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

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123


Robertson's comments are both irrational and irresponsible. Unfortunately, this demented individual has a podium from which to speak and spew his hate speech. Although he has the legal right to say these things, the networks which run his show should seriously consider removing him.

How can any rational person link gay marriage to beastiality, child molestation, etc...

His statements promote hate and create divides between people so I thought it was important for everyone to see what kind of person he really is and what he'll do and say to achieve his agenda.

thinkprogress.org
(visit the link for the full news article)


I didn't see what was hateful about it. I think you are against the 1st amendment and want to take away free speech.





posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

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?




posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
After reading all the posts here on this topic it seems to me that you all support the freedom of speech only if you agree with it.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
All the irrational pastors make me think whether or not we created god in our image to do our bidding in our favor.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Well most members here know my view on the subject, so I am just going to come out and say it.

This man is an idiot, and should not be given a podium to spew his bigotry and hatred.

Fortunetly enough for him and us, the right to speak freely seems more abundant in politics and religion that any other platform on the planet, so kudos to him for speaking his beliefs.

He's still an idiot however.

Long live the love between two people, it's as true in nature as anybodys.

Edit To Add: After reading niteboy82's response a few times, I wish I could applaud mods.

~Keeper

[edit on 5/17/2009 by tothetenthpower]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

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...



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Though virtually no one realizes it now, gay marriage is strictly a population-specific issue. When human population eventually gets reduced to a lot lower than it is now, only then can there be logical-moral opposition to gay marriage due to purely biological need. Ol' Pistol Pat will be remembered as the sleaziest of the fundiecrats - or the longest living one.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
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



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
The fear of god is the beginning of understanding.

Need I say more?

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Deaf Alien]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
It is a strange logic to think that if anyone allows marriage between gays, it will lead to marriage between humans and dogs, or anything else.

I searched through google to see if there's an example of ANYONE wanting to marry anything other than human adults.

This is hilarious: www.foxnews.com...

Nevertheless, you will not find anyone wanting to do that.

It is logic that is slippery.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
You know, I wouldn't be very surprised if Mr. Robertson was a homosexual. He just seems to be trying too hard to convince his followers that he's anti-homosexual/same-sex marriage. IMO, it's very probable that he has his own skeletons in the closet. I don't really understand why else he would spew such idiotic rhetoric, other than to perhaps cover his own butt (no pun intended lol).


I can't fathom why people like Mr. Robertson can't just worry about their own life and not tell other people how to live theirs...



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
A lot of degeneration has taken place in this country in the last 50+ years. Though I am no fan of Mr. Roberts, I can certainly relate to the concept of degrading marriage as yet another step to opening the mind to more and more rationalized putrifications. However, in the 60s, there where people coming on the TV promoting "man / boy love association" and it's "wonderfulness and freedom". Never much of a discussion of it's criminal nature just that it was a "cry for freedom and rights". No questions such steps downward will lead to others evils being promoted. Sex is bestial, filthy behavior at best, far removed from true love but like a donut or the super bowl, often rationalized as love itself. Declaring one's relationship to be about the filthy exchange of body fluids is nearly the supreme ignorance irregardless of genders. Mr. Roberts is more likely on the vanguard of prepping society for coming rationalizations of degradation just as the Catholics vouched safe all perversions by authorizing them if purchased from the church.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tentickles
When will people learn that religion and politics is here to split us rather than bring us together like we should be.

Honestly... sometimes people assume they are better than others just because of some stupid little title they give themselves.

Everyone is equal.
Everyone must open their eyes.
Drop the ancient hates
and enjoy life!


That's only in a post modern world where church and state are idealized as separate.

In the Celtic Empire, the Druids were priests, apothecaries, attorneys, educators, and the law.



[edit on 17-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Sometimes, I can't believe the thoughts that get past his common sense filter. I feel sorry for the people that are in his flock. I once was, ever so long ago. Actually, he's the reason I jumped away from Christianity. Is there ever a single rational concept that comes out of this guys mouth?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReelView
Sex is bestial, filthy behavior at best, far removed from true love



Wow....

Really? Do you realize that psychological love evolved only AFTER sexuality emerged?

Bestial? Try HUMAN.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
He's a potentially very dangerous person.


You found some good info on PR to share.
I will disagree with you on this point...he HAS been a very dangerous person for years, not potentially. We are still living with his and his fellow fundamentalists' (Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Louis Sheldon, Tony Perkins) influence on American politics today.
Iraq? Wouldn't be there without his help in influencing Bush's own al Qaeda (base).



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I just don't see the connection between gay marriage to beastiality, pedophelia and child molestation.

Two consenting adults coming to a mutual agreement to start a life together is completely different from wanting to have sex with animals or sexually victimizing little kids. You cannot even put them in the same category.

PR is looking for connections that just don't exist and is doing nothing more than trying to peddle fear and intolerance. What scares me is that there are millions who actually buy his line of BS.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I am continually amazed that anyone takes Pat Robertson seriously about anything.





top topics
 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join