English as a criminal language

Phil Robertson 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? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical.

Some people including some Christians are in a tizzy over Robertson's language. They think it's ugly, crass language.

1. What should be the real focus - what Robertson said, or what homosexuals do? See what Steve pointed out here.

2. Ugly language isn't necessarily identical to bad language. It's not as if Robertson used swear words or blasphemous language or the like.

3. Language isn't only spoken but also heard. So (though it cuts both ways) it also depends in part on the audience. For instance, soccer moms may think differently, but medical professionals are accustomed to hearing words like "vagina" and "anus," and hearing such words in the same or similar context of sexual intercourse.

4. Likewise, sex ed teachers and classes make use of this language. But I somehow doubt there'd be any sort of an outcry from liberals such as wanting to censor or otherwise get rid of sex ed classes even though sex ed classes and teachers could very well use words like "vagina" and "anus," teach kids stuff like "some men would prefer other men's anuses, while some women would prefer other women's vaginas," etc. The double standards are so blatant.

5. The Bible itself uses ugly language. See here for example.

6. Robertson doesn't come from a refined and polished background. He has even said he comes from a "poor white trash" background. This isn't an excuse, but it should be something to take into consideration.