“Is it a moral imperative that we always use euphemisms to discuss anal sex?”

Dispatches3Just a few links on that Duck Dynasty/homosexuality flap from the past day or so. God forbid we actually talk about what it is we’re talking about when it comes to homosexuality. It’s behavior. That’s all it is. It’s a way a tiny percentage of people prefer to have sex. It’s only a political issue because people who engage in what the majority considers immoral wind up having conscience issues. You can read a few choice quotes from Tammy Bruce here.

The bottom line is that the hysterical reaction is because those who engage in homosexual behavior don’t want things like this said:

“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?”

When it’s put like that, well, common sense starts to show it’s ugly head and the political left can’t survive that. Again, we need to talk about what it is we’re talking about. To quote Laurie Higgins, “Is it a moral imperative that we always use euphemisms to discuss anal sex?”

In this first link, Dr. Michael Brown sums up the entire episode: “Duck Dynasty, Gay Activism, and the Clash of Two Cultures.”

Here are Laurie Higgins and Pete LaBarbera weighing in:

Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson: the Hairy Canary in the Rainbow Coal Mine

AFTAH Stands with Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson against GLAAD’s ‘Homo-Fascist’ Campaign to Demonize Him

Here’s Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist:

Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson Knew Exactly What He Was Doing