Pat Robertson: Gay marriage is 'the beginning in a long downward slide' to legalized child molesta

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


Oh dear. I see your point. Problem is we are in unprecedented times so only time will tell. Some cultures do condone polygamy and pedophilia but I am not sure of their status on gay marriage. Because I do not want to risk insulting anyone else I will not list these countries and it is not advertised nor is it widely known but with a little research you can find them if you want proof. We could argue this till we turn blue I guess. I personally am not comparing homosexuals to child molesters by any stretch of the imagination they are two separate abominations and I do see pedophilia as much, much more horrid idea than homosexuals. It is a very disturbing subject none the less it is plausible that if enough people ban together to fight for their right to free love just like homosexuals have that it could become an acceptable practice. Myself I would feel an obligation to commence to some major whoop a tail to defend the rights of animals and especially children and I would hope most American's would fight for this too but who would have thought 20 or 30 years ago that it would be acceptable much less legal to be a homosexual?

reply to post by italkyoulisten


Boo Ya. My point exactly. Thank God their are other people on here that see where I am comming from. Well said...

I would have to agree with this. Homosexuality is no more a sexual preferance than pedophilia or bestiality would be... It is a disorder, a deviancy and nothing more. Same sex marriage is a perversion of what marriage is about, the symbolic union of a man and woman into one being. If they called it a "legal gay union" or something to that effect i have no problem with it. But what they want is to raise it up to being equal to straight marriage, which I can't agree with as it DEVALUES the entire concept of marriage.

reply to post by TheAssociate

Why is anyone paying Pat Robertson any attention? Seems to me, the best way to deal with people like him is to completely ignore them. He spews his rhetoric for notoriety and money, not for a religious cause. No offense OP, and nice thread, S&F.

The problem here is A LOT of people are paying attention to him.

You can't ignore people that has many people paying attention to them. Do I need to cite examples?

Why do you think he is on TV for a long, long time?

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Do you realize some people find the idea of gay marriage occuring in a church just as sickening as you find Pat Robertson's comments? In fact the majority of Americans are against gay marriage. I think it would be a lot more digestible if they separated marriage and giving gay couples the legal rights that are afforded to non gay ones. As far as what the bible has to say, I guess it says whatever you want to hear. You were given two perfectly straightforward verses but you chose to ingnore them.

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Robertson is an idiot because he is trying to equate something consensual with something that has a victim.

His false argument is "Oh if they want the freedom to do this, then they will want the freedom to do this other thing too!" Without thinking for a minute that the first issue "gay marriage" is a consensual thing which millions of people have been pleading for and petitioning.

Can you really see millions of children pleading with the state to allow them to have sex with adults?

Come on Pat!... Not only is this not at all a Christian thing to do, it's also idiotic.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

Do you realize some people find the idea of gay marriage occuring in a church just as sickening as you find Pat Robertson's comments?

Yes, I do realize, having been a Christian for 25 years myself and been in different churches that long.

Why should I care how people feel in a church? Should I care if people in a church feel sick that I read a book on Buddhism?

Should I care if they feel sick if women are deemed equal to men? After all, women are supposed to submit to their husbands.

Who cares?

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Well maybe we should find something that is important in your life and make a mockery of it. As far as wives submitting to their husbands that is true, but a husband must also love his wife as himself. So I am thinking that is pretty much a fair exchange if properly executed.

The who cares part comes from that marriage is a religious institution so shouldnt it matter what the religions have to say about it. It is not like giving gay people the right to vote or drive which is a government institution.

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

I haven't read every post, but let me ask this:

If the definition of marriage would change in order to accomodate gays, what would that definition be?

"Marriage is between two consenting adults"?

OK, then, can I marry my mother?

Serious question.

reply to post by jsobecky


Great point, and why stop at 2 consenting adults why not any number of people and combinations. Why stop at changing the definition to two consenting adults? Doesnt that leave out people who should just as much have a right to marry whoever or whatever they want? Are we hating on those peope who want to marry outside of the NEW version of marriage?

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

Well maybe we should find something that is important in your life and make a mockery of it. As far as wives submitting to their husbands that is true, but a husband must also love his wife as himself. So I am thinking that is pretty much a fair exchange if properly executed.

I do understand.

But why allow something like this to RULE your life?

Remember, I have proven (in other threads) that the Bible is NOT against homosexuality. In fact, I can give you verses that will SUPPORT homosexuality.

Why should homosexuals care about how some churches feel about gay marriages? It's their interpretation, after all, not what the Bible says.

Why do Christian homosexuals exist?

BUT....

how do all of this prove that allowing homosexual marriages LEAD to legalizing child abuse?

I have not seen an answer to this question in this thread.

reply to post by jsobecky

OK, then, can I marry my mother?

Oh no!!!!

Another strawman argument!

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by justsomeboreddude

 

Well maybe we should find something that is important in your life and make a mockery of it. As far as wives submitting to their husbands that is true, but a husband must also love his wife as himself. So I am thinking that is pretty much a fair exchange if properly executed.

I do understand.

But why allow something like this to RULE your life?

Remember, I have proven (in other threads) that the Bible is NOT against homosexuality. In fact, I can give you verses that will SUPPORT homosexuality.

Why should homosexuals care about how some churches feel about gay marriages? It's their interpretation, after all, not what the Bible says.

Why do Christian homosexuals exist?

BUT....

how do all of this prove that allowing homosexual marriages LEAD to legalizing child abuse?

I have not seen an answer to this question in this thread.

1. It doesnt rule my life. It is just something to discuss.
2. If you have verses that can prove homosexuality is condoned in the bible then by all means u2u them to me.
3. This will answer you last 2 points, and I have given it to you before but you seem to overlook anything that disagrees with your view. Once you start changing the definition of marriage then it allows it to be adapted to whatever is currently tolerable to society OVER TIME. So you open it to be adapted to polygamy and bestiality, etc, because once the definition becomes flexible then it really has no meaning at all. It is just a matter of time before someone opens it to polygamy, because why cant someone be married to more than one person, and the beastiality.. why cant the guy marry the horse he is love with. If you say what right do we have to define marriage a certain way then you by your very own argument to allow gay marriage open marriage up to be any definition that society will accept. That argument being what right do we have to say someone cant marry the people or things that they love. What moral or logical right do you have to limit marriage once you have said it is redifinable upon whatever group has the political clout to redifine marriage? You have no right because you gave up that right as soon as you let the definition be redifinable. You say it should stop at 2 consenting adults. I say it should stop at 100 consenting adults. You say it should stop at animals and inanimiate objects. I could make a case it shoudnt. Get my point? You cant redifine something just to what you want. Once you let something become redifinable you cannot limit its definition.

the much feared double post.

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by jsobecky

 

OK, then, can I marry my mother?

Oh no!!!!

Another strawman argument!

Absolutely not. It is a valid question. If you cannot answer it, that's OK, but it is still a valid question.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by jsobecky

 

OK, then, can I marry my mother?

Oh no!!!!

Another strawman argument!

It is not a strawman argument. It is a very valid point. Why shouldnt someone over the age of 18 be allowed to marry their mother as long as they both consent. We all know that there are people out there that have "relations" with their own mothers. So why shouldnt they be allowed to be married. Is someone not allowed to be in love with their own mother? I can almost guarantee you that person was born loving their mother.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Great point, and why stop at 2 consenting adults why not any number of people and combinations. Why stop at changing the definition to two consenting adults? Doesnt that leave out people who should just as much have a right to marry whoever or whatever they want? Are we hating on those peope who want to marry outside of the NEW version of marriage?

Sure, and while we're busy changing definitions and all, why not change the definition of adult? Or at least modify it to include parrots and goats.

reply to post by jsobecky


Or why not get rid of the words "adult" or "human" all together, because I would bet money I could find a 40yr old and a 14yr old who believe they are in love with each other, and you could make a case that a healthy 14yr old has the mental capacity to give their consent. Not that I am condoning any of this behavior. Remember we have redifined it once so we should be allowed to redifine it any way we want as long as we can get enough backing and make all the people who disagree look like hate mongers. Also, you could make a case that parrots and goats mature much faster so they are probably considered adults at a much younger age, so then why not set the min age limit at whenever a goat reaches maturity.


[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by jsobecky

Absolutely not. It is a valid question. If you cannot answer it, that's OK, but it is still a valid question.

No, it is not a valid question.

Pat thinks the Bible says homosexual marriage is wrong. Bible never said that.

Therefore, homosexual marriage is not wrong according to the Bible.

It stops right there. If you have proof that homosexual marriage will lead to child abuse, bring it here. I have not seen it anywhere in this thread.

What do you expect from a megalomaniac? the guy stopped serving God and began serving himself long ago.Robertson really thinks if there is a haven you are gonna need his little seal of approval on your @$$.Typical fundamentalist.