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: 14
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Pabama
 



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

There has been marriage without religion, always has been and there always will be. There have also been gay marriages before in history.
One example: www.msnbc.msn.com...
There are other examples in history.

The point of this thread IS NOT if gay marriage is wrong or right. This thread is discussing the slippery slope argument that Robertson conveyed, ignoring that gay marriage has never caused the legalization of such things and that the acceptance of gays more steadily over the past years has not led to the acceptance of child molestation.




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 




There are laws that make gay marriage illegal as well, so if those can be changed why cant the laws against incest be removed.

This is an extreme hypothetical that is supported by no evidence. No such thing has happened in other places where gay marriage is recognized AND the acceptance of gays in society has not led to a wider acceptance of incest. You can find no solid link between the two. Find us a link, a substantiated link or stop spouting this vile. You can not deny people marriage because of one groups unsubstantiated slippery slope argument, that argument could be used for virtually anything and often has been used while trying to deny others rights.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Watchman
 


Well it does if you consider marriage anything other than man and women. If you choose to redefine something, and you choose to redefine it only to your liking- who is to prevent a further redefinition? And who is to say what is acceptable?

It's not a tired line of thinking- it's quite applicable to this situation.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


New Hampshire recently passed a gay marriage bill, but the governor has not yet signed it.

He wants to resolve the issue of churches. He wants churches to be able to choose for themselves whether or not to perform gay marriage.

This to me is a good solution. Keep church and state separate.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Watchman
 



So there are laws against incest. Why not change the laws? It would be no different than changing the laws regarding gay marriage, conceptually.

justsomeboreddude put it very succinctly: why can't a man marry his father?

[edit on 18-5-2009 by jsobecky]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


"The point of this thread IS NOT if gay marriage is wrong or right. This thread is discussing the slippery slope argument that Robertson conveyed, ignoring that gay marriage has never caused the legalization of such things and that the acceptance of gays more steadily over the past years has not led to the acceptance of child molestation"

Agreed- though it seems difficult for everyone to separate the two, as highlighted this paragraph demonstrates. It seemed that the thread was a Robertson bashing thread, deciding he is merely a hate-monger instead of considering the argument.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Night Watchman
 



So there are laws against incest. Why not change the laws? It would be no different than changing the laws regarding gay marriage, conceptually.



I am not understanding this. Why does gay marriage = incest? Why think because you open the laws and rights to us we are the harbingers of the death of morality? An honest question. I have a very strong sense of morality.. its not gonna change if suddenly I can get married.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

This is an extreme hypothetical that is supported by no evidence. No such thing has happened in other places where gay marriage is recognized AND the acceptance of gays in society has not led to a wider acceptance of incest. You can find no solid link between the two. Find us a link, a substantiated link or stop spouting this vile. You can not deny people marriage because of one groups unsubstantiated slippery slope argument, that argument could be used for virtually anything and often has been used while trying to deny others rights.


This is not vile. It is called logic. It is only vile because you disagree with it and can not refute it.

There doesnt have to be a link between gay marriage acceptance and incest acceptance. All there has to be is the ability to redifine marriage to be more inclusive. Eventually people will challenge the laws that allow gay and straight marriage but not other forms of marriage. It may not happen overnight. It may. Two hundred years ago no one would have thought that marriage would be redifined to include gay marriage so who is to say 200 years from now, or 2 weeks from now, people cant start challenging the law to include incest, beastiality, polygamy, etc...

In all fairness to those who are in love with their mother, or their dog, or 10 women and 2 guys they should have every right to marry because how can you say it is alright to change the definition of marriage to include one sub group of society but not support the marriage of other sub groups. That is hypocritical.

So I say lets just let whoever marry who or whatever they want in whatever numbers they want until marriage is a total farce. Then at least we wont have to listen to everyone go on and on forever of why they should be included in something that was never meant to include to them.

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ImzadiDax
 


Because today we're talking about your rights, tomorrow we will be talking about some other group's rights.

You want to redefine marriage. Well, what is an acceptable definition. One that suits only you?

No, a much better solution would be to create a new category: civil unions. But many gays are against that. Why, may I ask?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 




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.


I got tired and went to bed. It takes a while to dig up threads on ATS. Been a while. Yes there are evidence.

Here's an external link to start you off. I'll see if I can find some threads.

www.otkenyer.hu...

So you see? It stops right there. The Bible DOESN'T condemn homosexuality. It is an opinion of Pat Robertson.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ImzadiDax
 


Gay "marriage" dosen't equal incest, and perhaps it was a poor example, which I inserted rather flippantly. The point was that someone (re) defined marriage as simply as a state contract for two people to agree to take care of each other. It's simply not that simple. The question that many people have is "Will redefining marriage allow others to argue for a further redefinition?" The only context in which I think this will happen is when there are "robots" ( I use this term loosely, as a genre for all future human like creations) will people be able to marry them? These robots will someday have the ability to make decisions, and with that, preferences. Will they be able to marry a person? This is going to happen- people loving robots. If society says they cannot, why cannot they use this same argument?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by ImzadiDax
 


Because today we're talking about your rights, tomorrow we will be talking about some other group's rights.

You want to redefine marriage. Well, what is an acceptable definition. One that suits only you?

No, a much better solution would be to create a new category: civil unions. But many gays are against that. Why, may I ask?



I have already said a couple posts back... call it civil union, but give me the same rights you have....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pabama
reply to post by ImzadiDax
 


Gay "marriage" dosen't equal incest, and perhaps it was a poor example, which I inserted rather flippantly. The point was that someone (re) defined marriage as simply as a state contract for two people to agree to take care of each other. It's simply not that simple. The question that many people have is "Will redefining marriage allow others to argue for a further redefinition?" The only context in which I think this will happen is when there are "robots" ( I use this term loosely, as a genre for all future human like creations) will people be able to marry them? These robots will someday have the ability to make decisions, and with that, preferences. Will they be able to marry a person? This is going to happen- people loving robots. If society says they cannot, why cannot they use this same argument?


I do understand your point. Dont think I havent looked at both sides. I dont know all of the awnsers. What I do know is that I am not protected by the same laws that protect others. That when it comes down to it "we the people" doesnt always include all people.


dax



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 





Here's an external link to start you off. I'll see if I can find some threads.

www.otkenyer.hu...


The only thing you have provided is another person's opinion of what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Nothing proved or disproved there.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


I scanned through the link you gave me until the BS got so deep I couldnt walk through it anymore.

Somehow this person is using the very same verses that tell them it is wrong and use some convulted logic to make it right. So according that line of thinking there is nothing considered sinful or wrong or worthy or Gods wrath in the Bible.

The bible does condemn homosexuality so you cant say it suports it. That is ridiculous. It is not just the opinion of Pat Robertson it is the opinion of God, at least as much as the Bible is the word of God and whether you believe that or not.

Here is a verse that your own link quotes.
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

There is no way you can interpret that other than to mean God is not on the homosexual band wagon. The only way you can refute that is to just start making up stuff.

Plus we arent even supposed to be discussing this at all.

The whole point is once you redifine marriage once then it can be redifined to the whims of society at any time in the future. Refute that.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImzadiDax

Originally posted by Pabama
reply to post by ImzadiDax
 


Gay "marriage" dosen't equal incest, and perhaps it was a poor example, which I inserted rather flippantly. The point was that someone (re) defined marriage as simply as a state contract for two people to agree to take care of each other. It's simply not that simple. The question that many people have is "Will redefining marriage allow others to argue for a further redefinition?" The only context in which I think this will happen is when there are "robots" ( I use this term loosely, as a genre for all future human like creations) will people be able to marry them? These robots will someday have the ability to make decisions, and with that, preferences. Will they be able to marry a person? This is going to happen- people loving robots. If society says they cannot, why cannot they use this same argument?


I do understand your point. Dont think I havent looked at both sides. I dont know all of the awnsers. What I do know is that I am not protected by the same laws that protect others. That when it comes down to it "we the people" doesnt always include all people.


dax


I totally agree that a gay couple who are in a long term relationship should have the exact same legal rights as a married couple. That makes perfect logical sense to me. It just shouldnt be used to redifine marriage. It should just be a separate set of rights given to any group of people who are commited to one another, be it in a gay relationship, incestual, beastial, polygamous, etc...



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ImzadiDax
 


"What I do know is that I am not protected by the same laws that protect others. That when it comes down to it "we the people" doesnt always include all people."

I appreciate your position, but you are protected by the same laws and given the same rights. Marriage between a man and a women is available to all. Choosing something different does not mean that you aren't included. That may be a cold answer, but that is how it is in most states.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Another point I want to make is the inclusion of "love" in the definition of marriage.

Who says that the two people have to love each other? There are many marriages for reasons other than love.

So the robot thing I don't get.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


His influence is very limited compared to what it was in the past. 20 years ago he had a vast following, but today?

There are plenty of more powerful and influential people out there who are far more dangerous and threatening on both sides of the spectrum.

Dick Cheney and Al Gore both make Robertson look like a flea on a dog.
Nothing more than a nuissance.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 




The only thing you have provided is another person's opinion of what the Bible says about homosexuality. Nothing proved or disproved there.


Several people in this thread kept saying that the Bible condemns homosexuality. It clearly does not. This is to show that it is Pat Robertson's opinion. In his mind, homosexuality is wrong. In his warped mind, he thinks that gay marriage will lead to legalizing child abuse.

The only thing slippery about this is his argument.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join