’t that disingenuous. You’re a blowhard, but you aren’t stupid.

Kind of like how supporters of California’s Proposition 8 were sought out, identified, and targeted for harassment. I don’t see that kind of action ever taken against those who support gay marriage.

On second thought, maybe you are …

(Helpful hint: snark lets me know that I’m winning)
john personna

December 28, 2013 at 10:51 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

Of course free speech should be used to defend great thinkers, they are not the ones who should be thrown under the bus.

Politically, you can and should throw stupid people under the metaphorical bus, before they drag you down.

As opposed to just standing for and becoming a “stupid party.”
Steven L. Taylor

December 28, 2013 at 10:51 am

@sam:

Reminds of the the New Coke fiasco, if anyone remembers that.

I remember it well. I don’t think that that analogy holds as that was a case of company introducing a new product then having to deal with the fallout of its rejection by the public. The DD thing was not about a roll out gone bad, it was about damage control.

In regards to the “fake” bit, two thoughts. 1) they clearly play characters based on themselves on the show, and the show is clearly semi-scripted, but 2) the beardless versions are not news. I had seen those photos in a fairly positive news story a while back and they have even referenced it on the show (my kids watch it and I have seen snippets)..

The bearded hunters bit predates the A&E show: they had another show/DVD series called “Duckmen“.
michael reynolds

December 28, 2013 at 11:07 am

Well, I was wrong. I didn’t think the network (or its parent) would let the talent challenge them and get away with it.

I concur that the interview was genuine, but everything after that was very clever PR. Kudos to the unknown flack.
Tillman

December 28, 2013 at 11:29 am

(You might have missed that one; it got unsurprisingly little coverage, as it didn’t suit the narrative about mass shootings because it involved a gay liberal shooter who explicitly said he was motivated by the SPLC calling the FRC a “hate group.”)

My first reaction was that you were lying. How the hell could you not have heard about it?

You make a better troll when you’re consistent.
11B40

December 28, 2013 at 12:05 pm

Greetings:

Wait just a gosh-darned minute here. I thought Dougie had the homosex part of the franchise ???
anjin-san

December 28, 2013 at 12:32 pm

what is quite clearly a “black” crime

Never forget people, those negros are dangerous!
Jenos Idanian #13

December 28, 2013 at 12:33 pm

Here’s a simple explanation of how this played out:

A&E doesn’t quite understand their show. They know it’s a hit, but they don’t understand why it’s a hit, or the people who make it such a hit. They do, however, understand the dollar signs that it generates.

IN the GQ interview, Phil didn’t say anything he hasn’t said plenty of times before, both in person and on the show. But since it was in GQ, a lot of people who aren’t in the show’s regular audience saw it for the first time. And they didn’t like it.

They made their displeasure known to the suits at A&E, and those suits are far more in tune with the people who were displeased. They understand them, they’re like them, and they reacted as expected — they sided with their own kind.

The audience, however, is an entirely different species. Their response was a collective “huh?” They looked at the article and said “yup, that’s Phil. What’s the big deal?” And since they genuinely like the show and the stars, they decided that they’d express their dissatisfaction, too.

The suits at A&E looked at both sides yelling at them. On the one hand were the people they like to hang around with. On the other hand were the people who keep them employed, who pay their paychecks. The people who were protesting weren’t likely to give them any money (in fact, they were probably demanding it), while the others were threatening to stop giving them money. In an act of enlightened self-interest, they backed down and gave in to the viewers.

Or, in the probably apocryphal words of the defeated politician, “the people have spoken — the bastards.”
anjin-san

December 28, 2013 at 12:34 pm

Jesse Jackson started his shakedown routine.

You must be off your game, you forgot to mention “poverty pimps”
Jenos Idanian #13

December 28, 2013 at 12:36 pm

@11B40: Wait just a gosh-darned minute here. I thought Dougie had the homosex part of the franchise ???

You’re thinking too narrowly. Most of the authors share the “laugh at the little people” beat. Doug has his unrequited crush on Sarah Palin, so the others tend to leave that bailiwick for him.
anjin-san

December 28, 2013 at 12:38 pm

@ john personna

Hey, don’t forget, Jenos will defend bigots right to ~~free speech~~ freedom from consequences to the death! To the death I say.

As long as it’s only on a blog and there is absolutely zero risk to his person.
Steven L. Taylor

December 28, 2013 at 12:38 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13:

A&E doesn’t quite understand their show

I am sure they understand it just fine–they have managed to parlay it into some big bucks.

Explain to me why the following isn’t the most obvious explanation:

The suspension made the network seem sensitive to those Robertson may have offended while at the same time generating huge amounts of press for the show. Further, the show’s fans are now more loyal (and many, no doubt, bought more DD merchandise during the holiday shopping season).

You are correct: the actual utterances were not a surprise–although the way he said it (not to mention the Shinto bit and the Jim Crow part) made it necessary to respond. This doesn’t have to be some grand conspiracy, all it has to be is a money-making enterprise finding a way to make the best of the situation. Yes, it matters that the statement was made in GQ and not in the pulpit of a a Baptist Church. Context matters.
Jenos Idanian #13

December 28, 2013 at 12:38 pm

@anjin-san: I didn’t forget them. I was talking of Jackson exclusively.

I’m wondering if he has another child by another mistress he needs to pay off from his “charitable” organization… or another child in need of serious legal representation.

Nah. If that was the case, he’d have jumped in faster. This was more just reflexive of him than a sign he needs the money for another scandal.
Jenos Idanian #13

December 28, 2013 at 12:40 pm

@Steven L. Taylor: Explain to me why the following isn’t the most obvious explanation:

It’s a plausible explanation, but I think “never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately ascribed to stupidity” is more likely to apply here. If it was deliberate, it was high-risk for questionable gain.
john personna

December 28, 2013 at 12:42 pm

@anjin-san:

Personally, I want Jenos to keep going. He should tell us again and again that rude comments on gays, bigoted remarks about Shintos, and dismissive comments about blacks, are great things, things to be defended.

It will remind his readers exactly who Jenos is, and what he represents.
Grewgills

December 28, 2013 at 12:45 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13:
I’m thinking it didn’t garner much attention because one man shot one other man in the arm. That is hardly national news regardless of motive.
Grewgills

December 28, 2013 at 12:49 pm

@HarvardLaw92:

Not even you are that disingenuous.

That was my first laugh of the day. Thanks
Steven L. Taylor

December 28, 2013 at 12:50 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13:

If it was deliberate, it was high-risk for questionable gain.

If by “it” you mean the suspension: what was the risk? It created a rallying point for the show. If more people watch the show and buy DD merchandise, who wins? A&E wins. You are missing that fundamental point.
Rafer Janders

December 28, 2013 at 12:50 pm

@john personna:

He should tell us again and again that rude comments on gays, bigoted remarks about Shintos, and dismissive comments about blacks, are great things, things to be defended.

It’s certainly the path to electoral victory for Republicans. The more they can brand themselves as the party of old bigoted intolerant Southern white men, the better their chances in 2016!
Steven L. Taylor

December 28, 2013 at 12:51 pm

@john personna:

It will remind his readers exactly who Jenos is, and what he represents.

Indeed.
Rafer Janders

December 28, 2013 at 1:00 pm

@Steven L. Taylor:

Yes, the thing I like about Jenos is that he’s purely an attack dog. Let his masters point him in a direction and he’ll charge, even if that charge will lead him right over the cliff. He wants to win every encounter, and therefore has no sense of the long game, that the more he talks, the more he repels readers rather than winning them over.

I used to fight guys like that and it was always a gift — they’d come out swinging, and all you had to do was to wait until they eventually tripped themselves up and fell over. All tactics, no strategy.
george

December 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm

I’m guessing they were aiming at people like me who’d never heard of the show before this – though I suspect not many of us will watch the show even now that we’ve heard of it (TV is for sports and the occasional movie you can’t find on NetFlix). But it does smell somewhat planned.
HarvardLaw92

December 28, 2013 at 1:37 pm

@george:

The broader moral of the story is that nobody ever went broke selling banality to stupid people
george

December 28, 2013 at 1:55 pm

@HarvardLaw92:

The broader moral of the story is that nobody ever went broke selling banality to stupid people

Not just to stupid people.
Wr

December 28, 2013 at 2:32 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13: And you know this about the network execs how precisely? I mean, it can’t be that you’re just reciting some right wing bs that every moron is spouting… could it?

I realize that you, unlike several commenters here, have never met a network executive, I have, including several generations from A&E. And while there are many complaints one could make about (some of) them, they all know exactly who watches their shows and why they watch. That’s how they maximize their ad revenue.

I know it gives you a little stiffie to pretend that you and the mouth breathers are all a deep mystery to those terrible coastal libs, but it’s pure self delusion. Which is why those people all the good God-fearin’ folk hate so much are soaking you all for a fortune right now.
bill

December 28, 2013 at 2:52 pm

@HarvardLaw92: it’s the same ilk who watch the other “reality” shows and those retarded “idol” type shows- and they vote too….yep.
sam

December 28, 2013 at 3:22 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13:

Most of the authors share the “laugh at the little people” beat.

There you go. Resentment is the fuel that runs Jenos’s engine.
anjin-san

December 28, 2013 at 3:44 pm

If it was deliberate, it was high-risk for questionable gain.

Really? “TV stars” are pretty disposable. Ask McLean Stevenson and Daniel J. Travanti. Well, you can’t ask Stevenson as he is deceased, but it’s a good example.

Phil Robertson is not important. Sorry. If you think he is, you are probably the same kind of person that thinks Kim Kardashian is important.
Mr. Replica

December 28, 2013 at 3:49 pm

Reminds me of Burn After Reading.
PJ

December 28, 2013 at 5:02 pm

@anjin-san:

Daniel J. Travanti

In which show?
anjin-san

December 28, 2013 at 5:48 pm

@ PJ

Hill St. Blues. Travanti was a huge star in the early 80’s, on a game changing show. If I remember correctly, he mixed it up with producer Steven Bochco and found out that producers that can create hit shows are more important than actors, at least in TV land. Travani never equalled his Hill St. Blues success.
Andre Kenji

December 28, 2013 at 6:46 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13:

A&E doesn’t quite understand their show. They know it’s a hit, but they don’t understand why it’s a hit, or the people who make it such a hit. They do, however, understand the dollar signs that it generates.

They understand. That´s why they created a reality specifically tailored to appeal to this specific demographic. A&E also knows that´s one of the best demographics for realities shows, that does not fare well in streaming services. It´s no coincidence that they created a show with these people, the people that identifies with them are the people that still watches reality shows.
An Interested Party

December 28, 2013 at 8:12 pm

I thought Dougie had the homosex part of the franchise ???

No, actually that would be you, considering the pathetic, bigoted comments you often write on the threads devoted to subjects about and/or affecting gay people…

Most of the authors share the “laugh at the little people” beat.

Translation: “I’M A VICTIM! I’M A VICTIM! STOPE BEING SO MEAN TO ME!”
Arthur

December 30, 2013 at 1:49 am

Jesus predicted that just before His return as Judge, there will be a strange, dangerous fad – a spontaneous global steamroller notable for its speed, violence, and impudent in-your-face openness. In Luke 17 He called this worldwide craze the repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19). By fulfilling this worldwide mania that’s secretly coordinated by unseen spirit beings, gays are really hurrying up Christ’s return and making the Bible even more believable!
They’ve actually invented strange architecture: closets opening not on to bedrooms but on to Main Streets where kids can see naked men having sex in “Madam” Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco Brothel District. We wonder how soon S.F.’s underground saint – San Andreas – will get a 10-point jolt out of what goes on over his head (see the dire prediction about cities in Revelation 16:19, and Google “Obama Supports Public Depravity”).
What’s really scary is the “reprobate mind” phrase in Romans 1:28. A person can sear his conscience so much that God finally turns him over to S, the universal evil leader whose unseen agents can give a “possessed” person super-human strength that many cops with tasers have trouble subduing!
Remember, gays don’t have to stay bound to their slavery. Their emancipation is found in a 5-letter name starting with J (no, not James or Julia). As soon as they can find out the all-powerful J name, gays will really start living! (Google “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up,” “USA – from Puritans to Impure-itans,” and “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up.”)
Was Jesus silent about gays? Google ” ‘Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality.’ When gays have birthdays….”
Grewgills

December 30, 2013 at 3:29 am

@Arthur:
Poe?
ernieyeball

December 30, 2013 at 11:42 am

@Arthur: No one can predict the future. That would include the fallible humans that wrote the bible.
An Interested Party

December 31, 2013 at 2:44 am

@Arthur: Of course you are free to try to use religion to justify your rank homophobic bigotry if you like, but very few rational people would agree with you…reprobate indeed…