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: 15
15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pabama
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.


You are right. If I were to marry a man I could be protected again under the same rights as most everyone else. I dont choose to be a lesbian, I have always been. I am who god has made me. Maybe I am a hethen and dont deserve the protection. Maybe I dont deserve life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. I dont know. I wish it was a clear cut issue.

But what I do think is a clear cut issue is that giving me rights is not the same as incest or a man marrying his father. That doesnt make sense to me.

I am not trying to change anyones mind on this issue, just give a little insight is all.





posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



It seemed that the thread was a Robertson bashing thread, deciding he is merely a hate-monger instead of considering the argument.

Many people considered the argument, debunked it, and many have not addressed this. Where have you been?

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

It’s not logical and I already refuted it, you’ve just ignored this because you have no argument that will counter mine with anything substantial, next.

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.
[
Wrong again. You’re making an argument that specifically hinges on gay marriage, which is only redefining the gender clause, but you have yet to show how that one thing can lead to any other inclusive marriage. There is no evidence that this slippery slope exist, only evidence that it does not.


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

That’s ridiculous; two consenting adults who are not related have nothing to do with either of the following whatsoever. There are a lot of subgroups in society. Different subgroups are not automatically relatable just because you claim they are. There has to be a link between them.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Why do people insist on proving homosexuality is a sin based on the Bible? That's not point, first of all. Even if it is a sin- it's no worse than any other. In fact, if you're looking for the (in theory) biggest sins- take a look at the Ten Commandments. Not there-at least not directly. The fact that we all sin makes us equal- that's the great thing about religion. Or at least it should be...



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


I suppose you haven't truly read it or study it. If you won't try to understand, then what can I do?

This has been covered many times on ATS.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 




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.


No, the whole point of this thread is that Pat Robertson thinks that gay marriage will lead to legalizing child abuse.

I do not understand how you can not see how absurd the argument is.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Pabama
 



Another point I want to make is the inclusion of "love" in the definition of marriage.


Love is already included in how people see marriage, that doesn't mean that the law recognizes this now or will with gay marriage. Please show me where one state that allows gay marriage includes love in the law.

By the way why include "religion" in marriage? Our law is suppose to be secular and two atheist can marry whoever they want long as they are straight.

I think a greater slippery slope possibility would come from denying people's rights based on religious grounds, Robertson is quite right, take out the religion and then the arguments that are substantial against gay marriage simply fall away. It's the same reason the government takes religion out of many other secular decisions.


[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


You havent refuted anything about how making marriage redifinable does not eventually lead to redifining it to fit any sub groups view that they should also have the same rights to marriage. If I missed your point please explain again, because I have read this and it hasnt been refuted. I am willing to listen so please take this opportunity to sway my thinking to your line of reason. If anyone refuses to listen to anything but their view, it is the group of people on this thread who refuse to acknowledge the FACT that once marriage becomes redifinable it will be continually redefined to fit any number of sub groups view they should have a legal right to marry who or what they want.

I find it amazing that you could be offeneded that I can make a case that incest, polygamy, etc should be legal if all participants are over 18. So I guess the definition of marriage should be limited to what you view acceptable, but what others view as acceptable is just some irrational psychobabble. So your idea of morality is correct and everyone elses is wrong. How does that make you any different then Pat Robertson?

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



You havent refuted anything about how making marriage redifinable does not eventually lead to redifining it to fit any sub groups view that they should also have the same rights to marriage.

Oh really, so care to name a society in our history that has allowed the following because of gay marriage? Care to name one that has accepted bestiality or molestation because of gay marriage?

the FACT that once marriage becomes redifinable it will be continually redefined to fit any number of sub groups

This is not a fact. Please prove this with actual evidence and not just your ranting.
AGAIN: You’re making an argument that specifically hinges on gay marriage, which is only redefining the gender clause, but you have yet to show how that one thing can lead to any other inclusive marriage. There is no evidence that this slippery slope exist, only evidence that it does not.
Two consenting adults who are not related have nothing to do with either of the following whatsoever. There are a lot of subgroups in society. Different subgroups are not automatically relatable just because you claim they are. There has to be a link between them

So I guess the definition of marriage should be limited to what you view acceptable, but what others view as acceptable is just some irrational psychobabble.

I don’t find it offensive; I find it silly because there are no links to these subgroups, if you think there are please produce evidence.


[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ImzadiDax
 


"You are right. If I were to marry a man I could be protected again under the same rights as most everyone else. I dont choose to be a lesbian, I have always been. I am who god has made me. Maybe I am a hethen and dont deserve the protection. Maybe I dont deserve life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. I dont know. I wish it was a clear cut issue.

But what I do think is a clear cut issue is that giving me rights is not the same as incest or a man marrying his father. That doesnt make sense to me.

I am not trying to change anyones mind on this issue, just give a little insight is all."

I appreciate your position- and for the record- I agree- I don't think it's the same as incest, or loving objects, etc. I do, however, see a problem in the future, when technology can create machines that are like humans, who have distinctive abilities to make their own decisions.

Anyone who chooses to define you as a heathen simply based on your orientation is wrong. Everyone is equal in that we are all mortal, and we all sin. If someone thinks your orientation is a sin and therefore makes you a heathen, then we are all heathens, for sin is inevitable for all.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
The fact remains - other countries that have legalized gay marriage did not experience any such problem. I don't see Norway or Holland considering legalizing inter-species marriage or child molestation. Ironically, the countries that punish and condemn homosexuality are also the ones that allow 50 year old men to marry pre-teen girls.

It's an absolutely ridiculous argument that has no merit.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
[
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]


It is not illegal to be gay. It is illegal to engage in incest.

Apples and Oranges.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 




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.


No, the whole point of this thread is that Pat Robertson thinks that gay marriage will lead to legalizing child abuse.

I do not understand how you can not see how absurd the argument is.


Pat Robertson's argument isnt absurd. Once you allow marriage to be redifined then it can be redifined multiple times to become more and more inclusive. So in order of what could happen.
1. You remove marriage is between a man and a woman and get gay marriage.
2. Then you redifine it to take out the ONE word which leads to polygamy
3. Then you look at why incest is illegal and realize it doesnt make sense if a man marrys his father and no children can come from that union.
4. Then you remove the word human from the definition of marriage, and you get some perversions.. you know what i mean. These would include the right to marry property.. because why does property need to give its consent.
5. Then you remove the word adult from the definition. Then you have adults marrying children, which could logically be considered a form of child abuse.

It may not happen overnight.. but you open up the door to it happening by letting marriage be defined by the whims of society and its sub groups.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Originally posted by jsobecky
[
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]


It is not illegal to be gay. It is illegal to engage in incest.

Apples and Oranges.


It used to be illegal to be gay in some parts of the world, and i bet somewhere it is still illegal to be gay. So if you can change the law to allow it legal to be gay then you can change the law to allow incest to be legal. If we dont have a right to say someone can or cant be gay why should we have any right to say someone cant be in an incestual relationship as long as it is consentual between adults?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



Once you allow marriage to be redifined then it can be redifined multiple times to become more and more inclusive.

You seem to forget that marriage has been redefined throughout American history. Where have you been? Or perhaps you don’t understand what redefine means?


It may not happen overnight.. but you open up the door to it happening by letting marriage be defined by the whims of society and its sub groups.

Again, we are discussing one sub group of two consenting adults who are not related and you have yet to give us evidence that shows a link between them and the others. As another poster states, incest is illegal, child molestation is illegal, being gay is not. These are wildly different subgroups.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



It used to be illegal to be gay in some parts of the world, and i bet somewhere it is still illegal to be gay. So if you can change the law to allow it legal to be gay then you can change the law to allow incest to be legal.

So what if its still illegal in some places? Some places allow men to beat little girls. Legality does not automatically make something wrong or right. We're discussing America, in America it is legal. You seem to not understand that being gay is legal in America and yet incest is not, this proves your slippery slope argument is wrong.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude


You havent refuted anything about how making marriage redifinable does not eventually lead to redifining it to fit any sub groups view that they should also have the same rights to marriage.


These very same arguments were once offered up as reasons for not legalizing inter-racial marriages.

I'm not suggesting that you would have made those arguments against inter-racial marriage, just that people were concerned that allowing black and whites to marry was going to lead to all sorts of terrible things.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImzadiDax
You are right. If I were to marry a man I could be protected again under the same rights as most everyone else. I dont choose to be a lesbian, I have always been. I am who god has made me. Maybe I am a hethen and dont deserve the protection. Maybe I dont deserve life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. I dont know. I wish it was a clear cut issue.

But what I do think is a clear cut issue is that giving me rights is not the same as incest or a man marrying his father. That doesnt make sense to me.

I am not trying to change anyones mind on this issue, just give a little insight is all.



I dont think anyone in their right mind would say a person who is gay is a heathen or that you dont deserve some form of fairness under the law. Everyone deserves life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I would say that giving you rights to be married is no different to giving rights to a man and his father in an incestual relationship. Do they deserve less rights than you or to have less life, liberty, and happiness then you do. Could it not be possible that it is how God made them?

If we are going to open up marriage lets make it all inclusive. Why does that idea offend people that are for gay marriage? If it is changed to be inclusive for you then make it all inclusive. What right do you have to say what other people love is right or wrong? How does that make you any different from Pat Robertson who you say is evil and vile and disgusting?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



If we are going to open up marriage lets make it all inclusive. Why does that idea offend people that are for gay marriage? If it is changed to be inclusive for you then make it all inclusive. What right do you have to say what other people love is right or wrong? How does that make you any different from Pat Robertson who you say is evil and vile and disgusting?


You’re ignoring the psychological issues with incest, bestiality, and child molestation. These all often stem from abusive situations, not “loving” relationships.

The issue here is not all inclusive marriage. It is allowing homosexuals to marry. The subgroups are not related, therefore there is no need for anyone to support the others while supporting one. There is absolutely no link between them other than that they are subgroups. That's why being gay is legal and accepted and many of the other subgroups are not legal, or accepted.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman


It is not illegal to be gay. It is illegal to engage in incest.

Apples and Oranges.


Why should it be illegal to engage in incest according to your line of thinking?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by Night Watchman


It is not illegal to be gay. It is illegal to engage in incest.

Apples and Oranges.


Why should it be illegal to engage in incest according to your line of thinking?


How is their line of thinking, that two consenting non-related adults should be able to marry, related to incest?

[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join