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: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
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 ??


Robertson hides behind the bible whenever someone presents evidence that a person's sexuality can not be changed, or that parents raised by gay couples are not at a disadvantage. I'm sure facts and evidence mean nothing to him, he will always have the bible, the bible will support his ignorance.




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by 31337
 


I most certainly don't want to take away the first amendment. In fact I believe our Constitution stands between us and chaos and we must do everything we can to protect it.

I believe robertson has the right to express his hate filled beliefs all he wants, as do I. Here, I'm expressing my beliefs that he is wrong.

He's saying that if we allow gay marriage, we the people, won't be able to draw a line after that and we the people will allow pedophiles protection. I wouldn't, would you? Would anyone with a normal brain? Of course not ! Then why would he say it? Because he's using a form of shock media to further his hate agenda.

Of course he has the right to say it, I also have the right not to hear it.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by 31337

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by jfj123
 


I will never support the man or what he believes, but will support his right to say such.


Yadi yadi yadi. How many times has this been said? If you don't agree with what the man said its "hate" speech, if you do agree then all the sudden you are the enemy.

The reason we say that is that we respect the Constitution.


I applaud him for his position regardless of how right or wrong he or his followers are and you the reader of this post may think he is. In short who cares what he says? none of you seem to care what Perez said about that person from California, none of you seem to care about what Obama says or what anybody else says, so why care what he says?

This thread is not about obama. There are plenty others that are. And as for perez...... welll it just doesn't matter.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by 31337
After reading all the posts here on this topic it seems to me that you all support the freedom of speech only if you agree with it.


I haven't read any posts that state or even imply that.

I think pretty much everyone has said he has the right to say what he says.

He doesn't however, have the right to say it on TV. That is a privilege given to him by his views.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar

Drawing from my own experiences, I am sure Pat Robertson is perfectly okay with my heterosexuality. However he would more or less disapprove of the time I had sex on a public beach during the day time and would be aghast that I have had sex on stage during a play in front of an audience without their knowledge because it was not in the foreground nor near the focus of the scene.

The question that Pat Robertson raises isn't really a comparison either but an argument of where to draw the line. He could have just as easily said that legalizing gay marriage could open the door to legalizing rape, incest or simply being able to walk around with your penis hanging out...which would not have as shocking of an impact of what he originally said.

Heck he could have said it because he is tired of hearing Fred Phelps saying that he is soft on gays.

Ultimately I am for whatever floats a person's boat. But even I say that gay marriage is too bit of a hot topic right now for people as a whole to accept the idea. In time sure, but ramrodding the issue isn't the best way of getting results. Which is why I stated in the very first sentence that I would take the opposite stance despite not liking it.


Ok I'm going to give you a star for a certain part of this post. Not going to say which part but I'll just say I'm impressed and what play was it ?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Twilly
reply to post by jfj123
 



His point is, if you allow marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman, than why should it not also be legal for a man to marry 2 woman? Or how about 3 woman getting married? You get the point.

I do believe that this is a slippery slope, and at the bottom of the slope will be a guy trying to marry his 3 year old son or daughter... Or his dog.


Oh trust me my friend, I understand his point. His point however is absurd.
He's trying to make a leap from 2 adult, consenting women marrying and an adult and a non-consenting child. It's just not going to happen and he knows it. Look how we react to those forced marriages we hear about in the middle east.

Look, if robertson's agenda was to help stop molestation of children, I would applaud him. However, he's USING the fear of molestation to stop gay marriage. There is a difference that frankly disgusts me.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
same sex marriage was the worst thing ever thought of besides the pet rock..... tell me this what is the outcome? yay we are like this"--" or "oo" we are gonna make the world better then my children can see the accomplis........ wait that means there not gonna have a true heir to the family tree just a grafted tree limb from a tree with no fruit just fruit loops



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


That right there, friend, is one of THE prime arguments I read on those Prop 8 threads all those months ago, as to why same-sex marriages should be illegal. The whole: "What's next? Legalizing beastiality and pedophilia?" It seems some folks will say anything, and I mean anything, to justify their own fears and pettiness. I don't like gay folks, or dislike them, I'm rather ambivalent about the whole issue, but I do understand that gay people have the right to happiness the same as everyone else. As much as some folks want to marginalize their rights and feelings, try to say they they are less than equal, simply because of their sexuality. That whole argument is just wrong, plain and simple.

Chrono



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


It has been more or less proven how the logic used to allow gay marriage will lead exactly down the path that Pat Robertson described.

I guess it is safe to say you are not going to send scriptures to defend your position. I assume that is because you have none.

You just keep saying the same things over and over without defending your logic.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

It has been more or less proven how the logic used to allow gay marriage will lead exactly down the path that Pat Robertson described.




I'm not sure you should criticize others for not defending their arguments when you wrote what you did above. You wrote that it has been, "more or less proven," that Robertson's views are correct.

First of all you can't "more or less," prove anything. Proof has either been provided or it hasn't. And then, you offer nothing to substantiate your view.

So, let me ask you to explain how Robertson's absurd claims have been proven to be accurate.

As for using scripture to support your view, unless you can read and translate the original languages in which the various Gospels were written. Otherwise, how do you know the translation you are reading and quoting is the accurate one?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by rendrag69
 


Whatever dude. There is absolutely no link between same sex marriages to pedophilia, beastiality, and child molestation. Let us take Holland for example; Same sex marriages are legal yet Holland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. And yes, child molestation, pedophilia and beastialiy are illegal there.

Please someone give evidence (and I mean solid statistical proof) that homosexual marriages will lead to child molestation, pedophilia and what not. Until then I will treat your arguments as mere assertions and assumptions. And, assertions and assumptions are the parents of all f**K ups.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Watchman
 


Read the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread for the logic I used. "More or less proven" was probably a poor choice of words on my part. I am not saying I am against gay marriage, just that allowing marriage to be redifinable opens up a whole can of worms.

I didnt use the bible to defend that point of view. Deaf Alien said the bible supported the idea of gay marriage and I used verses to show him it wasnt pro gay marriage. Not that it matters. I dont necessaraily believe the bible, but I know it doesnt support that.

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Read the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread for the logic I used. "More or less proven" was probably a poor choice of words on my part. I am not saying I am against gay marriage, just that allowing marriage to be redifinable opens up a whole can of worms.



Fair enough. I don't agree with your conclusion because the "slippery slope," argument can be used in an attempt to defeat any legislation that seeks to change the status quo.

I think the jump from changing the law to define marriage as a "union between two consenting adults," and changing it to a union between "a consenting adult and consulting farm animal," or a "consenting adult and child," is so great that it is not a realistic concern.

Now that said, I am speaking of marriage as a legal entity, not a religious or spiritual one. A church should retain the legal right to define marriage as it sees fit. My concern is one of legal rights.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Ok, so I have read all the previous posts (oh yes, I have
) and it seems to me that the main problem here is some people's rational brain not working (not intended as an insult, just trying to point some things out).

Most of the people who defend, to some extent, the abnoxious bile that the loonie extremist Pat Robertson vomits out of his bodily orifices on a regular basis, are having problems with some kind of flawed causality.

Your religious beliefs, or cultural influences, lead you to put several different items, such as paedophilia, polygamy and bestiality, on the same causal line of reference. This is because the christian faith places all of the above in the "abomination box".

What you are actually saying, is that you fear that the legalization of one "abomination" will lead to the legalization of many, because this would reveal that your society is drifting away from it's original christian morality. Which to some extent is probably true.

Nevertheless. The people argumenting against you (such as me
) do not recognize the established mental pattern that you believers follow. Our moral values are not based on christian beliefs. Notice, that while not being christian, we, as you, acknowlege paeodophilia and bestiality as "wrong". This tends to prove that god, or the bible, are not the only guardians of morality, let alone wakko Pat Robertson.

Our moral values have a different base than yours (absolute freedom of the adult consenting individual), but are no less rigid concerning non-consenting individuals. Therfore, your line of association is flawed, because in our minds, (representatives of the "heathen", immoral society where gays would be allowed to get married), paedophilia and bestiality would remain illegal, as they should, for they bear no causal link to homosexuality. (non consenting acts are illegal).

Also, I will add a quick, off topic remark about the christian stance on paedophilia. While, through out the centuries, homosexuals have been brutally persecuted, tortured, and killed, priests have on uncountable occasions, celebrated marriage between adult men, and underage girls as young as 12. Why ? The bible says it's ok.

In light of the evolution we have undertaken as a species, since recorded history, maybe people like Pat Robertson should try and understand that social and moral structures change, and that 800 years ago, he would have given god's blessing to what today we would see as a child molester. People like him make me laugh hysterically while looking for something to throttle. Sheer stupidity, no memory or education, and he still believes that his sad backwards, manipulative and interpretable beliefs represent the epitome of morality. Yeah, right...



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ismail

Nevertheless. The people argumenting against you (such as me
) do not recognize the established mental pattern that you believers follow. Our moral values are not based on christian beliefs. Notice, that while not being christian, we, as you, acknowlege paeodophilia and bestiality as "wrong". This tends to prove that god, or the bible, are not the only guardians of morality, let alone wakko Pat Robertson.



I think you are making the mistake of viewing this as a simple, black and white issue. On one side you see, "Christians," and on the other side, "non-Christians."

That is way too simplistic an approach to what is a complicated issue. I can tell you that I am a Catholic Christian who disagrees with Robertson's claims. In fact, I disagree with about 99.9% of what that moron says.

I also believe that all organized religions are run by human beings and thus nothing they say or write should be taken on face value. There are biases and prejudices that creep in to all of our views. One can believe completely that Jesus Christ was the Son of God but yet also believe that organized religions often times act counter to Jesus' very teachings.

This is an emotional issue and we all have our own opinions. I think it is a mistake to try to package this an issue with two pre-packaged group of people arguing on each side.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
Smart enough to split an atom,gaze into the depths of the universe... yet still dumb enough to not recognise the love between two peoples no matter what genitalia they have


[edit on 17-5-2009 by Solomons]


well put and beautifully said. No wonder we still question the existence of extra-terrestrial life. I know I wouldn't make a grand appearance in a room full of dumb animals; especially not knowing whether these animals are out to attack me or not.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Just to be "the bad guy"...

And what if in another 150 years, we realize that it wasn't right to allow homosexual marriages and whatnot?

Just saying, times change. Things that seemed OK a hundred years ago are no longer acceptable and vice versa.



Hate away,
FK



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Watchman
 


I could say that, yes it is about two sides, one which is mature enough to understand that societies and their moral constructs evolve, regardless of their personal beliefs, and another, which clings to an erroneous vision of the "good ole days" and claims that their personal beliefs represent the only "good" moral value system any given society can have. But that would be off topic.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



the bible condones , supports even encourages slavery



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
What a sickening little creature that man is.

It really is a shame, he tarnishes the religious convictions of millions of people with every word he says. It's just a shame that those religious people rarely stand up and say "that's not what I think!"

I support freedom of opinion, but there is a line easily crossed when it incites hatred and violence.

The network are obviously happy to have him, and I think that's a shame. They can prevent it just by stating that this is not in accordance with their image and views.
It wouldn't be censorship, it would simply be stating that it is not acceptable to them as a business, or that it is harming them.
It would reflect the fact that there simply isn't a big audience for such hatred and bile.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join