It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


The bible says that homosexual acts are wrong, so its a pretty easy understanding that if homosexual acts are wrong the bible is not going to condone homosexual marriage unless it explicity said so as it does for marriage and sex between a man and a woman.




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Do I have to repeat this many times as others have? This is BETWEEN two 18 years old consenting adults. And, NO, the Bible DOES NOT condemn homosexuality.

I do not understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Actually, I do. I've been a Christian for 25 years. I do understand their "logic".



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 




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.


Sadly, many people listen to him and his ilk. His kind of rhetoric is very, very dangerous.

I understand and support freedom of speech. But this is walking a fine line.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


This is the point you dont get. Right now the law says marriage is between a man and a woman over the age of 18(though some states are a little more flexible on age.) So once you redifine it to include same sex couples then it can be defined as anything. You only think it should be limited to in your own words "BETWEEN two 18 years old consenting adults." It doesnt have to be defined as that. What makes your definition of "BETWEEN two 18 years old consenting adults" the right one. Why couldnt it just as correctly be between any group of people that are over 18 and consent. Plus, under your own limited definition, a man could marry his mother, sister, aunt, cousing, uncle, dad, etc as long as everyone involved is over 18 and they both consent. So you cant really say jsobecky's argument was a strawman argument since your very own definition of marriage would allow it.

I gave you two verses from the bible that specifically state that homosexual sex is a sin. I am not saying I agree with it, but you cant say it is condoned in the bible unless you rip out all the pages that disagree with your point of view. I asked you to u2u me any verses you found that support your postiton so I hope you take me up on it. I am willing to listen to your case.

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 



Originally posted by Deaf Alien
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.


He said that the Bible says homosexuality itself is deviant. Thus you cannot legitimize a deviance by incorporating it into marriage.


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.


You are looking for something he did not say. He said that he is against gay marriage because the Bible said that homosexuality is wrong.

He then expanded that to include bestiality and child abuse, which are also wrong under the Bible.

He then said if you remove the Biblical arguments from the discussion, what do you have left?

That is when he made his leap to the rest of his argument.

That is all the time I will spend on PR. I am not defending his position. I am merely clarifying it for those with sound-bite listening habits.

And your assertion that the Bible supports homosexuality are absurd.

I see that you cannot answer the question I asked earlier. That's OK, too.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 




This is the point you dont get. Right now the law says marriage is between a man and a woman over the age of 18(though some states are a little more flexible on age.) So once you redifine it to include same sex couples then it can be defined as anything. You only think it should be limited to in your own words "BETWEEN two 18 years old consenting adults." It doesnt have to be defined as that. What makes your definition of "BETWEEN two 18 years old consenting adults" the right one. Why couldnt it just as correctly be between any group of people that are over 18 and consent. Plus, under your own limited definition, a man could marry his mother, sister, aunt, cousing, uncle, dad, etc as long as everyone involved is over 18 and they both consent?


I do not care. What you are describing is incest. I do not care about some hillbilly marrying in WV mountains. I do not care about cousins and brothers and sisters marrying in some KY moonshine counties.

In this context, this is about TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WHO ARE NOT RELATED TO EACH OTHER.

This is what I am talking about. People need to stop setting up strawmen.

I have argued so many times in the past about the Bible not condemning homosexuality in the past on this very site. It's getting very tiring. I will try to dig up some threads.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 
A good point Deaf Alien Robertson does walk a fine line when it comes to free speech.I just think it's sad that a lot of people take Robertson's word as literally being the "word of god" it's funny how when some fanatic goes on shooting spree he's immediately on the air giving the "don't blame me" soundbite.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Melissa101
 



t. Problem is we are in unprecedented times so only time will tell.

How convenient, though there is nothing to support your theory and actually evidence to support that it is incorrect it must just be the timing. How terribly frustrating for people like you.

who would have thought 20 or 30 years ago that it would be acceptable much less legal to be a homosexual?

A lot of people actually. Twenty years ago it was 1989, gays had already thoroughly progressed by then in many societies.

Edit to add: It doesn't matter what you think of the countries or states in the US that have legalized gay marriage. The point is that none of the acceptance of gays or gay marriage has led to the acceptance or legalization of polygamy, molestation, or bestiality in any of those places.

To not allow gay marriage just because a group believes in a slippery slope without any evidence of such a slope is just pure silliness.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
This might be a little off topic but bear with me.

First, my problem PR is that he is a hate monger. Period. Homosexuals are not his only targets but just about almost anyone who does not believe as he does. He is a polarizing figure that should not be taken seriously. In fact many Christians I know find PR to be a bigot.

Pertaining to gay marriages, I don't like the idea of any marriage per se being an institution of the state. Marriage should only be a religious institution (or sacrament depending on what you believe). In the eyes of the state, everyone should have equal rights regardless of sex, religion, creed or whatever. The state SHOULD be giving civil unions to any two consenting human adults who want it.

Let the individual Churches, denominations and religious organizations decide for themselves if Gay marriages should be allowed under their own roofs. Just as long as they are not in violation of the certain ethical and societal standards such as marrying off little children, animals and what not and only then can government intervene. Religions should have the luxury to decide for themselves if whether or not they allow gay marriages within their own ranks.

Government however should be gender blind just as it should be color blind.
Separation of Church and State people, it's one the great features of living in a free society.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   
It's pretty clear that he is spreading hate. Looking past that though, it is pretty clear that it would lead to polygamy at the very least, I'm not sure if it would go as far as beastiality or pedophilia. I can see incest possibly happening too though, anyone who has seen a Jerry Springer show knows that there are those type of people out there. If you allow two consenting adults to marry, then I don't see how you can deny 3 or however many consenting adults to do the same. Being from Utah, I have seen plenty of people who are perfectly happy to live that way, no matter what other people think of them. I'm not saying there are not victims of polygamy, but the majority seem to know exactly what they are doing and are perfectly happy. Personally I don't care what consenting adults do as long as no one is being hurt, I'm happy to mind my own business if you do the same.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 




He said that the Bible says homosexuality itself is deviant.


So you admit it's his opinion? Wow. That's a big step.



Thus you cannot legitimize a deviance by incorporating it into marriage.


Me legitimizing something based on someone's opinion without proof?

What if I told you that all Christians and Jews should be executed and that I am a Muslim? Would you "legitimize" that? Based on my opinion and interpretation of Koran?



You are looking for something he did not say. He said that he is against gay marriage because the Bible said that homosexuality is wrong.


WHAT? Did you not read the title?



Pat Robertson: Gay marriage 'beginning in a long downward slide' to legalized child molestation.

 



He then expanded that to include bestiality and child abuse, which are also wrong under the Bible.


Yes, he expanded that, but did not show that by logical progression.

A -> B -> C



He then said if you remove the Biblical arguments from the discussion, what do you have left?


If the people in history has removed the Bible, we wouldn't have stoning and burning people at stakes.

Hmm, that would make the world a better place.




That is all the time I will spend on PR. I am not defending his position. I am merely clarifying it for those with sound-bite listening habits.


Then why are you defending this idiot? People like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are what make this world a very, very dangerous world.



And your assertion that the Bible supports homosexuality are absurd.


Sighs. Okay, I will try to dig up some threads. This is off topic but I will try. This argument has been done 1000 times on ATS.



I see that you cannot answer the question I asked earlier. That's OK, too.


Already answered. Not a valid question. A strawman argument.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by miraclerock
 



Looking past that though, it is pretty clear that it would lead to polygamy at the very least,


I can see incest possibly happening too though

Nope, consenting marriage between two adults (who are not related) does not lead to polygamy or incest, despite the adults' genders.

Again, no other country that has legalized gay marriage has legalized polygamy or incest.



[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by mike dangerously
 




A good point Deaf Alien Robertson does walk a fine line when it comes to free speech.I just think it's sad that a lot of people take Robertson's word as literally being the "word of god" it's funny how when some fanatic goes on shooting spree he's immediately on the air giving the "don't blame me" soundbite.


That's it. That's how it can progress. We all have seen how this happened in the past. There are so many examples but I am not going to bring this up in here since it will be off topic.

It's a very difficult subject. We all support freedom of speech, but there are certain speeches that will incite riots and killing of certain people.

A very fine line, indeed.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Pat Robertson: Gay marriage 'beginning in a long downward slide' to legalized child molestation.


. . . and here I thought it was the Catholic priests that were responsible for the push to legalize child molestation.

Boy, was I way off!! (pun definitely intended)

P.S. Don't go see Angels and Demons as it might smear your opinion of the Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I love how people pick out one bad apple or demented sort from a group and liken the rest of the group to that one bad apple. Even if there is a killer, rapist, pedophile homosexual most homosexuals are not killer, rapist, pedophiles.
Even if Robertson is correct and we are entering an age of pedophiles and practitioners of bestiality, gays are not the cause nor is allowing gay marriage.
I am encouraged by the amount of people who seem to support or not be bothered by homosexual marriage and intimacy. I am bewildered by those who try to link it to an erosion of morals.
Morals - what a vague word used to define so many things I find immoral. Your hate and paranoia is depressing.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
I think it's interesting that in Robertson's eyes, this is the final conclusion of his so-called downward spiral. Sounds like he's thought it all through.
"I'll start with guys, then younger guys, then teenagers, then kids."

Makes me wonder what state of mind he's in. He sounds a bit perverted.
Has he been to therapy? It might do him some good to come out of whatever closet he's built for himself.

Exorcise those "demons" Pat.
Maybe the world won't judge you, the way you judge everyone else.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 



Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by jsobecky
 




He said that the Bible says homosexuality itself is deviant.


So you admit it's his opinion? Wow. That's a big step.


What are you talking about, "admit"? You have too many conversations going on right now; you have me mixed up with someone else.

And it is not only his opinion. The Bible states that homosexuality is wrong.




You are looking for something he did not say. He said that he is against gay marriage because the Bible said that homosexuality is wrong.



WHAT? Did you not read the title?


Titles are meant to attract attention. Ten people will sometimes interpret the same title ten different ways. It is your responsibility to refrain from taking an out-of-context soundbite as the one and only interpretation.




He then expanded that to include bestiality and child abuse, which are also wrong under the Bible.



Yes, he expanded that, but did not show that by logical progression.

A -> B -> C


This is where you took your wrong turn. He said that if you remove Biblical opposition to homosexuality, then what is to keep you from reemoving Biblical opposition to bestiality, etc.

What You Heard was homosexuality leads to child perversion. Because that is what you wanted to hear.

You saw that it would be easy to jump on the hate PR bandwagon because everybody hates him.

But that does not give you the right to misquote him.




That is all the time I will spend on PR. I am not defending his position. I am merely clarifying it for those with sound-bite listening habits.



Then why are you defending this idiot? People like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are what make this world a very, very dangerous world.


And people like you that want to silence him are even more dangerous.



I see that you cannot answer the question I asked earlier. That's OK, too.



Already answered. Not a valid question. A strawman argument.


You mean, "Already evaded". If you are going to support gay marriage, you have to do better than that. But if you can't, that's OK, too.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
One other thing - for those of you who bring up gay marriage as some sort of precursor to polygamy:
1. IF you are religious - most Biblical figures were polygamous - ie - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc...
2. Polygamy was (and still is in some) an accepted practice in many cultures and usually lead to one man having many wives and many, many children;
3. Why do you care if someone has 1 wife (or husband) or 20 wives (or husbands) as long as it is consensual and the people in the relationship take care of each other?

I don't even see the logical progression in most of the "gay marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia" arguments.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by really
 


Agreed. Where I was born, Polygamy was legal in certain parts of my former country and a lot of the women not only consented to it but are actually happy with the arrangement. As long people are happy with it and as long as that there are no abuses to children or underage marriages, and as long as it is consensual, I don't necessarily see polygamy as a bad thing.

Just like gay marriages, Polygamy should not be seen in the same light as child molestation, pedophelia or beastiality.

[edit on 5/18/2009 by horatio916]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   
according to the first official statistic i googled

the majority of child abuse victims are female and the majority of perpetrators are male

how is mr robertson going to address that fact ??



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join