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

reply to post by Avenginggecko


The issue is if you all want the right to marry as you please ...why would you exclude people who wanted to marry a brother or sister ...many women .or an animal ..
And how do you know an animal would not consent to a marriage with his owner ...I mean they love their owners and they certainly enjoy the sex I bet just like you do with your significant other ..........

I just want to know why you dont believe they should have the same rights as you ?

And as many have said here in these posts ...if we do change the laws it will HAVE TO INCLUDE them too ...because then they would be the minority with no rights as you have all said you have been .......which would not be fair now would it ?

Originally posted by Mulberry
reply to post by jfj123

 

Pat robertson is correct on this one, Peter thatchell the homosexual activist want to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex to 14 years of age.

www.petertatchell.net...


if you read the article thatchell wants to go even lower to the crimal age of responsiblity of 10 years old and he agrees with the the concept of older men having sex with young boys as beneifical and good for them both.

There are always extremists for everything. But one or even a handful of extremists doesn't mean this is how the entire population thinks.

How homosexuality is different from beastiality:

An animal is not evolved/designed to have sexual intercourse with a human being. The act is torture to the animal, and is a form of animal cruelty. Whereas, with homosexuality, consent can be given and homosexual sex can be enjoyable for both parties.

Furthermore, an animal is unable to consent in any way to marriage with a human being.

How homosexuality is different from incest:

Incestuous reproduction has been shown to result in abnormally high occurrences of birth defects. While some studies refute those claims, there is still a strong suspicion that it can be harmful to future offspring.

Realistically speaking, if you look at the vast majority of incestuous relationships, it is not a consensual relationship between two adults. More often than not, one of the subjects is merely a victim of sexual abuse and rape. Barring all of that, if an adult male has some odd desire to sleep with his consenting father, then who are we to say "You aren't allowed to do that because it grosses me out?"

Contrast this with homosexuality, in which two consenting partners form a loving and consensual relationship that does not put future generations at risk of birth defects.

How homosexuality is different from child molestation:

I'm not sure how you can be blind enough not to see the difference here, but molesting a child is a crime. The child is victimized against their will by the molester. A molested child will often grow up with serious psychological issues and stands a good chance of never living a full and healthy life.

Two people of the same gender having a consensual relationship causes none of those problems. The difference between gay marriage and child molestation is victimization.



It kind of makes me cringe a bit, to think that you people actually needed all of that spelled out to you. It's a bit scary to think about how close-minded some of you folks must be. Open your eyes up a bit, and learn how to love your fellow human beings instead of attempting to assert your "superior" world view over them.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage


LOL, I edit stuff all the time for spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, logic mistakes, etc.. but I have never edited something just because it might offend someone. I doesnt bother me to offend people.

I will admit however that on other threads I have deleted entire posts where I said something that was over the top and directed at someone. However, I always mark those with something to the point of "Edited, because I need to act like an adult."

But this is a conspiracy site so I guess you can make a conspiracy out of it if you want. I would be honored if I had my own folder of conspiracies about me and my post edits.

reply to post by Avenginggecko


[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.]

They deserve the same rights to happiness etc as anyone else ...right or wrong ? They have chosen a lifestyle that some do not approve of ..as did you ....what is the difference ? you tell me ...

We may not like it ....but hey who are we to tell them how to live their life ..wouldnt you agree ?



[edit on 18-5-2009 by Simplynoone]

Originally posted by ImzadiDax

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.

♥

Personally, I am not saying that gay people are child molestors or support them or that the wrath of God is going to befall us (but that would be kind of cool if he came down and spanked all of us ). All I am saying is that by making marriage redifinable we all make it possible for other groups to make their idea of marriage possible, even ideas that you disagree with.

Gay people are just people that happen to be gay. They are not vile in any way in my opinion.

Originally posted by Simplynoone
reply to post by Avenginggecko

 

[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.]

They deserve the same rights to happiness etc as anyone else ...right or wrong ? They have chosen a lifestyle that some do not approve of ..as did you ....what is the difference ? you tell me ...

We may not like it ....but hey who are we to tell them how to live their life ..wouldnt you agree ?



[edit on 18-5-2009 by Simplynoone]

I dont understand you. Are you intentionally stirring the pot because its fun or because you truly believe gay marriage is equal to... beastiality, molestation and the marrying of cars? I am trying not to take this personally so I ask. Thank you.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Personally, I am not saying that gay people are child molestors or support them or that the wrath of God is going to befall us (but that would be kind of cool if he came down and spanked all of us

). All I am saying is that by making marriage redifinable we all make it possible for other groups to make their idea of marriage possible, even ideas that you disagree with.

Gay people are just people that happen to be gay. They are not vile in any way in my opinion.

I appriciate you not slamming me. Big hugs to you.

But I have to ask.. wasnt marriage redefined to allow inter-racial couples to marry?

I am not trying to attack anyone, I am struggling to understand.

Originally posted by Mulberry
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Do you know peter thatchel do know how powerful he is and YES I do believe that majority of homoexuals want to sleep with kids,

Let's clarify what you've just said. You indicate that you believe the majority of homosexuals want to sleep with same sex children. Following that logic, you are also saying that heterosexuals must want to sleep with opposite sex children. This being said, assuming you are a man, do you want to sleep with a little girl? I mean if your logic works for one, it must work for the other for it to be valid right?

why is thatchell pushing for this. he wants it and wants it bad. Also I Have had homosexuals and lesbains say this to my face they want to lower the age of consent to 10 years old.

My personal opinion is that this is made up. I doubt anyone would admit to you that they are child molesters or want to become child molesters which is what you've just indicated.

reply to post by mattifikation


Seriously are you kidding me ....
Males with males are not technically evolved to fit either ..neither is a female to female ..prove to me that animals do not enjoy the sex and that it is harmful to them in anyway whatsoever ? And I am sure they would be consenting once the human arroused them ......if they could talk ..I am pretty sure they would consent ...dont you think ?


And as far as incest ..it would harm future generations with children yes ..but male to male and female to female cannot even concieve so that is even worse really ...

And molesting I did not even mention so lets leave that out ..
I just made mention that years ago marriage at a young age was acceptable ...it isnt now ..dont know why they couldnt be allowed the same rights as you and I .......(except that maybe teens in our generation are not as mature as they used to be when they had to grow up quick and run homes etc) but you know maybe just maybe we should change it back ..we have seriously lazy kids these days who dont leave home even at the age of 20 ..or 30 or 40 yrs old ...(lol)

As far as incest people being molested as a child etc ...so have alot of homosexuals and heterosexuals (as I was as well) ....which COULD be one of the main reasons why there are so many sexual perversions INCLUDING homosexuality ........so why dont we just leave this one alone for now too .
(PS people molest because of sexual desires out of control and anyone is capable of this act ) .....................





[edit on 18-5-2009 by Simplynoone]

Originally posted by mattifikation
How homosexuality is different from beastiality:

An animal is not evolved/designed to have sexual intercourse with a human being. The act is torture to the animal, and is a form of animal cruelty. Whereas, with homosexuality, consent can be given and homosexual sex can be enjoyable for both parties.

Furthermore, an animal is unable to consent in any way to marriage with a human being.

How homosexuality is different from incest:

Incestuous reproduction has been shown to result in abnormally high occurrences of birth defects. While some studies refute those claims, there is still a strong suspicion that it can be harmful to future offspring.

Realistically speaking, if you look at the vast majority of incestuous relationships, it is not a consensual relationship between two adults. More often than not, one of the subjects is merely a victim of sexual abuse and rape. Barring all of that, if an adult male has some odd desire to sleep with his consenting father, then who are we to say "You aren't allowed to do that because it grosses me out?"

Contrast this with homosexuality, in which two consenting partners form a loving and consensual relationship that does not put future generations at risk of birth defects.

How homosexuality is different from child molestation:

I'm not sure how you can be blind enough not to see the difference here, but molesting a child is a crime. The child is victimized against their will by the molester. A molested child will often grow up with serious psychological issues and stands a good chance of never living a full and healthy life.

Two people of the same gender having a consensual relationship causes none of those problems. The difference between gay marriage and child molestation is victimization.

 

It kind of makes me cringe a bit, to think that you people actually needed all of that spelled out to you. It's a bit scary to think about how close-minded some of you folks must be. Open your eyes up a bit, and learn how to love your fellow human beings instead of attempting to assert your "superior" world view over them.

1. Well animals and humans do have sex so it must work out some way. How do you know it is torture for the animal...did it draw you a picture?
An animal doesnt need to give consent as it is someone property. Do you have to ask your car to drive you to the grocery store?

2. The man father example is a perfect one because it cant produce birth defects in offspring because there can be none. Seems to me that a father and his son who both consented to be in a relationship with one another and had no prior history of abuse between the two of them would be no different than any other gay couple.

3. Homosexuality is different from child abuse. No one said it wasnt.

Originally posted by Mulberry
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

hey he is goes even lower to 10 years old and this is in par with what i have been told. Ah Yes i have a problerm with homosexuality, i thnk itis not natual, but this is my opinion. So do not use that old chest nut, against me. I am free to have these opinions but if two people who are adults to do this disgusting behaviour so long as it not in in front of me then hey its there life, but when they are out to get kids there way, I NO NO, this is what the article adovocationg, now they are after our kids. Homoexuals want to adopt, childern nope sorry on your bike. By the way do yhou have kids.

read the article/s mate,

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion however when you make statements as fact, I do expect you to back it up. We want a reasonable, adult discussion here and if you can't do this, might I suggest you find another thread.

Please back up your statements with sources. Again, opinions are one thing but if you claim a statement as fact, I do ask that you back it up with a factual, legit source.

Thanks.

Originally posted by ImzadiDax

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Personally, I am not saying that gay people are child molestors or support them or that the wrath of God is going to befall us (but that would be kind of cool if he came down and spanked all of us

). All I am saying is that by making marriage redifinable we all make it possible for other groups to make their idea of marriage possible, even ideas that you disagree with.

Gay people are just people that happen to be gay. They are not vile in any way in my opinion.

I appriciate you not slamming me. Big hugs to you.

But I have to ask.. wasnt marriage redefined to allow inter-racial couples to marry?

I am not trying to attack anyone, I am struggling to understand.

No problem. I dont want to slam anyone or hurt peoples feelings.

To be honest, I dont know if marriage was redifined legally to include inter racial couples. If you say it was, then I believe you. I think if it was it still defined marriage in the sense of beng between a man and a woman and so therefore the basis of marriage did not change, just got to mix the paint a bit.

Originally posted by Simplynoone
reply to post by Avenginggecko

 

The issue is if you all want the right to marry as you please ...why would you exclude people who wanted to marry a brother or sister ...many women .or an animal ..
And how do you know an animal would not consent to a marriage with his owner ...I mean they love their owners and they certainly enjoy the sex I bet just like you do with your significant other ..........

I just want to know why you dont believe they should have the same rights as you ?

I think you glossed over the reason, and the example I gave to highlight the flaws in that line of logic. Like I stated before, none of those relationships are completely: adult, consentual, or harmless. They all stem from abuse of one party at the hands of another. Please refer to the controlled fire example I gave to show the flaw in that logic.

I'm sorry I just re read your post. Did you imply that a cat would enjoy having sex with a human? Do you find the thought of having sex with your animals appealing? Why on Earth would you think a cat would desire to have sex with a person? An animal cannot consent because it doesn't have the intellectual capacity or ability to reason. It may love its owner, but it doesn't have the ability to understand abstract human concepts or do anything but submit to the domination of its human owner.

I have clearly and completely stated why and how all of those other situations are different, and I've gone a step further to illustrate how the logic in the counter argument is flawed.

And as many have said here in these posts ...if we do change the laws it will HAVE TO INCLUDE them too ...because then they would be the minority with no rights as you have all said you have been .......which would not be fair now would it ?

So, when the courts finally struck down laws barring interracial marriage in the 60s, were you protesting the fact that now we'll have legalize every type of subgroup? Interracial couples are, after all, a subgroup that hasn't been in the traditional definition of marriage. They've only been allowed to marry in the past 40 years!

Can you explain why all subgroups haven't been included in marriage, even though interracial couples were allowed to 40 years ago? By your logic the government should have allowed beastial marriages because they would "have to include them too."

So, if you please, "Why is it legal for a white man to marry a black woman, but I can't marry a horse?"

When you are able to answer that, you'll understand why the current argument against homosexuals is incorrect.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Avenginggecko]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude


No problem. I dont want to slam anyone or hurt peoples feelings.

To be honest, I dont know if marriage was redifined legally to include inter racial couples. If you say it was, then I believe you. I think if it was it still defined marriage in the sense of beng between a man and a woman and so therefore the basis of marriage did not change, just got to mix the paint a bit.

No, I honestly dont know that it was. I apologize if that came arcoss as a statement thatn a question. That is my bad. Maybe it was just thru legaleze it was changed.

reply to post by Simplynoone

if we do change the laws it will HAVE TO INCLUDE them too

Then why is being gay legal and none of the above are? Still no one has shown how the acceptance of homosexuality has led to the acceptance of any of these subgroups.

reply to post by Avenginggecko

So, if you please, "Why is it legal for a white man to marry a black woman, but I can't marry a horse?"

When you are able to answer that, you'll understand why the current argument against homosexuals is incorrect.

I think what some of us are saying is that if you are going to make marriage redifinable, meaning changing the basic argument of one man married to one woman, then society should allow you to marry your horse. So I think you should be happy now that we believe you should be able to marry your horse.


[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

[edit on 5/18/2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by Simplynoone


No, I want to know if YOU are kidding ME. You want me to prove that animals don't like being abused? That's the kind of crap your argument is based around? Give me a break.

I suppose you also think I need to prove that toddlers don't like being diddled before I claim that child molestation is non-consensual?

Animals can't consent to sex because they can't TALK, genius.

reply to post by mattifikation


You cant say for sure it is abuse. Animals can communicate by their actions and sounds. If you are with a horse and it gives you the same indication that it is ready as it would a male horse then that is its way of communicating its willingness to participate.

reply to post by Mulberry


Ok here is what the article says
The opening tag line:

OutRage! advocates an age of consent of 14 for everyone, both gay and straight. PETER TATCHELL argues that young people have a right to make their own sexual choices without being victimised by the law.

This only states sexual choices for young people. So far so good.

These under-age lesbians and gays, and their partners, are treated as criminals by the law. Consenting lesbian sex with a girl under 16 is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

The maximum sentence for consensual gay male sex with a boy under 16 is ten years for touching, kissing, XXXking or XXXking, and life imprisonment for anal sex.

These penalties apply where one partner is under 16 and the other is over 16, and also where both partners are below the age of 16. This legal barbarism doesn't protect young people; it victimises them.

So far the implication of the article is regarding consensual sex between young people.

The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, which interviewed nearly 19,000 men and women in 1990-91, is the most comprehensive sex research ever conducted in Britain. It found that half of those questioned - which included both gay and straight - had their first sexual experience (not necessarily intercourse) before the age of 16, mostly after the age of l4.

This evidence spurred OutRage! to launch a new campaign "to reduce the age of consent to l4 for everyone, both gay and straight", arguing that "l4 is more realistic than 16, and much fairer".

Here the implication is that we're still talking about consensual sex between young people.

Already, 20 European countries have ages of consent lower than l6. The minimum age is effectively l2 in the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Malta. It's 14 in Slovenia, Iceland, Montenegro, Serbia, Italy, San Marino, Albania and, in certain circumstances, Germany. All these laws apply equally to hetero and homo sex.

The introduction of these comparatively low ages of consent has not increased the sexual abuse of young people. They have adequate protection through the laws against rape and indecent assault.

Now here it starts to discuss what the protections are for young people against older individuals.

Lowering the age of consent in Britain to l4 would cut dramatically the current criminalisation of young people involved in consenting sex.

Once again the article talks about consensual sex between young people.

In a recent example of this type of prosecution, Donna Allen was imprisoned for two years. At the age of 18, she'd had sex with her 13 year old her girlfriend. It was accepted in court that the young girl was a willing party to the sexual activities, which occurred in the context of a year-long relationship. On appeal last November, the sentence was reduced to l5 months.

Here's an example of the age ranges the courts have heard.

This article is obviously about restructuring laws for consenting young people and NOT about young people having sex with older adults but maybe I missed something. If I did, please post what you're referring to from the article and cite your source.
My source is your article.