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

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

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



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,


We're not discussing opinions, we're discussing facts and evidence. Facts and evidence actually support my position. I realize you have trouble understanding this since you have made several claims that you refuse to back up with evidence. Stop ignoring the parts of my post that point out your nonsensical opinion, stop accusing gays of this and that and then ignoring when I call you on it. I don't intend on keeping up this discussion if you keep doing that or keep ignoring when I address it.




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 




I would like to hear from YOU why they should be illegal and why not grant them the same rights as everyone else ?....As yall have said millions of times ..IT IS NOBODIES BUSINESS who you choose to FALL IN LOVE with and want to make as your WIFE or Husband ..(and I agree with you on that ) .....................

But seriously .....
If a GROWN adult falls in love with his sister or mother or aunt ...and wanted to make it right by marriage what is wrong with that ? In your opinion ? and how is it different than a homosexuals right to marry ?
If a GROWN ADULT likes sex with animals and wants to make it right by marrying them what is the big deal ?What is the difference in your rights and theirs ?
If a GROWN adult wants to marry a 12 year old (in some states and countries 12 is the age of consent ..actually even as young as 9 in some countries)..What is wrong with that ?what is the difference in your rights and theirs ?

And what is wrong with a man marrying many wifes ? (personally I dont see why that is a problem at all ) ..........what about their rights to do what they think is right ?


I personally do not care who does what to whom ....since this is a secular world the secular peoples are gonna do whatever they want anyway ...so I personally have nothing to gain or lose on this issue either way ...



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Simplynoone
 



I would like to hear from YOU why they should be illegal and why not grant them the same rights as everyone else ?.

I've already stated why. This thread is not for that discussion. U2U me or point me to a different thread where we can discuss it.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



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,


We're not discussing opinions, we're discussing facts and evidence. Facts and evidence actually support my position. I realize you have trouble understanding this since you have made several claims that you refuse to back up with evidence. Stop ignoring the parts of my post that point out your nonsensical opinion, stop accusing gays of this and that and then ignoring when I call you on it. I don't intend on keeping up this discussion if you keep doing that or keep ignoring when I address it.


I have given just as many facts and evidence as you have. I have not accused gays of anything. If I have, please point out where I have and I will apologize, because I dont have anythng against gay people and therefore would not want to offend them in any way. I have answered your questions to the best of my ability. If I have not, show where I have not and I will do my best to give you answers. You might have trouble understanding them, but I will answer none the less.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
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?


Please supply specific examples of societies that did better because of redefinition of marriage to include gays.



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.


And by the same token, that is not a reason to exclude them from marriage.



That's why being gay is legal and accepted and many of the other subgroups are not legal, or accepted.


No, it isn't why being gay is legal.
It used to be illegal to be gay. The law changed. Why cannot other laws change?



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.


The fact that incest etc. are illegal is irrelevant. Laws can be changed.

I don't think a cow can be emotionally harmed if you had sex with it. Of course I could be wrong. How could you tell if it was?


[edit on 18-5-2009 by jsobecky]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



I have given just as many facts and evidence as you have.

You haven’t given any. You’re the one trying to support a claim, remember? It’s your job to produce evidence and make it one of merit.

I have not accused gays of anything.

This is what you stated to me:

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

I think you edited it out of your post though, among other statements, how sneaky of you. We’re done. Have a nice life.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I think that I have to take a moment here and state for the record that I do not condone bestiality, incest, child molestation, or any of the other deviations being discussed here. I am using them for discussion purposes only; this is what supporters of gay marriage will face if they ever make it to court. So, get used to it. If you cannot make a strong case here, you will lose your court case.

It's silly that I have to state this, but there are some who will say "Oh, jso supports such and such, blah blah blah".

And I don't want to speak for justsomeboreddude, but I'll bet he feels much the same.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 



Please supply specific examples of societies that did better because of redefinition of marriage to include gays.

Didn’t say gay marriage, I said redefining marriage, you’re the one who wanted to discuss that irrelevancy, I don’t actually think the two should be related for we are discussing gay marriage but I thought I might as well ask the question since you seem to think redefining is only a bad thing. In America redefining it between people of all races was very progressive. Now, please post evidence that a society’s issues or slippery slopes have been directly linked to redefining marriage.



And by the same token, that is not a reason to exclude them from marriage.

Where is this same token? I don’t see it, please explain in-depth.

Why cannot other laws change?

Never said it couldn’t, but it won’t be because of gays, obviously being gay is legal and the other things are not so there is no reason to think gay acceptance leads to other acceptance there is simply no evidence or link.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
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.


The key here is consenting.

An animal cant give consent to such a marriage for they have no voice.

A child ( under 16, tho I think that should be 18) can not give consent for they have laws to protect them.

My mom and my ex-husband got married 3 moths after my divorce... tho that is seen as status quo? Seems like incest to me. But they were consenting 'adults'.

I will say again, just because I want to marry my g/f of 13 years does not make me a child molester nor a supporter of such a vile individual. It does not open up other apocolypic possibilities. Its fear mongering at it best.




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
This guy could be right. If you think about it, many things that are being practiced today were considered almost taboo 100 years ago. For example, not believing God or being gay in the 1800's would spark outrage( in Europe ) just as pedophilia does today. This man is not trying to single out gays, he's just trying to say that as we advance in technology, we come to allowing more and more things. Same with punishment, hundreds of years ago, burning at the stake or public executions were the norm but now we have become less strict. It would not surprise me if in the next 100 years, laws are starting to be passed (in the west) where men can have sex with under aged girls (if the girls consent to it). I am not singling out one group here, but just trying to get a point across. So if men can marry men then why can't they marry animals? I mean you could say its unnatural and against nature (public perception) but so was being gay hundred years ago.

[edit on 18/5/09 by influx.destruction]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Simplynoone
 


If you could do me the favor of showing why and how homosexuals are similar to beastiality, incest, or child molesters, I would greatly appreciate it.

Homosexual marriage is about two unrelated adults whom mutually give consent to enter into a binding legal contract.

None of those other groups consist of unrelated, consenting adults.

Can you offer any proof that any country that legalized same-sex marriage has also legalized or is in the process of legalizing incest, beastiality, or child molestation due specifically to the fact that marriage now includes homosexuals? They don't because all those other subgroups consist of abusive relationships with harmful results.

Here's a hypothetical example to illuminate why that argument is flawed:

The Forest Service has the ability to start controlled fires. In the 60s the Federal government granted Fire Departments the ability to start controlled fires. Now, if the Forest Service and the Fire Departments can start controlled fires, why can't the FAA, the Labor Department, the Medicare Program, or the Railroad Retirement Board? They are all government agencies, right? If Fire Departments are allowed to start fires instead of prevent them, then what's to stop the government from letting every agency start controlled fires?

Just because Group A has traditionally performed Action X, and then Group B comes along and is able to perform Action X, does not mean all other Groups will suddenly be allowed to perform Action X.

Besides, what is the traditional definition of marriage? Hasn't it been that a family betroths their daughter to a male's family in order to increase both families' overall wealth?

Hasn't it been traditional to buy and sell the lives of children into marriage? Does not the Bible specifically state that the woman must submit to the domination of the man? Wasn't interracial marriage banned in many US states up until the 60s?

So is the definition of "traditional marriage" that we use today really only 40 to 50 years old? How funny that many people supporting "traditional marriage" are older than what they consider tradition.




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by influx.destruction
 



This man is not trying to single out gays

Um, you know nothing about him. Read some of his quotes that have been posted.

As for taboo, around a hundred years ago I could legally marry a twelve year old and that was more common then some are aware of. Is it common now? No. If anything marrying younger people has become less acceptable.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


I will answer you, but right now I need to take a break. It is that all-important time here on the East Coast --- suppertime!



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


I will answer you, but right now I need to take a break. It is that all-important time here on the East Coast --- suppertime!


No problem, enjoy your supper.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   


"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve," said Falwell, appearing yesterday on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," hosted by Robertson.

"Jerry, that's my feeling," Robertson responded. "I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population."

Falwell said the American Civil Liberties Union has "got to take a lot of blame for this," again winning Robertson's agreement: "Well, yes."


tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com...

We must not forget where fear mongering has taken us before.



*edit to add link I forgot*

[edit on 18-5-2009 by ImzadiDax]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 



I have given just as many facts and evidence as you have.

You haven’t given any. You’re the one trying to support a claim, remember? It’s your job to produce evidence and make it one of merit.

I have not accused gays of anything.

This is what you stated to me:

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

I think you edited it out of your post though, among other statements, how sneaky of you. We’re done. Have a nice life.


Oh I thought we were both supporting a claim. How wrong of me.


When did it become an insult to say that someone has political clout and are more organized than other groups of people. I guess it that is an insult I apologize to the gay community, leaders of corporations, and Martha Stewart. And... I didnt remove it from my post. It is still there. So no sneakiness on my part. I wouldnt remove something unless it deviated from my point.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


People on this forum are not stupid. They do know that you can go back and re-edit something again. Just letting you know this for other debates, you won't get away with it. *sigh*



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Thanks jsobecky. You are correct. I do not support incest, beastiality, etc... I am just saying that when you make marriage redifinable then you open it up to allow these groups to also marry. Thanks for pointing that out for me.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ImzadiDax
 




We must not forget where fear mongering has taken us before


And that’s exactly what this is, fear mongering plain and simple. The saddest part is not the mongering, it’s that people actually assume that it is more than that and cling to such ignorance. It doesn’t matter what you do, doesn’t matter that some places have had gay marriage or unions for ten years and the sky isn’t falling. There will always be an excuse for why this argument makes sense when it doesn’t.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 



Finally, as we document in our book, the long history in Scandinavia with registered partnerships has seen some benefits accrue to the institution. Not only have long-standing trends in lower marriage rates / greater divorce rates / greater numbers of out-of wedlock births reversed themselves or stabilized, but same-sex unions have also proven themselves to keep relationships stronger, strengthen families, protect children, promote tolerance, and possibly lead to benefits on a national scale such as lower national rates of STD and HIV infections.


Source

Just wanted to show you how gay marriage has benefited a country that has legalized it (I believe you asked for proof it has affected a society in a positive way).





top topics
 
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join