Video: 'Pro-family.' Rhetorically.
**COMPARE WITH: Pro-family. Truly.
Some answers, Pat.
1.) "What's the difference between homosexuality and polygomy?"
-Polygomy is not a marriage between TWO, CONSENTING, ADULTS. It's the marriage of many consenting adults - the "many" bit has some SERIOUS, POSSIBLE civil (not religious or moral) consequences (not consequences of only the bad type, either, jus changes to be considered). And you know what? If in some amount of time people's opinions change regarding polygomy, I hope laws change with an understanding or an outlook many don't currently have now. My biggest objection to polygomy is simply that it has some serious negative impacts on things like social security, pensions, insurance, etc. I believe one is enough for all, gay and straight alike. That's just my view though. And it has NOTHING to do with personal religion/"moral" beliefs. More of a structured financial confusion.
2.) "What about beasiality?" Well Pat, unless your dog has an opposable thumb, and a human brain, with a voicebox, and a desire to marry you, I don't think beasiality really is a concern. Two consenting adults are not the same as a consenting adult and an animal.
3.) "What about child molestation and pedophilia?" Hmm, so when did a child (half the equation in this "example") become a "consenting adult"? When did anyone (outside of the crazies at NAMBLA) want to change the civil, legal and beneficial on all level concepts that a child is a.) a child b.) not legally allowed to sign a contract (which a marriage is)? If they are worried about child molestation when it comes to marriage, how about raising awareness about child brides and setting stricter laws regarding when a child can be married with parental concent? Start somewhere that MATTERS.
Further, there is a victim in child molestation. There is no "victim" in gay marriage/gay stable normal relationships. Abuse is not equivilent to homosexuality, by ANY means.
Posted by: Stef | May 7, 2009 9:23:56 PM
Pat Robertson is such a sack of crap! He was around when anti-miscegenation laws were being overturned, and if there were video of him back then then I would fully expect that his sorry ass was saying exactly the same thing. When laws outlawing homosexuality were overturned the religiots said exactly the same thing, and they have used that stupid slippery slope argument for 75 years.
If there was any validity to the stupid argument, then EVERYTHING that they have predicted would have already slid down the slope. And they foolishly believe that no one can draw that conclusion.
Posted by: Dick Mills | May 7, 2009 9:33:18 PM
"Polygamy was outlawed because of biblical standards."
Is he kidding??!! What a weak and dishonest argument. Has he really read the Bible?
Posted by: Rick | May 8, 2009 8:35:40 AM
Your arguments against this insanity are excellent!
Posted by: Keith Rupp | May 8, 2009 9:55:07 AM
If these people can't tell the difference between what two consenting adults do and animal-f*****g, I don't think I'd ever ask one of them to watch my cat next time I go out of town.
Posted by: Stojef | May 8, 2009 10:43:05 AM
no shit rick! the bible was is riddled with polygamy. pat is a liar AND a nutjob.
Posted by: c-freak | May 8, 2009 12:11:41 PMcomments powered by Disqus