Pat Robertson: Gay marriage is 'the beginning in a long downward slide' to legalized child molesta, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times


reply posted on 17-5-2009 @ 05:59 PM by 31337
Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by jfj123


I will never support the man or what he believes, but will support his right to say such.


Yadi yadi yadi. How many times has this been said? If you don't agree with what the man said its "hate" speech, if you do agree then all the sudden you are the enemy.

Quite Frankly all this hate speech is bull. Different races, sexual orientations, genders getting "special" status. That is also Bull. having to put in a disclaimer saying "oh I don't agree with what he says" that is cowardly and pathetic. Just come on and say it. You are all no better then that joke of a person, one Perez Hilton, who can't even come up with an unique name.

I applaud him for his position regardless of how right or wrong he or his followers are and you the reader of this post may think he is. In short who cares what he says? none of you seem to care what Perez said about that person from California, none of you seem to care about what Obama says or what anybody else says, so why care what he says?




reply posted on 17-5-2009 @ 06:16 PM by Albertarocks
Originally posted by Pamie
reply to post by Albertarocks


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


Thanks! Yes the Elliott Wave Theory is fascinating. And I agree, it might be a very interesting thread on its own merits. I don't have a clue though, how many people would be interested in it.

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?


Thanks again, for saying that. You are correct that I'm only offering a theory. To be very honest I'm not really familiar with Pat Robertson or his beliefs or sayings. I don't live in the USA so I'm not as exposed to news about him. What I am proposing is that the obvious downhill spiral that we see in the morals of society are following a pattern. These events were predicted with a certain degree of accuracy by Bob Prechter himself many years ago. Again, it really only boils down to the wave structure. There is indeed some substance to its predictive value.

This interesting wave study is based in part on the Fibonacci sequence which is seen throughout nature. For example, an unfettered growth of a population of rabbits follows the Fib. sequence. The shape of a spiraling conch shell, the shape of fern plants and indeed the shapes of trees themselves, the way branches spiral around the trunk (in some trees)... and on and on. It's fascinating. So when applied to the stock markets, in effect it's a study of the mass psychology of the participants in the stock markets. And it applies to the behavior of humanity.

Thanks for giving my post enough thought, rather than jumping to the wrong conclusion. I'm really a nice guy, I assure you...


reply posted on 17-5-2009 @ 06:25 PM by Ahabstar
It would seem my point was lost.

I am not comparing the two things.

I am stating that people should be able to state their opinion. It is fine that you do not agree, but there is no need to attack the person.

We can argue the morality of what ever is the line in deviant sexual behavior. But ultimately it is up to the individual to determine what is acceptable and what is not.

Drawing from my own experiences, I am sure Pat Robertson is perfectly okay with my heterosexuality. However he would more or less disapprove of the time I had sex on a public beach during the day time and would be aghast that I have had sex on stage during a play in front of an audience without their knowledge because it was not in the foreground nor near the focus of the scene.

The question that Pat Robertson raises isn't really a comparison either but an argument of where to draw the line. He could have just as easily said that legalizing gay marriage could open the door to legalizing rape, incest or simply being able to walk around with your penis hanging out...which would not have as shocking of an impact of what he originally said.

Heck he could have said it because he is tired of hearing Fred Phelps saying that he is soft on gays.

Ultimately I am for whatever floats a person's boat. But even I say that gay marriage is too bit of a hot topic right now for people as a whole to accept the idea. In time sure, but ramrodding the issue isn't the best way of getting results. Which is why I stated in the very first sentence that I would take the opposite stance despite not liking it.


reply posted on 17-5-2009 @ 06:28 PM by Twilly
reply to post by jfj123



His point is, if you allow marriage between anyone other than a man and a woman, than why should it not also be legal for a man to marry 2 woman? Or how about 3 woman getting married? You get the point.

I do believe that this is a slippery slope, and at the bottom of the slope will be a guy trying to marry his 3 year old son or daughter... Or his dog.


reply posted on 17-5-2009 @ 06:34 PM by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Twilly


There's a flaw in your logic.

You are assuming that eventually it would trickle down to more devient types of laws being passed?

That's not true, for gay marriage or marriage in itself is between two consenting ADULTS. In our society meaning western, we do not allow children to get married or for people to marry animals, not because the population decided it was wrong, but because on a moral human basis, at the fundemental level, that kind of thing would be wrong.

It's an excuse given when people refuse to see the real meaning of the issue. It's not about marriage, it's not about hurting the moral fabric of America, it's about America keeping it's promise as being the best country on the planet. Where everybody has the same rights as everybody else regardless of what they do or what kind of behaviour they display, within the law ofcourse.

I suggest everybody read Niteboys post on page two, it gives a clear and well thought out answer as to why things are the way they are. The other side does not want a solution and some on the pro-gay side want one either.

Some people simply want to argue semantics for ever. There is always one person who wants to make a fuss and see the world burn. You end this issue and there is alot of money that will stop exchanging hands, that's the real issue behind Gay marriage.

~Keeper
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 19 days ago with 277 member flags
Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 15 days ago with 122 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 18 days ago with 86 member flags
Denver Airport Allows Camera Crew in Underground Facility
  Posted 17 days ago with 83 member flags
10 People Whose Warnings Went Unheeded
  Posted 3 days ago with 77 member flags