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

Originally posted by rendrag69
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

So you are anti adoption then AND anti Gay.... you sound like an islamofascist. Do you live in Egypt?

Originally posted by Frontkjemper
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

That's like saying in 150 years we will realize that we had done something wrong by abolishing slavery or desegregating the south.

Some people just don't understand abstract concepts at all.

Originally posted by jfj123

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

thinkprogress.org

Yesterday, when Gov. John Baldacci (D) signed a marriage equality law, Maine became the fifth state to allow legal same-sex marriage. On the Christian Broadcasting Network today, Pat Robertson responded by claiming that the “ultimate conclusion” of legalizing same-sex marriage would be the legalization of polygamy, bestiality, child molestation and pedophilia. “You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent,” said Robertson. Watch it:

(visit the link for the full news article)

Irresponsible statement like this will be part of the downfall of not only christianity but religion itself.

I think these people should look at the animal kingdom their god *POOF* created......you see the same behaviors in the animal kingdom but yet they don't get upset that god made them like that....................

It is scary that those kind of hateful prejudiced people have a following and could actually influence politicians.

Wow just wow.

Some of the comments on here are just as bad and some even worse than what Robertson said.

I am no fan of Pat Robertson, but over ten pages of vitriolent attacks?

Why would anyone get so riled up over an old man who has lost all the influence he had years ago? He's not even a real threat to anyone.

Christophobia? Insecurities?

Within the first page I got the point, Robertson can be a butthead or is a butthead.

Over ten pages of insults and attacks is just as butt headed.

BTW, I am not Christian.

[edit on 18/5/09 by MikeboydUS]

reply to post by MikeboydUS


if you don't believe he still has influence then I got a bridge to sell ya.

Seriously, Have you ever been to CBN in Va Beach and seen the compound? The employ a TON of people who believe. Also, in rural ohio, I can't tell you the number of channels turned to the 700 club I have seen over the past several years.


Just because it looks like to you that he jumped the shark doesn't mean that he doesn't have influence. He does, believe me.

Now I'm not justifying rhetorical attacks on him, but for those of us who have to have meaningful discussions with people who revere him, it's very frustrating. Not insecurity... just very very frustrating.

Not to mention, it has more to do with the fact that any moron like this who tries to liken people pleading for the consensual right to marry with a victim scenario like pedophilia deserves to take the brunt of the anger from those who are tired of being called perverse by the Christofascists and Islamofascists.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by justsomeboreddude

 

the bible condones , supports even encourages slavery

So what is your point? Are you trying to say homosexuality is a form of slavery?

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


I think he is saying that you can't use the bible as a source for socially acceptable behavior in todays world. The poster references how the bible allows for and encourages slavery, among other things which are abhorrent today. In the same way you can't say "The bible decries homosexuality" without also taking into consideration that it allows for slavery.

I think it's unfortunate that people can't see past their dislike for Robertson. The guy is clearly out of touch, and he clearly dosen't articulate himself in a way that reaches the masses. This dosen't make him wrong-

Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. In other religions, marriage is revered in a similar manner. All major religions accept union between man and women as a basic definition of marriage. Marriage should begin, and end, here. It is fundamental in the continuation of our species.

As a society, we should honor this. Instead, a movement has developed to distort the meaning of marriage. Now, what people do at home is there own business, as long as others aren't being hurt. If people want to be with those of the same gender, so be it. If three people want to be together, so be it. If a man wants to be with a butter knife, so be it. But as a society, we should not sanction behavior that is contrary to the core relationship that helps repopulate our species, the natural and intended manner.

And for those who disagree, thinking Robertson is crazy to compare homosexuality to other relationships- I won't rehash the argument of adult/child love- because someone else earlier in the posts detailed the quite eloquently. I'd rather look to the future- ten to twenty to thirty years from now, when we will have robots who can think and act for themselves. Robots who can make decisions. Will we allow them to be married to humans? This will happen- men and women with robots.

www.livescience.com...

Perhaps even human simulation machines. People will fall in love with them. People will want to marry them. There are already people who love life like dolls.

www.bbcamerica.com...

I say that let them do what they choose, but as a society, you cannot sanction that behavior. There is a difference between accepting and promoting, acknowledging but not blessing. This is not hate- it is not fear. This is not about preventing people from obtaining happiness. It is simply recognizing that there are certain things in life that have no compromise. Marriage is one of them-

Wow, I cant believe Mr. R. is still spouting this much hate and mis-info...

To quote Mark Twain, "Its better people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".


I am a lesbian. I have been in a 'normal' marriage, if you consider I married a 32 years old when I was 16.. "normal". I was doing what my family expected of me. Being straight, or at least trying to be. It didnt take long for me to see it was a mistake. My hetero valued husband had been put in jail twice for stat rape... and I am who Pat Robertson is worried about? Me? Who has never even entertained the idea of having sex with a child, my cat or my favorite pen? But, my ex skates thru because he is heterosexual?? That makes no sense to me.

What is happening is we are all being turned against each other on one front or another. i.e. gun owners vs. non-gun owners, dem vs. rep, male vs. female, heterosexuals vs. homosexuals. Its all a propaganda war. to divide and conquer.


♥
dax

Originally posted by Pabama

Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. In other religions, marriage is revered in a similar manner.

Marriage is a contractual agreement with the state to take responsibily for one another. Should you not be able to enter into a contract because you are black or white? male or female? christian or athiest?

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by justsomeboreddude

 

I think he is saying that you can't use the bible as a source for socially acceptable behavior in todays world. The poster references how the bible allows for and encourages slavery, among other things which are abhorrent today. In the same way you can't say "The bible decries homosexuality" without also taking into consideration that it allows for slavery.

Ahh I wish he would have been more clear on that. Good mind reading. I think you got it right.

I never said that the basis of the argument was the bible said homosexuality was wrong. I was just refuting someone elses point that said the bible is in favor of homosexual marriage. Which it is not.

My whole point is that once you make marriage redifinable, then over time it will go down a certain path that allows polygamy, beastiality, etc..

In no way have I said gay people cause or are any more of a part of those practices then any other group of people.

reply to post by ImzadiDax


Government shouldn't be in the business of extending marriage privleges. They should acknowledge marriages within different churches.

A black man may marry a white women. An atheist woman may marry a Catholic man (though I wonder what church would do so). A gay man may marry a straight women.

Originally posted by ImzadiDax

Originally posted by Pabama

Marriage is a sacrament of the Church. In other religions, marriage is revered in a similar manner.

Marriage is a contractual agreement with the state to take responsibily for one another. Should you not be able to enter into a contract because you are black or white? male or female? christian or athiest?

Currently marriage is both a sacrament of the church AND a legal contract authorized by the state. They are two distinctly different things. I agree with you that the legal contract, and especially the legal rights associated with the contract, can not be denied based on the gender of those seeking to enter in to it.

What is your opinion as to the religious aspect of this? Do you think churches should also be forced to perform gay marriages?

reply to post by Night Watchman


I dont see why they cant separate the two. Let marriage remain a religious institution and create the legal part with a civil union. As far as forcing churches to perform gay marriages, that has to be the most loaded question ever. But good job... I respect that.

reply to post by Night Watchman


If it is simply a contract, then who is to prevent someone from marrying their cousin? Or mother?

Or again- in the future- robots?

Redifining a specific action to satisfy all tastes shouldn't be an option.

I'd still like to here opinions on the potential for marriage between humans and robots in the future- is that somewhere where the "slippery slope" may take us? If it is okay for other defintions of marriage to exist, would this then be one? And perhaps, to recognize marriage between robots?

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by Night Watchman

 

I dont see why they cant separate the two. Let marriage remain a religious institution and create the legal part with a civil union. As far as forcing churches to perform gay marriages, that has to be the most loaded question ever.

But good job... I respect that.

I agree that the two should be separate. And as for the question about gay marriage in church being a loaded one; it is. However, it is an important aspect of the issue and really should be discussed.

reply to post by Night Watchman


Well how could anyone make a case that a church should perform something that the majority of its members think is biblically wrong? The only reason to do that is to get people mad. There are several churches that support gay marriage, why not just go to one of them.

Originally posted by Night Watchman
What is your opinion as to the religious aspect of this? Do you think churches should also be forced to perform gay marriages?

I do not. I think churches should do what their conscience tells them. I would not feel comfortable mandating what they can and cant do.

Yes, I would love to marry the woman I have been with for 13 years. However I would not want to force this apon any institution that was uncomfortable with it. Call it a civil union if ya want, but give me the same rights my neighbor has.


♥
dax

Originally posted by Pabama


If it is simply a contract, then who is to prevent someone from marrying their cousin? Or mother?

The slippery slope argument is a tired and unproductive one.

There are laws that make incest illegal so your examples are not relevant to this discussion. Let me also say that, if in the future, humans are able to marry outside of their species, it will have had nothing to do with legalizing gay marriage.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by Pabama


If it is simply a contract, then who is to prevent someone from marrying their cousin? Or mother?

The slippery slope argument is a tired and unproductive one.

There are laws that make incest illegal so your examples are not relevant to this discussion. Let me also say that, if in the future, humans are able to marry outside of their species, it will have had nothing to do with legalizing gay marriage.

One has nothing to do with the other.

There are laws that make gay marriage illegal as well, so if those can be changed why cant the laws against incest be removed. I could make a case for why a guy could marry his father and the incest laws not be valid. Since they cant produce a child and there would be no birth defects from inbreeding why shouldnt they be married.

If people can not keep marriage defined as it is then why cant later people come along and change marriage to be defined anyway they wish in the future? Please answer that question.