Robertson's remarks were only "offensive" in that the language he used was slightly coarse. But the disgusting activity he was describing cannot be described in any other way than offensively-- unless you don't mention it at all, which is what "gays" and their supporters count on. And the fact remains that he didn't say anything that wasn't true or wasn't his own stated opinion based on his experience. To people who object to what he replied when he was asked a straightforward question, I would ask them two questions:
1. What exactly did he say that wasn't true?
2. If you don't like the way he characterized homosexual sex, how would YOU describe it?
Disagree - Phil used words for human parts that are medically and anatomically correct while making a plain-spoken point about the reality of the homosexual act. This approach made many uncomfortable because they'd rather deny the reality and remain feeling oh so smug and politically correct. That was Phil's "offense" and I'd say he knew exactly where he was going when he made his points since he mostly used the words of the Apostle Paul.
#istandwithphil
Paraphrasing, Phil said he preferred a woman to a man.
Would that not be expressing his sexual orientation?
Don’t kill the messenger. Their argument is not with Phil, it’s with God. That’s why they got so angry. Someone finally said it, and someone with a huge audience - sin is still sin.
The Gay Mafia has had everyone so afraid to speak their minds about this that they went frothing-at-the-mouth insane when someone dared utter this truth.
And unfortunately you also fell prey to their word-semantics propaganda by calling them that.
homosexual sex, how would YOU describe it?
How about coprophagous child molesters.