Should Phil Robertson have been graphic in describing the homosexual act?

How helpful or unhelpful were the remarks Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty made in the January 2014 edition of GQ about the graphic nature of the homosexual act?

In the wide-ranging interview several comments specifically have caused a firestorm. I wrote about my interpretation why there was such an explosion in a previous blog entry. Today I've been mulling over the graphic nature of Phil's comments. I won't repeat them here, but suffice to say, he used the correct names for the body parts in describing the homosexual act and summed it up by saying the act is "illogical."

Many people are calling Phil's anatomically correct portion of the interview an unhelpful part of the conversation, as did I. But I've been thinking, IS it unhelpful to be biologically straightforward in plainly describing homosexuality? It brought to mind the article published last August (2013) by Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile, Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Grand Cayman in the Grand Cayman Islands and a Council member with The Gospel Coalition, the website where the essay was published. It is called,

The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and “Gay Marriage”

The "ick factor" is part of the issue and the liberals and homosexuals promoting its normalcy have been successful in covering that up and diverting our attention to the less 'icky' parts of the issue they want us to focus on.

In Anyabwile's article above, he wrote of how he was invited to attend a high-level think tank discussion in Washington DC ten years ago to discuss "long-standing research consensus on family structure." Of course the discussion soon edged over to homosexual marriage, and it is here that Pastor Anyabwile makes his observations. At the meeting, there were five diversionary tactics the advocate for gay marriage used, now cemented as homosexual marriage advocacy talking points in the years since:

Seize upon politeness. Turns out that being civil about indecency actually hurts the traditional cause.
Minimize conjugality. With most of the room nodding, he then began to divorce (no pun intended) marriage from its conjugal nature.
Remove the “yuck factor.” Our advocate friend was keenly aware that any conversation about “what goes on in bedrooms” was death to his cause. So, he privatized those realities and their implications for what we view as “normal” or “acceptable,” and focused on other things (rights, etc.). He pointed out that most people have a visceral reaction, a gag reflex, when they think about sex between two men or two women. That deep-in-the-stomach gagging was symptomatic of an even deeper moral opposition to sodomy and other homosexual practices. He told us that this gag reflex should not and could not be allowed to affect the debate.
Emphasize love and commitment. Then the winds picked up. If marriage wasn’t about the conjugal relationship, what was it about? “Love and commitment” we were told. “What’s wrong with two people finding love?”
Call for “rights” and “equality.” If marriage was merely about love, and such love ought to be protected via government-recognized rights, then “gay marriage” should receive those same protections and rights.

Pastor Anyabwile was amazed at the confidence, winsomeness and brilliance of the liberal man in constructing and presenting his arguments. He said, "Here’s what I failed to do then and I’m convinced is necessary now: respond in this way," [in part]

"Return the discussion to sexual behavior in all its yuckiest gag-inducing truth. Now to do this, we’re simply going to have accept the fact that we aren’t going to be liked. We’re going to be branded “mean” and “bigoted.” We should not in fact be mean and bigoted. We should speak the truth in love. But the consequence will be a nasty brand from the culture. I should say branded again because we’ve already been given those labels simply for being Christians. So, we don’t have much to lose and we just might re-gain some footing in this debate. What do I mean by returning the yuck factor? Consider how many times you’ve read the word “gay” or “homosexual” in this post without thinking about the actual behaviors those terms represent. “Gay” and “homosexual” are polite terms for an ugly practice."

Anyabwile continued in the essay to describe the act in anatomical and plainly graphic terms, exactly as Phil Robertson did. Robertson spoke the truth in love, describing himself as a sinner in need of a Savior. He listed many sins, not just homosexuality. He said not to be deceived, homosexuals as well as any sinner will not inherit the kingdom. But Phil did describe homosexuality's 'ick factor' and as Anyabwile advised 4 months ago, 

Your moral sensibilities have been provoked–and rightly so. That reflex triggered by an accurate description of homosexual behavior will be the beginning of the recovery of moral sense and sensibility when it comes to the so-called “gay marriage” debate.

and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them."
(Genesis 19:5 NASB)So I go back and forth on Phil's graphic comments. Phil squashed the romantic aspect of the conversation from the liberals and brought the graphic, icky reality of homosexuality smack into spotlight. Were the comments helpful? Ill-advised? Time will tell.

The bible calls these acts an "abomination", "debased", "error, "unrighteous", "shameless", "contrary to sound doctrine," "unnatural desire," and "ought not to be done." People who engage in it will suffer eternal torment. God is clear about the ick factor of homosexual sin, (and all sin). (source & source)

Meanwhile, Pastor Anyabwile followed up his August ick factor essay with this yesterday-

Duck Dynasty and the Twisted Ironies of Our Current Sexual Politics
"I think Mr. Robertson spoke what a lot of people think and feel but are not accustomed to expressing–for good or ill. His visceral reaction is the reaction of most who stop to think about the actions in question... 
1. It’s ironic that a “vulgar” rejection of certain sexual acts cannot co-exist with visual and verbal sexual vulgarity itself.
2. It’s ironic that “vile” remarks are rejected while the vile acts they describe are celebrated.
we seriously need to reflect on the terms of engagement in this debate."

And for that reflection I redirect you once again to the link I'd posted at the top,

The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and “Gay Marriage”