May 08, 2009

Pat Robertson - religious bigot

When asked about the five states that have now decided to let people have equal rights under the law by legalizing same sex marriage, the religious hate spewing bigot Pat Robertson never fails to make a giant fuckhead out of himself....

"You got polygamy out there. How can we rule that polygamy is illegal when you say that homosexual marriage is legal. What is it about polygamy that's different? Well, polygamy was outlawed because it was considered immoral according to biblical standards. But if we take biblical standards away in homosexuality, what about the other?

"And what about bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia? How can we criminalize these things and at the same time have constitutional amendments allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals. You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent."


Point 1 - Polygamy has as much to do with legalizing same sex marriage as it does with heterosexual marriage. That is, nothing at all. Marriage is a legal government sanctioned institution between two people. A large component of this is health insurance through employers. There is no movement to legalize polygamy, and there most likely never will be. Corporate America is certainly not going to be interested in the ramifications of legalizing polygamy.

Point 2 - What Bible is Pat reading? The Bible I've read has NO PROBLEM at all with polygamy. It's actually the most common form of marriage in the bible and is consistently condoned by God.
Point 3 - Bringing up bestiality and child molestation is an argument about same sex marriage just shows how INSANELY stupid you are. Pat is a jackass.

Point 4 - Was giving women the right to vote "the beginning of a long downward slide"? How about civil rights and ending segregation? What downward slide did that start? And yes, the Bible was used to justify keeping those discriminatory practices in play as well.

Pat Robertson is a hateful, evil, egotistical maniac. And the saddest part is that he is a millionaire with legions of followers all too willing to open their pocketbooks to support his mission of lies and hatred.


giggles said...

I posted about this topic when Rick Warren was asked to pray at Obama's innaug... way back in December, I think....when I was first getting started. If ya wanna go look....cuz as my dad is well versed in the bible, he wrote a little discussion paper on the topic which I used extensively in my post.... Since I don't use the linky-link things, or key words in my posts.... I called it "About that Rick Warren Thang..." If you're interested, if ya hadn't read it yet.

These blowhards are fucktards.

Lemmy Caution said...

I actually remember reading that post of yours. I will have to find it and check it out again, but I do remember seeing it. That might have been the post that made me add your blog to my google reader come to think of it.

Sherry said...

he gets more hateful with age and i still think he's laughing at his followers all the way to the bank.

Actionman said...

Fuck you, Pat.

themom said...

What is he, about 105 by now. Can't he just go away? He only angers me - as most of these evangelicals do (it's a shame I have them in my family). They want to dictate the world's morals - not happening here Bub!

Utah Savage said...

Pat Robertson and his ilk are so closely aligned with Muslim fundies. They are all Nazi nuts.

Justine said...

I just substituted my name for Pat's, because we have the same views, and concluded that yinz really don't like me very much. Well, it was fun while it lasted. :) Enjoy your hatefest.

Lemmy Caution said...

I'm have specifically said in the past that you disagree with exactly what Pat is saying here. Did you change your mind?

Justine said...

I have said I disagree with what you *think* I think. I do not think bestiality and pedophilia are the same as homosexuality, and neither does Pat. His point, and mine, is that once you change the definition of marriage from it's traditional meaning--one that is derived from the very nature of who men and women are--then you cannot justify outlawing ANY kind of behavior.

Maybe I can explain it to you better by having you first define the term "marriage" for me. What do you believe "marriage" is?

Lemmy Caution said...

There is no "traditional meaning" as you call it. The most common form of marriage in the Bible (condoned and accepted by God) is polygamy. The definition of marriage has gone through many changes over the centuries.

To you…Marriage is religious and Christian and all the morals and ideals that go along with that. That’s fine.

BUT....and here is the important part: What we are talking about HERE is marriage and RIGHTS as assigned by the government.

Marriage is a legal institution that is recognized and licensed by the government. With that license you receive special rights and privileges.

In the United States, we believe that you can't give rights to two people and deny them to two other people based on who they love.

That's discrimination.

Now...if you want to argue that the Government should GET OUT of the marriage business altogether and keep it as a religious institution.....well that's one thing.

But you can't apply religious discriminatory dogma to a government institution. That is against the law and goes against the entire idea of equality for everyone.

Is there a list of rights that you think gays should and shouldn’t have? Should they be denied housing as well? What about Food Stamps? Public education? Why is the government institution of marriage fine for them to be denied access to, but not others?

Justine said...

I should probably rephrase what I was asking you (sorry, I was not very clear).

If you were to draft a law defining what marriage is, how would you define it? I'm pretty sure there are things you believe marriage is NOT (like it's not a union between a man and a lamp) so what do you think it IS? I'm serious here--I think it's important for me to understand your definition of marriage.

CynDe said...

No it's not the union between a man and a lamp but I saw something on TV the other night about the relationship a man was having with his neighbor's patio table that has the hole in the center sans umbrella!

Justine said...

Well, if the patio table said it loved him, should they be allowed to get married?

CynDe said...

The guy was arrested on multiple counts of various types of lewdness - or possibly polygamy - with inanimate objects on neighbors' patios. I don't know of any lamps he banged.

Lemmy Caution said...

If you were to draft a law defining what marriage is, how would you define it?A legal agreement between two people entitling them to special rights (living wills, medical benefits, insurance, tax breaks, etc) as a couple.


Justine said...

Clarify "people". An eight year old and 50 year old?

Lemmy Caution said...

Consenting adults. Thought that would have been obvious. Guess not!

Justine said...

Or two platonic friends? Can two widows who still have boyfriends apply for these special rights to save money?

Justine said...

I'm trying to get you to be as precise as possible. Include what you think is obvious. (I'm going somewhere with this, I promise.)

Lemmy Caution said...

Two consenting adults willing to enter into the institution of marriage.

Their reasons are none of our buisness.

You don't REALLY believe that everyone currently getting married is doing it all for pure reasons, do you?

CynDe said...

Hey L.C. - check this out from Bill O'Reilly...

Justine said...

The existing definition of marriage is (was?) "One consenting man and a consenting woman, both of age, freed of any pre-existing impediments, who are willing to enter into the institution." This is the Christian (but not limited to Christianity) understanding that the framers of the Constitution were operating with when our system of government was forged. (It was a definition carried over from Britain, but you know all this, I assume.)

But now you and others, having declared all members of past and present generations who hold this understanding to be bigoted "blowharding fucktards," desire to simplify this definition to "Two consenting adults willing to enter into the institution of marriage."

OK, so let's say we do. We change laws, pass amendments, do whatever we need to do to make sure two people, regardless of gender, are free to marry each other and guaranteed the same rights and privileges across the board.

Then one day, Mr. Mormon and his two lady friends decide they want to get married. We, of course, say NO WAY, that's crazy! Only two people can marry each other in our country. And if they ask "Why?" we can point to our laws and say, "Because that's what's written."

But Mr. and future Mrs. Mormons aren't happy with that law and feel very discriminated against because they all love each other very much and feel they are being denied their rights. They know that the only reason the law limits marriage to two people is because of a popular vote, so they know they can change that number to three, if only they get enough votes in their favor.

Thankfully for them, the numbers of polygamist Mormons have soared over the past years (this is hypothetical) and they have members in key positions in media and government. They run a successful campaign against the traditionalist blowharding bigoted fucktards who would dare deny them their rights, and the laws are now amended to read "Any number of consenting adults of age who desire into the institution of marriage."

OK, so everyone is happy now, for a little while anyway. At some point employers will start to get fed up with having to pay out benefits to their employees who have married everyone in their frat house, and jails will have to rethink their visiting hours policies when all 17 married gang members legally can't be denied access to inmates. But I'm sure they'll figure out a way to cope.

Then one day along comes the president of NAMBLA, with the slogan "Eight is too late" printed on his t-shirt and challenges the "of age" clause. He saw what doors the phrase "bigoted blowharding fucktards" opened for others in the past, and embarks on a similar campaign. What a nightmare. How ever did we get to this point?!

Yes, these situations are extremes, but I'm trying to illustrate the potential scenarios that could unfold if your definition of marriage is not based in something solid. Popular vote is shifting sand.

I know you, Lemmy, believe there should be certain restrictions on marriage (limited to only two, and "of age") but it is naive to think that man made laws are enough to prevent the legal institution of marriage from completely disintegrating and eventually having no meaning at all.

The only definition of marriage that makes sense is one rooted in the truth of our human natures. There is no biology book that denies that it takes one male sperm and one female egg to create new life. Male/female compatibility in undeniable in nature. Since survival of the species is a chief concern of a benevolent government, safeguarding unions where reproduction occurs is essential. That's why protection of families where future generations are created and nurtured is so important.

All other unions may be good and necessary in their own ways (my sisters may end up as spinsters and want to move in together to combat loneliness) but there are reasonable motives for supporting the traditional definition of marriage.

(Ok, I'm done. Whew.)

Lemmy Caution said...

Thanks. I saw some of what that assclown had to say on some other blogs that made note of it.

So his heavy hitting argument against giving gays equal rights is that people might want to get married to a goat or a table lamp.


And may I note here that earlier Justine made note that we were taking part in a "hatefest".

I've thought about that, and actually she is correct. I do hate bigotry, racism, and discrimination. If carrying on against those that preach these principles is a "hatefest", then sign me up.

Were civil rights leaders taking part in a hatefest?

Were those fighting for women's right to vote taking part in a hatefest?

Relgious leaders at the time fought against both those ideals, just as they are doing now.

I have yet to see ONE SINGLE logical argument against giving gays the same rights as others.

And until I do, the hatefest shall continue.

Lemmy Caution said...

Your "slippery slope" definition of marriage is an old and tired argument.

Why was giving women the right to vote not a slippery slope to letting goats and dogs vote?

Why was giving equal rights to blacks not a slippery slope?

We are talking about equal rights, not about "what ifs" in regards to the slope you seem so afraid of.

Currently the government is granting rights to some couples but not others. Until you explain to me why that isn't discrimination, you don't have much of an argument.

Male/female compatibility in undeniable in nature.Yet, homosexuality exists. In man and in nature. Kind of deflates your argument.

there are reasonable motives for supporting the traditional definition of marriage. I have yet to see one explained that properly supports the idea of continued discrimination against people because of how they were born.

You may want to try arguing against government endorsement and involvement in marriage PERIOD.

Then you wouldn't have the logical problem of supporting government endorsed discrimination.

Lemmy Caution said...

This is the Christian (but not limited to Christianity) understanding that the framers of the Constitution were operating with when our system of government was forged. I'm pretty sure that "Christian understanding" oversaw the institution of slavery.

That was a tradition of discrimination that was fit for change.

So is this.

Justine said...

"Why was giving women the right to vote not a slippery slope to letting goats and dogs vote?"

Because "certain unalienable rights" that are "endowed by our Creator" originate from what human beings ARE. Women are human beings, and dogs are not. Same goes for blacks, or people of any ethnicity. Same goes for the handicapped, the elderly, and the unborn. Same goes for people of any sexual persuasion. Their dignity as human beings entitles them to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to drive a car is limited to certain people in certain circumstances. In the same way, marriage is limited to certain people and circumstances, as you yourself believe. We just disagree on what those limits are.

"Yet, homosexuality exists."
Reproductive homosexuality does not. Once again, the basis for protecting marriage is to protect children.

"Were civil rights leaders taking part in a hatefest? "

"Were those fighting for women's right to vote taking part in a hatefest?"

From my own experience and observation of the world I have concluded that hatred begets hatred, like the ripples radiating from a stone tossed in a pond. The only force that can stop the cycle of hatred is love.

Like you are fond of pointing out, we are not born believing any religion. For everyone, life is a journey of trying to figure out what is real and what is true. We have to sort through the overwhelming amount of information and ideas imparted to us by our parents, friends, strangers, churches, media, etc. and piece together what resonates with us as truth.

When I hear (or read) people calling other people who they disagree with "fucking blowhards" and preaching the message that hate is an acceptable form of relationship with another human being, I cannot believe that they have my best interests, or the best interests of society as a whole in mind. It is hard for me to believe that what they say and think is true, or that they are even concerned about truth at all.

Lemmy Caution said...

The right to drive a car is limited to certain people in certain circumstances. In the same way, marriage is limited to certain people and circumstances, as you yourself believe. We just disagree on what those limits are.You are correct. Only I still don't REALLY understand what your reason for "those limits" are.

Limiting driving to those able, and voting to humans makes sense. Limiting the legal contract of marriage for two people but not two "other" people doesn't.

Once again, the basis for protecting marriage is to protect children.What harm will letting gays marry cause to children? That doesn't make any sense.

Back up that assertion with some kind of facts.

The only force that can stop the cycle of hatred is love. I agree. People like Pat Robertson could do well to think about that one.

Yes the language is coarse. Yes, there is a hatred of Pat's views. The anger comes through. Not much of a defense on this one, other than saying some of us find the practice of discrimination to be a passionate subject.

I am just looking for one reason that two people who LOVE EACH OTHER, want to spend the rest of their lives together, and share in the institution of marriage are not allowed to do that.

Justine said...

Hatred of Pat's views, or hatred of Pat? The line seems blurred to me.

I know what you're asking, and I've tried to answer you, but we're not getting through to each other. Perhaps another day.

God bless! ;)

Justine said...

Just thought of this, and maybe it will help.

Explain to me (pretend I'm the second future Mrs. Mormon) why THREE people who LOVE EACH OTHER can't get married. (And you can't say, "because it's the law" because the law can be changed.)

Why is marriage an institution only reserved for two people?

Lemmy Caution said...

Personally, I don't have a problem with it AT ALL. Wouldn't bother me, affect me, or harm me.

When it comes to the law, and getting it changed, you need reason, interest, backing, a movement, etc.

I've explained to you before why the contract of marriage is specific to two people and why there will never be a movement to successfully challenge that law.

Personally though, I have no problem with it at all. Just like God in the Bible, I see no problem with it.

So your answer is that I don't care, but I also don't believe it will ever happen.

Besides, granting homosexuals the right to marry has NOTHING to do with Polygamy. It is still and always have been a terrible argument to the subject at hand.

Justine said...

"So your answer is that I don't care, but I also don't believe it will ever happen."

Yes, I see, and understand you better. Thanks. :)