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.
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 ??
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]