Phil Robertson 2 of 4; Crude and Rude

In the controversy over the words of Phil Robertson few have given him 100% support. Even many who have supported him whole heartedly have taken small steps back for the supposed crude and rude nature of his remarks. The graphic language of homosexuals and liberals on TV have been clearly overlooked in the past. Such language can easily be call crude and rude, not to mention offensive. So… how is one supposed to describe the topic or the actions of the reproductive process of humankind? What terms do we use, to get straight to the point?

Yes, the reproductive process. The most basic drive of all life that keeps the species going. This perspective alone should be enough to put the question to rest over the issue of homosexuality. To date there has been no scientific evidence that homosexuality is natural. Do you want to point to penguins, that reproduce once a year in the harshest environment in the world, where if one male can’t compete and win a female his uncontrollable surging hormones lead him to bang anything dead or alive? A pretty crude topic I would say. Outside of human beings, the reproduction of species is completely driven by biology. (this suggests a design to me) There is no decision making and no difficulty explaining confusions among the animal kingdom for those armed with common sense. No abnormalities, outside of perhaps being inferior to other males, have been documented to explain any actions that would be described as outside the norms. Yes, the norms.

What descriptive language is used in our schools, given to your children in sex ed? The government now wants to start sexual education in kindergarten. What terms are to be used for kindergarteners? How many of us are even aware of the words and descriptions that are being used in our schools? Since homosexuality has been recognized as normal by many local governments and their corresponding school districts, what is the language they are using to an ever younger audience to describe such relationships? What kind of language do they use when distributing condemns and explaining there use?

When I was a child, just past initial puberty (is that word to crude?) my mind was focused one one thing. What is a man to do with a women. Which words were used to describe the proper relationship of man and women, clearly described as confined to marriage, were immaterial. Clearly understanding the workings and purposes were the only thing that would put my mind at ease. Any words, …any words accomplishing that end were neither crude or rude but appreciated.

Phil Robertson was communicating important realities in words that went straight to the point with absolute clarity. His words were neither crude nor rude but informative. These topics need to be addressed, the issues confronted, and there is only one way to do it; in the clearest words possible.