Are we already starting to see the beginning of the end of LGBT activism?

Apparently, some redneck on a redneck T.V. show called "Duck Dynasty" had an interview in which he said homosexuality is a sin, in the same way adultery, bestiality, and fornication are sins. LGBT "activist" groups responded quickly resulting in the actor's suspension from the television show.*

When Christian "activist" groups were doing things like this in the 80s (for example, protesting movies that depicted Christ as anything other than the holy God [recall Scorsese's "Last Temptation" movie] or publicly saying almost anything short of praise of God) it marked the beginning of the end of Christianity in the public sphere because people said "No, that's nonsense, and we're taking that crap from you anymore."

But that's exactly what the LGBT activist groups are doing here: responding to anything that isn't an enthusiastic praise of homosexuality as something worthy of making someone lose their job, effectively striking down free speech and free thought.

I support LGBT rights; those who know me here know this. But isn't this a bit much?


7 Answers

  • Sky
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    [copy of my answer to your duplicate question]

    No, I don't think it's the "beginning of the end" of LGBT activism. That won't happen until society gets to a point where a person's sexual orientation is no more remarkable than the color of their eyes.

    And yes, I agree that it is a bit much. The GLBT community and their activists have to choose their battles wisely. The man in question is a backwoods hic on a show made popular only by the network cramming advertising down our throats everywhere we look and telling us it's popular. The network acting like the show is a huge deal and is amazingly popular is the only reason this guy gained any sort of celebrity status. IMO it has gotten incredibly tiresome and should have been nothing more than a miniseries that lasted maybe a month.

    Anyway, the guy is little more than a talking head who said some things that pissed some people off. He has every right under the 1st amendment to speak his mind (and he's responsible for his words resulting in the decline in popularity and possible cancellation of his show). But the GLBT community didn't need to get all up in arms about this; the viewing public would have done it for them by simply tuning out the show and letting nature take its course. Society's viewpoints and opinions about the LGBT community are on the upswing and have been for years; the comments of one semi-celebrity are not going to reverse all the progress that's been done, and there are a great deal more celebrities with much higher popularity who are very much in favor of LGBT rights/equality/dignity.

    The battles the LGBT community needs to focus on are those having to do with actual legislation and public policy. If it was a politician who said such things, that's when the activists need to get to work in protesting such comments and working to recall the politician and/or vote the person out of office. Considering how many states still ban same-sex marriage or don't yet have laws against GLBT discrimination, getting so upset about some guy from a crappy TV show saying such things is like complaining to the waiter there's a fly in their soup when the entree is crawling with maggots.

  • Laura
    Lv 5
    7 years ago

    Just like anyone else some LGBT activist do go too far so I agree on that part but as for there being no more LGBT activist groups I have to disagree with because as long as there are LGBT people there will be activists. The guy in the tele series is wrong though, being gay isn't a sin. If LGBT activist groups ever do become non existent people will find another way to moan about things that really are nothing to do with them. Hope this helps

    Source(s): I'm an LGBT
  • JPane
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    Reminds me of the Chick-fil-A fiasco back in 2012.

    Sure, a redneck from a low-rent "reality" show can use his freedom of speech to spread hate about gay people, but LGBT folks have the same right to denounce him and call for a boycott. The First Amendment protects Americans from government censorship; it is not a rag that you wave around when you want to weasel out of any backlash you get as a result of your stupidity, i.e. it doesn't protect you from the ire that you draw from regular folks. So, this isn't so much a matter of activism gone wrong (although there is a small element of this), but the consequences that result from abusing your "freedom of speech".

    Honestly, I wouldn't cry if Duck Dynasty was pulled from TV, since we already have a boatload of crap flooding the airways (destroying once decent channels like Animal Planet, History, and Discovery). And folks wonder why TV is becoming obsolete, while new media like internet shows are rising in popularity.

    About the Christians denouncing images of Christ; they already do a decent enough job of that as it is. Let's not forget Republican Jesus, the wingnut version of Christ who doesn't give a crap about the poor, kills Muslims/homosexuals/liberals, and blows up abortion clinics:

    Youtube thumbnail

  • The strength of the response is important. At the end of the day, it's a redneck yapping his mouth and what he said wasn't even that bad if you dissect it.

    But some people go into ATTACK MODE and run around like the world is on fire. It's an overreaction and it's goofy and counterproductive for them if they're even serious about LGBT, although I suspect it's got more to do with self-promotion.

    Your 'beginning of the end' thesis... I dunno. You have to place LGBT in the wider sphere of the liberal movement.

    >>"I support LGBT rights;"

    You're performing a kind of self-censorship, MOC, you can give your opinion freely whether you support LGBT or not, no need for justification.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    the duck dynasty guy didn't just slam the gays, he claimed blacks seemd just fine before the civil rights movement

    that blacks seemed to be content & happy being segregated and discriminated against

    this man has a skewed sense of "the good old days" which translates to the USA was much better when white christian men were in control of everything, that they should have control over minorities, foreigners, women, gays, and people who aren't just like them are wrong. Because they are afraid they wont be the norm anymore

  • 7 years ago

    You're confusing the TV executives' right to control what's on their shows and keep their advertisers happy with activism. Then to make things worse, you're conflating activism with religious oppression. I can't tell if you're doing this deliberately or if you really can't tell the difference between these three completely unrelated things. Either way it's pretty sad.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    It's always been too much, but like every other emotional and irrational movement, it will come to an end. There is no difference between this "gay movement" and the Occupy Wall Street nonsense. It's a fad.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.