With every sentence in his quote about "the blacks", I said "okay, he can't dig himself any deeper than this" and then I read the next sentence and said "oh wow, he did." And then topping it all off with the idea that apparently the blacks didn't invent blues music until they were all on welfare?
On the sex part, you left out this one:
“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.”
Because when a man picks a woman to marry, the only thing that matters is how good her vagina is. Which he is somehow supposed to know without violating the no sex before marriage rule (or at least, without HER violating the no sex before marriage rule). Or, it's not that he specifically knows about her vagina, he just knows she has one, and vaginae are better than anuses (ani? anodes?). In which case why would it matter which woman you marry? As long as she's a woman and he's a man, that's all that really matters in marriage, right?
It's interesting to note here that in his hypothetical, he still sees himself as the active penetrator. He's saying that, given the choice between having sex with a man or with a woman, he would choose a woman, because a vagina has "more to offer" than an anus, but leaves out the fact that the man would also have a penis, which opens up other possibilities. If Mr. Robertson were to have sex with a man, he could be penetrated by the man, or administer oral sex to the man. If having "more to offer" is the deciding factor in the question of which gender is better for a man to have sex with, having sex with a man gives more options, even if a vagina offers a superior penetrative experience (If this is starting to sound like it has nothing to do with love and marriage, that may serve as a hint as to why Phil's original statement was offensive to LGBT people).
I imagine the reason he didn't factor in "I could be penetrated by a man" and "I could fellate a man" is because thinking about those kinds of things would just be too gay, which underlines his failure in this segment to imagine people who are different than himself. He considers a vagina to be more desirable than an anus, so therefore, choosing to be in a homosexual relationship is illogical. It couldn't possibly be that other people like different things than he does. He's conflating his own cognitive experience with reality.
I'm reminded of the Sally-Anne test: Sally has a cookie. She puts the cookie under a basket. Sally leaves the room. While she's gone, Anne takes the cookie and puts it under a box. When Sally comes back in the room, where will she look for the cookie? Children who haven't developed a theory of mind will insist that Sally is going to look under the box, because after all, that's where the cookie is, and it would be silly to look for the cookie in a place where it's not. They're not thinking about it in terms of "I know the cookie is under the box, but Sally doesn't know that." They can only think "The cookie is under the box."
It's one thing to say that Sally is wrong in her belief that the cookie is under the basket. It's another thing to not comprehend why Sally is looking under the basket. Saying something like "Why would you want to be gay? Don't you realize that means you don't get to have sex with women (if you're a man)?" falls under the latter.
Also this:
The Duck Dynasty guy who likened homosexuality to bestiality makes a living helping people trick ducks into thinking they want to **** them.
(I miss the days when I assumed "Duck Dynasty" was a spinoff of Meerkat Manor and was just a bunch of ducks with people voices dubbed over them)
