Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 16
15
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Marriage has been defined and redefined throughout the ages. It predates recorded history. In Rome and Greece, neither religion nor government were tied to it. In some cultures, polygamy is considered normal. Others have entirely different definitions of what a "child" is. If marriage were truly unable to be "changed" from traditional practices, then today we wouldn't even be able to pick our own spouses!

In times past, marriages have been used as business contracts, treaties between nations, and arrangements of servitude or ownership. Some cultures have even believed that marriage and romance where incompatible. So you bible guys are right about one thing: You can't change the definition of marriage. That's because the definition is so fluid and ambiguous to begin with.

The real problem is Christians who think their definition and tradition of marriage is the only one that exists. Of course, we can expect little more from folks who wear the Bible Blinders... but we can demand that they let other people choose to live the lifestyles they want, so long as no harm is done to others.

All these people whining about the "sanctity of marriage" and "changing the definition of marriage" need to put the Bible down and read an accurate, historical reference book on the subject. You would be surprised at exactly what has constituted marriage and what it's meant throughout the ages. I'm willing to wager that everything you've come to believe about the history of marriage is wrong.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by mattifikation]




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


He is the one who brought up that being gay is legal and commiting incest is illegal so why dont you ask him what it has to do with this topic. I was just making the point that why should one be legal and the other not since he decided to make it part of the discussion.

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


He is the one who brought up that being gay is legal and commiting incest is illegal so why dont you ask him what it has to do with this topic. I was just making the point that why should one be legal and the other not?


He brought it up because someone was claiming that the two relate when they do not. They were pointing out that it truly is apples and oranges.

As for your point, I've already addressed this, please respond to my counter argument.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Maybe I am missing something. I did not see your counter argument. Could you please give it to me in a nutshell?

Incest and gay marriage only relate in the sense that if you are going to make gay marriage legal why shoudnt other forms of marriage be legal as well?

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


My bad I did miss your points. Sorry about that.

Ok so my answer to that is if you are going to make gay marriage legal why shouldnt people be allowed to marry anyway they want? If you are removing one limit on marriage why not remove them all?

Who are you to decide what the definition of marriage is? Under your realm of thinking then any limit on it would be a form of hate and ignorance against whatever groups you dont allow to marry? What moral or logical authority do you have to tell someone who or what they can marry? How are you different than Pat Robertson by not letting other groups marry?

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



Incest and gay marriage only relate in the sense that if you are going to make gay marriage legal why shoudnt other forms of marriage be legal as well?

That’s not a relation at all, that’s a question you’re asking, that doesn’t make either of this groups related.
Again:
1. You’re ignoring the psychological issues with incest.
2. 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.



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



If you are removing one limit on marriage why not remove them all?


For the same reasons that being gay is legal and incest is not. Please read up on incest, bestiality, and child molestation laws. There are reasons for why they are illegal and they do not relate to gay marriage.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 




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?


There may not be societies that legalized bestiality or molestation because of gay marriage, but there are societies that allow these perversions because of how they decided to re-define marriage.

That is what justsomeboreddude is saying. Once you decide to re-define it, what are the limits? Why is your re-definition any better than somebody else's?

Leave 'gay' out of the argument for a moment while you ponder that, and you will se that he has a perfectly logical argument.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


I could also make the case that being gay used to be considered a mental illness, so whose to say other forms of love wont become considered normal just as homosexuality has.

Incest between consenting adults is no more damaging then any other relationship they could have? How could it be? Its consentual betwee adults.

You are correct the sub groups are not related. They dont need to be related at all. Once you make marriage redifinable then any sub group can come along ON ITS OWN and fight for their rights to be married just as homosexuals have done. Tell me how they cant?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
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?



I have to agree with justsomeboreddude and would love to hear an explanation as to why incestious marriages animal human marriages,child marriages etc should not have the same rights to marry as anyone else ?


[edit on 18-5-2009 by Simplynoone]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 



there are societies that allow these perversions because of how they decided to re-define marriage

Okay, so please show us the society and evidence that redefining marriage between homosexuals causes this perversion.

what are the limits?

Since being gay is legal and many of the other things listed are not the limit it pretty clear.

Leave 'gay' out of the argument for a moment while you ponder that, and you will se that he has a perfectly logical argument.

Not really this argument could be applied to any rights ever given to a subgroup, it has to have evidence supporting it’s claims to show that it has merit.




[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Watchman
 



Originally posted by Night Watchman
It is not illegal to be gay. It is illegal to engage in incest.

Apples and Oranges.


Step outside of the box for once. Ask yourself this:

Why is incest illegal?

Then answer me why a man cannot marry his father.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



I could also make the case that being gay used to be considered a mental illness, so whose to say other forms of love wont become considered normal just as homosexuality has.

Yes, before people had a better understanding of gays and their mental state. APA.org should help explain this to you.
The other groups are not considered normal now, what psychological evidence would lead you to think they will be? Gays are normal because of evidence, again the subgroups are not related, what evidence do you have for the others?

Incest between consenting adults is no more damaging then any other relationship they could have?

You don’t know anything about incest and emotional abuse. Please educate yourself, google is your friend.

They dont need to be related at all.

Actually they do, you’re just claiming this because you know you can’t show any evidence that they are.

Tell me how they cant?

You have yet to explain how they can. Two consenting adults who are not related has not led to any such thing in the other countries or states where it is legal. There is clearly a distinction between gay marriage and what you’re proposing.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage

Yes, before people had a better understanding of gays and their mental state. APA.org should help explain this to you.
The other groups are not considered normal now, what psychological evidence would lead you to think they will be? Gays are normal because of evidence, again the subgroups are not related, what evidence do you have for the others?


I am sure I could make a case why it is not insane to be in love with your relatives, your dog, your ink pen.. whatever. I bet I could even use the basis of why they decided being gay was not a mental illness. Not that I am saying that being gay ever was a mental illness.


Incest between consenting adults is no more damaging then any other relationship they could have?

How could it be any more damaging if both parties are adults and consent. They had to both choose to be in the relationship. It is only damaging when it is forced upon you like rape.

The sub groups dont have to be related at all. What you seem to not understand is that instead of the argument being for gay marriage it could just have well been for polygamy or incestual marriage, etc... The gay movement just has more political clout and are better organized, so they got to the table first. The basic idea of redifining marriage to please one sub group is no different.

Are you saying you are against polygamy, incestual marriage, beastial marriage, etc? Under what grounds?

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by jsobecky
 



there are societies that allow these perversions because of how they decided to re-define marriage

Okay, so please show us the society and evidence that redefining marriage between homosexuals causes this perversion.


I never said there was a link between the two. I said that they existed because of re-definition of marriage.



what are the limits?


Since being gay is legal and many of the other things listed are not the limit it pretty clear.


Leave 'gay' out of the argument for a moment while you ponder that, and you will se that he has a perfectly logical argument.


Not really this argument could be applied to any rights ever given to a subgroup, it has to have evidence supporting it’s claims to show that it has merit.


You keep bringing 'sub-groups' into the discussion. Gay is also a sub-group. What makes it so special that we should include it and not all sub-groups?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



I am sure I could make a case why it is not insane to be in love with your relatives, your dog, your ink pen.. whatever.

Doesn’t matter what case you make, you’re not a psychologist and you haven’t done any research.

How could it be any more damaging if both parties are adults and consent.

Clearly you should not be arguing this case if you do not understand the psychological arguments against incest, please educate yourself and come back, I don’t have time to be your teacher, I’m debating a slippery slope issue with you, this thread is not about debating the psychological harm of incest.

What you seem to not understand is that instead of the argument being for gay marriage it could just have well been for polygamy or incestual marriage, etc...

Again, you don’t understand that since the arguments are not related, and the groups, this is irrelevant. Because if we were talking about a different subgroup then we would be discussing an entirely different argument, with entirely different situations and people.

The gay movement just have more political clout and are better organized.

Please produce evidence that this is why gay marriage is taken more seriously.

Are you saying you are against polygamy, incestual marriage, beastial marriage, etc? Under what grounds?

I am, and I will enjoy this debate in a U2U or other thread. I’ve already stated why I am against the following, I’m tired of repeating myself with you, this is not a debate about those subgroups, and the debate is about comparing and linking them to gay marriage, which you have been unable to do.




[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 




I never said there was a link between the two. I said that they existed because of re-definition of marriage.

Then your point is irrelevant, because we’re discussing gay marriage here. But I’m still willing to see you post evidence that a society’s issues or slippery slopes have been directly linked to redefining marriage. What about the societies that did better because of redefining marriage? Can it only go one way in your head?

You keep bringing 'sub-groups' into the discussion. Gay is also a sub-group. What makes it so special that we should include it and not all sub-groups?

I didn’t bring subgroups into this, another poster did. I’ve already explained this, the subgroups are not related, and 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.

For the same reasons that being gay is legal and incest, bestiality, child molestation is not. Please read up on incest, bestiality, and child molestation laws. There are reasons for why they are illegal and they do not relate to why homosexuality is legal.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


They are only linked by the concept that if you make marriage redifinable then over time it can be defined to allow marriage between various forms of subgroups of people just like it is being redifined to allow marriage between the sub group of homosexuals.

I do find it very Pat Robertson of you to say that you are for some forms of marriage but you are against other forms of marriage. How is what you say any different than what he says? How are you any better qualified than Pat Robertson to say who or what a person should be able to marry?

I guess that means you HATE people that are in incestual, polygamist, beastial, etc relationships. So it is alright to hate some groups of people, but not to hate others? Is that what you are saying?
[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 




They are only linked by the concept that if you make marriage redifinable then over time it can be defined to allow marriage between various forms of subgroups of people just like it is being redifined to allow marriage between the sub group of homosexuals.

Again, there’s no evidence to support your conclusion, so it is just an opinion with no merit.

I do find it very Pat Robertson of you to say that you are for some forms of marriage but you are against other forms of marriage. How is what you say any different than what he says?

Please compare my statement with Robertson’s; they are not at all alike. Comparing gay marriage to marriages between children and child molesters is in no way comparable to me stating that I am against humans marrying animals, sons marrying fathers, and multiple people marrying because of psychological studies. My position actually has merit, Robertson's comes out of thin air.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 




They are only linked by the concept that if you make marriage redifinable then over time it can be defined to allow marriage between various forms of subgroups of people just like it is being redifined to allow marriage between the sub group of homosexuals.

Again, there’s no evidence to support your conclusion, so it is just an opinion with no merit.

I do find it very Pat Robertson of you to say that you are for some forms of marriage but you are against other forms of marriage. How is what you say any different than what he says?

Please compare my statement with Robertson’s; they are not at all alike. Comparing gay marriage to marriages between children and child molesters is in no way comparable to me stating that I am against humans marrying animals, sons marrying fathers, and multiple people marrying because of psychological studies. My position actually has merit, Robertson's comes out of thin air.


It is comparable in the sense that you support some forms of marriage, but you deny other forms of marriage based on your own perception of what is right and wrong, which is EXACTLY what Pat Robertson is doing. He just goes one step further than you and includes gay marriage as being wrong too.






top topics



 
15
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join