Comments:Televangelist Pat Robertson compares same-sex marriage to child molestation, pedophilia

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Are there no hate-speech laws in the U.S.?

I suppose I should probably take a step back and calm down before responding to this story, more particularly to Mr. Robertson (I don't consider him a minister of anything, except the Church of Nasty). After all, consider the source. Isn't this the same man who predicted that both coasts of the U.S. would be lashed by hurricanes and tsunamis - as payback from "god" for its licentiousness? (BTW, "licentiousness" is simply evangelical Christian code for "you've got homosexuals and haven't yet put them to death"). And look what happened.... nothing. What the man can't seem to understand (mostly because he doesn't want to) is that there are legitimate social reasons for avoiding multiple wives (many men can't/won't support their first family on breakup, let alone multiple ones - older multiple wives are simply neglected more and more as time goes on) but that there are legitimate benefits to society as a whole in recognizing a right to marry in gay men and lesbians. However, if you consider gay sex to be evil, filthy, sinful etc. you can't possibly believe that gay people should be treated equally as humans. Another response would be that throughout the Bible men DID have multiple wives. If our legal system truly were based solely on Judeo-Christian scripture, polygamy would always have remained legal. What these people don't get is that the Bible and religion are forms of social engineering. Whereas polygamy might have been okay in the distant past, the social ills which grew from it, and the lack of need for it over time, meant that it became socially unacceptable and religion began proscribing it. Similarly, as humanity grew to better understand scientifically what constituted sexuality, it grew to realize that its treatment of its gay/lesbian members was nothing short of barbaric. The law responded to that new awareness with more and more laws to protect gay men and lesbians from discrimination. What Robertson fails to see is that even values set out in his over 2000 year old fabrication, the Bible, changed during the course of its creation. He is a hypocrite of the first water (in the Old Testament, hypocrites were to be stoned) He cherry-picks values from the Bible and claims them to be invariable. He conveniently forgets that that same book forbade divorced people from re-marrying. I think if the general population of the U.S. were to be told that they would not be allowed to marry because they'd previously been married, there would be outrage at the imposition of Biblical values on modern law. Same-sex marriage is a human rights issue, plain and simple. You are not a whole person, with the same value and dignity, worthy of the same respect, if your relationships are automatically disqualified from public recognition through marriage. Separate but equal - is not equal. And here I'd thought we'd gotten away from comparing gay men and lesbians to pedophiles, polygamists and murderers. Silly me.24.85.234.200 03:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is really nothing new. Pat Robertson condemns homosexuality quite frequently -- both on and off The 700 Club. I'm actually not sure how this is newsworthy in the first place, but I've noticed we're getting a lot of fluff and filler on WikiNews lately.

To address the article, the assertion that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to support for polygamous marriages, bestiality and so forth is just a slippery-slope. If someone is opposed to same-sex marriage for moral reasons, then fine. That's their prerogative. This isn't valid reasoning for influencing legisation on the matter, though. Unfortunately, The 700 Club is Pat Robertson's personal propaganda arm, and he does use it to instill fear and moral panic about these issues.

I think the most sensible thing is to rethink the federal definition of what marriage is. Is it a religious institution? Then do away with it altogether, per separation of church and state. Churches should mandate marriages on a case-per-case basis, and the state should recognize any form of union -- in legal terms -- as a civil union. Equal benefits would be allocated by the state, and you could call your "union" whatever you like. People who consider marriage a religious institution should have no problem with this, because the state itself need not sanction your union with any specific term -- your union is still a holy matrimony in the eyes of God. (or whatever you believe in) If you believe that same-sex unions aren't sanctioned by your religious beliefs, then no harm done by allowing people to humor themselves. Your god(s) will sort them out. In the meantime, live and let live. 70.153.105.237 03:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Live and let live? You mean live and let die. And I agree with that. You don't need to get married if you're dead. And no, America has no hatespeech laws. And if we did, they certainly wouldn't apply to anti-gay speech, given the national pulse on homosexuality. 206.74.5.136 04:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

None of that made any coherent sense. Please rephrase the paragraph. 70.153.105.237 06:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How did you escape from Conservapedia? Fie fie daemon and back to your hole. --218.215.95.81 08:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying there is that hate crimes against blacks in highly racist areas of the country aren't hate crimes because the general feeling around there is that it SHOULD happen to them? Great argument --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Aw poor Pat, soon all his man-friends will be married and he won't be able to fist them. I assume that's why he's angry at the polygamy part to. --218.215.95.81 08:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, now, calm down with the flaming.

Mr. Robertson you make me angry, with your closed minded-ness. Please stop. :)

Answer: No there are no hate-speech laws in the U.S. Unlike many other nations, we actually have free speech here. --SVTCobra 01:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, but there is an exception for hate-speech in the workplace. (or public education) Employers can be penalized for allowing their workers to continually harass co-workers, or create an intimidating work environment. Same goes for teachers and their students. Arguably, defamation also applies to hate-speech to some degree. Verbally harassing an officer of the law would also hold consequences. Otherwise, the First Amendment explicitly forbids restricting "free speech." 70.153.112.28 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Except when it comes to protesting Republicans, then you don't have free speach. :P Sorry, you just gave me a good opening.--Shaoken (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How so? I don't remember DailyKos being shut down. --SVTCobra 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

polygamy

Erm, what exactly is the difference in motivation between polygamy and gay marriage being outlawed. If 3 consenting adults want to be married why not let them?--77.99.143.87 09:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much, it's just a bit of eye-watering logic, easily destroyed.

He attempts to relate fundamentally different structures using irrational biblical standards.

Polygamy would actually be fine, as long as there was parity, i.e. both males and females could engage in polygamy equally. There would be no victims and no one (inherently) capable of abusing another. Since polygamy is traditionally male-dominant, it generates inherent inequality and potential for abuse.

Bestiality probably generates victims and a clearly identifiable "angle of abuse" since it is difficult to determine an animal's consent or ability to understand what's going on. In addition there may be injury which the animal, again, has no ability or method by which to either allow or disallow. Same with child molestation, except there is a higher degree of certainty that it is abuse, with clear levels of inequality and potential for harm.

Homosexuality is utterly victimless and therefore unrelated to the topic.

92.30.31.176 12:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you on male-dominated polygamy somehow being a model for a high possibility of abuse and automatically a bastion of inequality. If there was one female and two males, (assuming we're going three) how does this change make it more equal? As for abuse, that's biased against men in general, because of stupid double-standards. For example, I can't punch my girlfriend the fuck out if she punches me without being a pariah for "hitting a girl."

As for the article itself, the thought pattern this dude has can basically be compared to using a firehose to rinse a dinner plate off. Even if there were something wrong with being homosexual, you could always explain why instead of blasting it, and the rest of the kitchen sink area, with some broad strawman argument and hope the fence sitters would finally lean over to your side. This is also to give some smug satisfaction to all of those crazy for Jesus. Basically, this makes it okay to hate gays all over again because they're not allowed in the bible, just like pedophiles who EVERYONE hates without question. Though rape is okay, as long as you pay money to the chick's family and make her your wife. Really, whenever you see a preacher preaching, how many times is he doing it to people who aren't fans of Jesus? I have yet to see a bunch of atheists, Heathens, Jews and/or agnostics gathered around at the edge of their seats in anticipation of what will happen next in the story. Everything said, here, isn't to reach out to gays or really lawmakers or even gay lawmakers. It's to tell the Christian community, "hey, at least ur not gay and god loves u."--64.90.84.103 (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Up to his old tricks!

God, I love this guy. He never ceases to bring the LOLz.

Pat Robertson said that doomsday was gonna happen in 1982, and if you compiled of list of all the dumb-ass trash he's talked over the years, it would probably be thicker than teh Bible.

I wanna start a betting pool: How long 'til he's discovered to be secretly a raging homo, or hooked on a bunch of painkillers?

Pat.

Pat Robertson is a Christian who believes the Bible is the ultimate truth in this world. Quit freaking out every time he confirms that belief. The whole head line of this article is meant to incite disgust in someone who glances at it. I thought journalists were supposed to be impartial.

Just like the entirety of the LGBT rights movement incites disgust in people like Pat Robertson? He's more than welcome to voice his opinions, (or religious beliefs) but he does so purely with the intention of discouraging other people. Pat Robertson is just as derogatory as you accuse this very article of being, yet you side with him and accuse us of being biased. Typical fanatical reasoning. 70.153.112.28 (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't same sex marriage against nature?

I think that many laws have biblical or at least natural law basis. Without these laws we could not build successful society, neither civilization. Why shall we abandon these laws now?

Quite simply because we can work with laws without appealing to some fairytale figure in the sky. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. is a [secular state]. I disagree that many laws are based on biblical principles, or that these principles are even fundamental to a society's development. That assertion is grossly ignorant of other cultures and developed countries that don't embrace Abrahamic beliefs. 70.153.124.194 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum Also, [appealing to nature] is a fallacy of relevance. You're implying that nature and morality are mutually exclusive when they are not. 70.153.124.194 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Who died and made Pat Robertson the dictator. As a openly straight person I support human rights and personal choice.