The Duck, the Whole Duck, and Nothing But the Duck
by Josh Fults
It has nearly been a month since the daddy of the Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson, stirred things up with his comments in the interview with GQ magazine. I know this horse has been beat to death. The blogosphere was lit up with post after post about the backwoods Patriarch. They still continue to roll out. Some of them thought provoking, some angry, some appealing to emotions, and others that are poorly thought through.
The reason for all of the excitement about Phil Robertson has very little to do with Phil. He simply struck a match too close to a tinderbox. He opened up a door that allowed some needed dialogue to ensue, though much of the dialogue has been disappointing, hurtful, and doesn’t deal squarely with some of the issues.
Due to the firestorm that Phil’s words created, I have read much about the following topics across the web on Christian, non-Christian, conservative, and liberal sites alike, including: homosexuality, the suicide rate of homosexual teens, Christianity as it relates to homosexuality, Phil himself, gay marriage, equal rights, whether homosexuality is a sin, the sexuality of other mammals, etc.
My goal here is not to add to the noise, but instead take what I have read and discuss it from my perspective as a heterosexual, Christian, counselor, and my experience as related to these topics. My goal is not to appeal to emotion, though this is an emotional topic. It my intention to be loving, but
to also represent the Christian worldview, present research, and share some of my professional experience. I will repeat some of Phil’s “crass” language and due to the subject matter, there may be other “crass” terms. I just felt I should give you that disclaimer now in case you would like to abandon ship.
First, if I might simply begin with Phil’s words. This seems like a logical place to start because this is what tipped the domino, and got us here to begin with. The first utterance that Mr. Robertson made that many found offensive was, “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Many found his language “crude”, which honestly, I find remarkable. He calls body parts by their actual anatomical names. People hear the slang and far more offensive terms for these parts and never bat an eye, but here, he is accused of being offensive. That simply does not make any sense at all…