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

Originally posted by redhead57
In some ways I see these people as far more dangerous to our nation than any thug drug dealer on the street. Spreading hatred under the guise of religion is the lowest of the low and one of the most successful endeavors of fundies.

red, you are sooooo correct in your post.

PR's brand of religion, as well as many like him, had ITS "roots" in the 1800's American southern states (hence, Southern Baptist), who sought to justify slavery on the basis of the Bible, a religious institutional basis for the institution of slavery.
This conservative group DID gain political power, along with conservative Catholics and other conservative religious groups by the 1980's, with the election of Ronald Reagan. The Republican Party embraced this brand of religion as the third leg of their party, the social leg.

Who better to get to always vote your way, than a group who will be so staunch in their claims and beliefs that they will never change. A group with a ready made constituency, their flocks. A group already primed to lead the charge for supremacy!!

I saw many dear, good people look no further than the word "religion" to get on board with Robertson etal. They may not have supported ALL his beliefs, but they made donations of money and time to his organizations, all in the name of God.

reply to post by Albertarocks


Hey,

Don't feel bad, my friend.

It's just that I really think that Pat Robinson is making a crazy extrapolation here.

I understand why you don't have faith in humanity though.

I just like to think that on the whole we, as the masses, are good.

Ignorant - yes. Easily manipulated and led by the few - yes. Evil - no.

Keep smiling.

MGGG

Edit to add:

Pink...I agree that unfortunately gay people ARE fighting against persecution many many areas, and that makes me so, so sad for my homosexual friends.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by machinegun_go_go]

Well I will take a contrary point despite not liking it. What if there is some truth to what he says and it does lead to arguments he proposed? Will the same ones that say same sex marriage is okay allow for pedophiliacs and mixed marriages between people and animals?

On what grounds would they claim it to be wrong? Because it offends their view of what is moral and just? Because the child or dog, goat, dolphin does not have a voice? Is it because it is icky? There are some that see two guys or two girl kissing and find it offensive. They do not care that these two people love each other.

They voice their opposition according to their own feelings and beliefs. And the moment that your opinions step on the opinions of others is where problems begin. All too often it is easy to disparage what we dislike over holding value of another's opinion.

A good example is right here in this thread. Pat Robertson is demonized for his opinion, not much different than his comparison to homosexuality to bestiality if you think about it. I have had my share of what some may consider deviant behavior in my time so far be it for me to pick up a stone. Too bad Pat Robertson could not do the same. The question is if you can.

Originally posted by Albertarocks
Therefore, no matter what you think of Robertson, his prediction is not out of line.

It's not that they're necessarily out of line but simply put, they're wrong. This man believes god is talking directly to him, giving him this information. So when robertson is wrong, is god wrong? Or was god lying to robertson? Or is it that god never talked to robertson?

The reality is, people like robertson are dangerous. They believe completely that they are in effect, the right hand of god.

C'mon, 30 years ago you wouldn't even hear the work shyte on the TV. Nowadays, it's 'F' this and 'F' that, constantly. That alone show that society has indeed been spiraling downward when we're looking at morals... that's not even dabatable.

Sure you hear that on cable shows but typically not on standard tv as this is regulated.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
In many respects, political debates are like business negotiations or other bargains. Two or more sides take their initial positions, there is some bargaining and compromise, then a consensus is reached somewhere in the middle. When people like Pat Robertson take hard positions that are far away from a reasonable compromise, the final solution is going to be far away from a reasonable medium.

Yes, compromise is NEITHER caving in to one side NOR holding out until your side gets what it wants. When a political party aligns itself with a group ready made for hard positions, there will be trouble. PR's legacy can be seen today, with the continuing refusal to compromise in the way you state.

If you take hold of a skunk, no matter how hard you try to wash off the smell, you will stink for a time. Americans are still being treated to the whiff of unreasonableness.

That has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read in my life.
Seriously the man should be fired and frowned upon by society for the rest of his life.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Well I will take a contrary point despite not liking it. What if there is some truth to what he says and it does lead to arguments he proposed? Will the same ones that say same sex marriage is okay allow for pedophiliacs and mixed marriages between people and animals?

Simply put, it's not a reasonable comparison.
You're talking about 2 consenting adults versus non consent.
You're also talking about comparing gay people to pedophiles which is assuming they're the same type of people and they're not.
You're also assuming that reasonable people will refuse to draw the line between 2 women getting married versus somebody having sex with a Buffalo ????

On what grounds would they claim it to be wrong? Because it offends their view of what is moral and just? Because the child or dog, goat, dolphin does not have a voice? Is it because it is icky? There are some that see two guys or two girl kissing and find it offensive. They do not care that these two people love each other.

Again, simply not a reasonable comparison. And I guess you could say that some people find a man and a woman kissing to be offensive.

As an analogy:
The equivalent thinking is that we should ban fire crackers because they will start World War III.

I'd just like to post a quote from a friend of mine that explains why gay marriage should be alright.
This comes from a straight male by the way who is not homophobic but is more of a "It's cool if you're gay just don't hit on me" type of guy.

"If my parents, who absolutely hate each other now and pretty much did then can get married than why shouldn't these two guys who love each other be able too."

What's funny to me is 99% of the people who fight against gay marriage and pull the morals and religion card only care about their religion and their morals when this subject is brought up. Any other time drinking a beer or doing some drugs or doing something the bible or societies morals look down on is fine.

Ignorant people make me laugh and also make me feel almost sad to be apart of such a sad place.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Will the same ones that say same sex marriage is okay allow for pedophiliacs and mixed marriages between people and animals?

Marriage is between people of the age to consent to a marriage relationship.
The other types of relationships are not in any way a "marriage relationship".

From what I have observed in Life, I have observed two human beings entering into relationships where they are committed to each other, to provide security for each other emotionally, physically, mentally, sexually. The fact that some of these human beings were heterosexual or homosexual did not change this challenge of a marriage relationship.

Originally posted by machinegun_go_go
reply to post by Albertarocks

 

Hey,

Don't feel bad, my friend.

It's just that I really think that Pat Robinson is making a crazy extrapolation here.

I understand why you don't have faith in humanity though.

I just like to think that on the whole we, as the masses, are good.

Ignorant - yes. Easily manipulated and led by the few - yes. Evil - no.

Keep smiling.

MGGG

A sincere thanks for lettin' me off the hook man. Really, I don't want to be disliked because I face facts. I'm with you 100% in my craving to be able to have more faith in mankind. You keep smilin' too my friend. And tanks again!

The thing is, all of these things have gone on since the beginning...homosexuality is not the latest fad...it has always been around, its just that it was always hidden...people didn't openly express it. Funny, the world is still here...earthquakes, hurricanes, asteroids...whatever the natural disaster have always been a part of life on earth as well...to claim these happen as punishment is just silly. God said hate the sin not the sinner...it doesn't make sense to blame peoples actions for things that happen in nature! Pat likes to spout the Bible at everyone except himself, lest he would realize that he should be considered a false prophet as most of the crap he has spewed as predictions have come to nil... in my view he is one of the most judgemental humans I have ever seen! Oh the hypocrisy!

Robertson is just a crook who knows his audience. He is playing to ignorant old people with fear of death and declining IQ's.

I find him offensive, but no more so than rap music, Paris Hilton, etc. All are assaults on our values by people who only care about profits.

reply to post by Albertarocks


I like your discussion of this theory (would make its own good thread, applied to many other topics).

And, I get what your saying about the theory applied to this topic. And, I hope I'm not wrong in saying that you seem to be offering a theory, not agreeing with Pat R per say. Or, did I miss read?

Anyway, I'm going with the Pat R is wrong. He makes me sick most of the time, and I'm not talking about his religion. I prefer tolerance and understanding and loath faulty logic and hypocrisy.

Pat Robertson is not a Christian. He's a money making potion peddler and his followers are often too stupid to know it. Why anyone gives any credence to what this blowhard has to say is beyond me. He's no different than the extremist Mullah's in the Middle East chanting "Death to America".

reply to post by Ahabstar


Equating beastiality to homosexuality is just stupid first of all...second of all no it wouldn't be the same.I think both you and i can distinguish between such things? paedophiles? eh? two consenting adults = paedophiles? as for beastiality which you mentioned i dont think there should be a law for such things,if some dude wants to have a relationship with a donkey let him for christs sake..too much interference thats the problem from both liberals and conservatives..you all want a piece of the pie yet say you dont just to gain some brownie points.

Thanks everyone for your quality posts !

I know tackling religious issues can be a bit tricky so thanks for keeping it sane and civil !!

reply to post by jfj123


WRONG.

The pending law specifically protecting various perversions including pedophilia

AGAINST HATE CRIMES

while specifically exempting Christians from such protection

is a case in point.

Robertson says some hasty things on occasion.

However, I find him a LOT more constructive and rational than I find OThuga & crew.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by jfj123

 

WRONG.

The pending law specifically protecting various perversions including pedophilia

AGAINST HATE CRIMES

while specifically exempting Christians from such protection

is a case in point.

Robertson says some hasty things on occasion.

However, I find him a LOT more constructive and rational than I find OThuga & crew.

Please provide a legit source for this that shows that pedophilia will be protected under law.
Thank you.

Reading his quotes and false prophesies, seems like he says a lot of hasty things.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123


I didn't read all the posts in this thread, in fact, as you can see I am responding to yours which is the OP.

--

Gay men and women need a reality check, as does the far right, imo. It's so easy to get angry and screech at the idea that someone is going to see gay marriage as a downward spiral to pedophilia.

I'd urge people not to get angry and look at this for what it is (propaganda of the worst kind = hatred), but I know that not all would see it this way. It's unfortunate, but it is the way it goes. You will have "liberals" screaming and you will have "conservatives" screaming. The higher powers have mercy on these misguided souls, as neither of them are right because they fail to see the reality outside of their one-sided reality experience.

I'm perhaps the harshest, yet most lenient critic of propaganda of this kind, as I have personally seen ideas via u2u's that I have shared with members today that made me think "outside the box." A brief background, I have worked with, and reported for, the most far "left" pro-gay rights proponents in the field.

*If you're not capable of forming your own viewpoint, please read no further, as it will intensify your viewpoint at the detriment of another...*

Pat Robertson, and also people like Shawn Gaylord, Martha Langmuir, et al I have viewpoints that are unfortunately dissimilar yet equal in the idea that they all work for the cause that is the opposite of the other.

I used to believe that one or the other (or both) were fighting for a "middle ground" that we could eventually reach through bickering back and forth. Unfortunately, after becoming more aware of the situation that we are put in as Americans specifically, yet as humans nationwide, is that once again we are forced to take a side. :shk:

A very important idea was put out earlier in a thread by Jsobecky, on why can't there be a "civil union" that takes the place of marriage for a gay partnership.

Why? Because that would make sense. It would alleviate the problematic debate of a few decades in one quick political maneuver. Yet that would kill off monetary assets on either side that are proponents of such changes.

Wow do I wish it wasn't this way, but seeing both sides of this, and trying to remain on the outside while existing in life through the inside makes me very angry. Civil unions, equal in rights to marriage, will finish it off.

And to all the non-gay supporters of this "marriage," why on earth would we want to be a party to something that has oppressed homosexuals for so long. While I would like to believe that marriage can exist outside the religious institution, I don't believe it currently can. Can it be about the equal rights, and start from somewhere? Your cause for equal rights with this marriage deal are keeping the rest of us that just want something behind.

I found this to be an interesting response to robertson's poor prediction skills and how it could effect things.

It would be easy to dismiss Robertson’s predictions as harmless musings if he weren’t so influential. Here is a man who not only claims to speak for God, but also has a hand on some powerful politicians and millions of faithful viewers.

His comment this year that the United States only “feigns friendship with Israel” and is driving that country towards “national suicide” could easily impact international relations in the Middle East.

All of this may seem wacky, but we need to keep tabs on Robertson’s freaky fortunetelling because it says much about him. Mainly, that he’s wrong about so many things. Robertson is more than just a lousy weather forecaster. He’s also wrong about U.S. history when he attacks church-state separation, and he’s wrong about our Constitution when he says America is a “Christian nation.”

blog.au.org...

He's a potentially very dangerous person.