It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Reply To Mulberry

I will quote direcly from the article, since you seem incapable.


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, sucking or wanking, 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.


Where does it say adults? Where does it say above 20?

Here's more for you.


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 14.


Again no mention of adults.


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.


Huh, notice the bold part?


the Netherlands, freer and franker attitudes towards teenage sex, together with a strong emphasis on the right of young people to control their own bodies, has led to greater sexual wisdom and responsibility. Although Dutch youths are legally allowed to have sex from the age of 12, on average they choose to have their first sexual experience at a slightly later age than their British counterparts.


Wow, so much for the UK eh?


Most significantly, the Dutch rate of pregnancies and abortions in girls under l6 is less than one-seventh of the rate in Britain. This suggests that empowering young people with legal rights and sexual information is the best way to protect them.


Another interesting piece of information, shall we go on?


My new research shows that in England and Wales during l994 a total of 84 males aged lO-17 were arrested and cautioned for the predominantly consensual and gay offences of buggery, indecency between males, soliciting, and indecency with a person under l4 (ten of the 32 cautioned for the latter offence were themselves below the age of l4). For the same four offences, a further 38 males under the age of l8 were prosecuted, 39 convicted, and six given custodial sentences.*


10 to 17, do you see that? Does that scream adult to you?


For this reason, OutRage! is proposing an element of flexibility in the age of consent: "sex involving young people under l4 should not be prosecuted, providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages". A mutually agreed relationship between a l2 year old and a 15 year old, for example, would not result in legal action. Flexibility in the age of consent already exists, to varying degrees, in German, Swiss and Israeli law.


Notice the bold part once again, does that scream adults sleeping with kids? I think not.

So...all in all that's what was presented as fact in the article, I don't see once instance of them advocating child molestation?

Do any other members here see that?

Thanks for playing friend.

~Keeper






[edit on 5/17/2009 by tothetenthpower]

[edit on 5/17/2009 by tothetenthpower]




posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 




I am not a big Pat Robertson fan, but I think he is right. Once you start using the logic of a person doesnt choose who they are in love with or people are born to love a certain way then you open up a whole can of worms.


How is that logical? This is between TWO CONSENTING HUMAN ADULTS.

How does this lead to marriage between two NON CONSENTING people? How does this lead to marriage between HUMANS and NON HUMANS?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 




You do ah you said it not me, you said you were a homosexual not me. Your defending thatchel because you of his ilk, its like a newly converted christian or a marixist historian, or an orientalist, every one has their agenda, including me.


by the way i dispise any one who advocates messing with kids, and uses poor polemics and sohistory to do so.


[edit on 17-5-2009 by Mulberry]

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Mulberry]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Mulberry
 


There is no reason for you to insult people in this thread. Perhaps you should start your own discussion of this article you are so upset about. I love how straight people seem to know all about all gay people because "I know a couple and they told me..."

Just like there are straight pedophiles there are gay ones, there are sick men that desire little girls just like there are sick men that desire little boys. So sorry but there are plenty of disgusting things done all over the world by straight people, heard of rape????

You are insulting a very nice person that has done nothing but attempted to reason with you, that is not what ats is about.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Mulberry
 




You do ah you said it not me, you said you were a homosexual not me.


Huh? Where did I say I was a homosexual?

The rest I cannot understand, sorry.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 



oops sorry if i said you was i thought hey i am having mulitpile people defending this sicko thatchell



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


It will because right now you say marriage has to be between two consenting individuals, but you could also make the case it could be between 3, 4, 5, etc.. consenting individuals. Also, you could make a case that an animal is your property and so therefore you dont need to legally have its consent. Just because right now it is defined as being between consentual partners doesnt mean the definition cannot be changed. It has been defined as being between a man and a woman for centuries, so if you can change that definition to be between a man and a woman, or a woman and a woman, or a man and a man... then certainly it could later be changed to whatever becomes socially acceptable.

Marriage was never meant to be a government related thing. It was meant to be a covenant between a man and a woman and God. I think they should just create Civil Unions for the government needs and allow it for who or whatever wants to use it. They should separate out marriage as being just a religious institution, but they will still find a way to mess that up by forming a bunch of religions just to justify it so I guess it doesnt matter. Basically, marriage doesnt mean anything anymore. I guess it is just anoter tradition we should all let die because we choose to let it mean nothing.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Mulberry
 


It's no problem.

Still, the logic is flawed.

This is between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS.

Pat Robertson is a homophobic and is a homosexual himself. Nothing less and nothing more.

Like I said in other post, he fears his god and his homosexuality so much he thought he had to speak out and had to come up with outrageous claims to appease his god.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

ATTENTION:



The insults and personal attacks stop NOW.

Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Please stick to the topic at hand and refrain from attacking fellow members. Civility and decorum are considered a hallmark of ATS. Adherence to this request is expected.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


This makes perfect sense and is obvious to anyone that takes the time to read it. For a child of 16 to get a criminal charge for a relationship with a child of 15 for instance is ridiculous.

The Judeo-Christian ethic has made a mess of the world with all of its nasty little dirty ideas. The information presented clearly shows that if we give young people education and a bit of respect and not keep dirty secrets from them much of the rebellion and curiosity is gone.

You know how in Europe wine is often served to the family with dinner and it is nothing, and the alcoholism rate is nothing compared to over here where kids are old enough to vote and die in fake wars but can't get a damn beer. REally! Same principle.

[edit on 5/17/2009 by redhead57]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Consent is the law. Whether or not the age of consent will change in the future or actually different in the past, that is not the point. The age of consent is 18 (or 16 or 17 in some states). That will not change any time soon.

Regardless, THIS WILL NOT LEAD TO NON CONSENTING MARRIAGES or to MARRIAGES BETWEEN HUMANS AND ANIMALS.

The logic is flawed. Pat Robertson is an homophobic and an homosexual. He fears his own homosexuality. PERIOD. He, and his own ilk and others, will do anything, absence of reason and logic, come with anything to prevent it.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by redhead57
 


yeah your very much correct, I had a friend who is 17 and is now a registered sex offender because he was having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend.

It's truly ridiculous.

~Keeper



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mulberry
reply to post by GeeGee
 



yeah if i had my way i put them up the wall and shoot them, but hey i cannot and thank you for the slur, i guess if you cannot defeat the argument slagg off the messenger, now the homosexuals are after the kids, want legalise going after boys, calling girls at the age of 10 women, nah i am not allowing that.

If you guys want to do want you want to do when your over 18 hey so long as its not in my back yard and so long as you do not want to targe the kids, do want you want, but guys are moving on to terrority where you are not wanted and people will get really mad if start messing with kids


Your first sentence has disqualified you from having any kind of rational argument. You have manipulated words to suit your own purpose. There is no argument to refute here since you've totally misinterpreted the article.



[edit on 17-5-2009 by GeeGee]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GeeGee
 


Thank you guys for the support, but I will be taking my leave for the evening.

Debating this issue and being *snipped* upon has very much upset me and I am quite hurt by what has transpired on this topic today.

I am off to meditate my sadness away and kiss my children good night.

On the topic the article is clear in it's meaning.


~Keeper

[edit on 5/17/2009 by tothetenthpower]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Consent is the law. Whether or not the age of consent will change in the future or actually different in the past, that is not the point. The age of consent is 18 (or 16 or 17 in some states). That will not change any time soon.

Regardless, THIS WILL NOT LEAD TO NON CONSENTING MARRIAGES or to MARRIAGES BETWEEN HUMANS AND ANIMALS.

The logic is flawed. Pat Robertson is an homophobic and an homosexual. He fears his own homosexuality. PERIOD. He, and his own ilk and others, will do anything, absence of reason and logic, come with anything to prevent it.


Consent is the law now, but anything can be changed. I dont know if it will go as far as pedophilia but I do think that it will go as far as polygamy and beastiality. As far as the age of consent changing later rather that sooner does it really matter. If 100 years from now it leads to an adult marrying a 10 year old, it is still wrong.

I think if they allow homosexual marriage then they should allow marriage to anything. How can we say someone was born attracted to the same sex, and say someone couldnt be born attracted to an animal or a tree or a candlestick?

I am pretty sure I was born to be married to multiple women. Everytime I go out I see like 3 or 4 more women I would like to be married to.


[edit on 5/17/2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Just to answer one last post,

It's called Objectophelia, people who are attracted to objects like pens and books it's quite fascinating actually.

But what your saying doesn't really apply friend, you've left out common sense in the equation.

~Keeper



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Just to answer one last post,

It's called Objectophelia, people who are attracted to objects like pens and books it's quite fascinating actually.

But what your saying doesn't really apply friend, you've left out common sense in the equation.

~Keeper


How does it not apply. The logic for allowing marriage between homosexuals is that they were born that way so it should be allowed. So why should we stop someone from marrying their pet or their ink pen if they were attracted to that sort of thing since birth? The logic is simple. Can you explain how my logic is wrong?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


God made the link. But you are right ....He is not a rational person.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 10:18 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.



I don't agree at all with what Robertson says but why should the networks seriously consider removing him? Keith Olbermann spewed just as much hate against Carrie Prejean during that whole ordeal. He laughed at her, made fun of her, and basically his message was if you didn't agree with same sex marriage then there was something wrong with you, as in you are defective.

Please tell me why the message of the two men is different - not by content, obviously I understand the differences there, but why should one be allowed to go on preaching his hate on network TV while you think another should be silenced? Is it because you disagree with his opinion on same-sex marriage in the first place or because he has taken the argument to such extreme and irrational conclusions? I urge you to think before you respond.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join