Gay Marriage | News | Pat Robertson

Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage will Lead to Bestiality, Pedophilia, Etc

Robertson just goes for it on the Christian Broadcasting Network:

Robertson "We haven’t taken this to its ultimate conclusion. 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."

Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. >>Well, polygamy was outlawed because it was considered immoral according to biblical standards.<<

    Really??? Please show me where it's NOT supported. I don't think we use the Bible to create the rule of law in this country. Because if we did, polygamy would still be legal. For the most part, it's still widely practiced in Utah and even Texas, while the politicians and authorities turn a blind eye.

    Posted by: Keith | May 8, 2009 9:45:22 AM

  2. " ... allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals."
    As opposed to what, same-sex marriage among heterosexuals? Pat must have been distracted when his Depends leaked onto his seat.

    Posted by: MikeMick | May 8, 2009 9:46:57 AM

  3. Yes soon we will allow everything. Look at Massachusetts already you are allowed to marry multiple partners, your siblings, you pet, and your 6 year old niece. .... Oh wait that hasn't happened.

    Posted by: kujhawker | May 8, 2009 9:47:39 AM

  4. I thought he was dead. Just wishful thinking, I guess.

    Posted by: charley | May 8, 2009 9:50:37 AM

  5. I swear this man makes me sick everytime I see it me, or does he and Bush look like they can be related!

    Posted by: Disgusted American | May 8, 2009 9:52:28 AM

  6. Well, Pat may be right. I find him abhorrent , yet there he is on my monitor first thing in the morning. Now I have to have my office cleaned and exorcised, and damnit the boss won't pay for that.

    Posted by: Sean | May 8, 2009 9:54:22 AM

  7. These kinds of people are really afraid right now because we are making progress so they are pulling from nastiest crap that they can dig up. They should be ashamed!

    Posted by: Becky | May 8, 2009 9:58:29 AM

  8. "This is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent."

    So, then, you'll be deteriorating and fading into oblivion, since the hatred you and people like you spew is abhorrent to so many people? Or does your prophecy, like the civil laws of this country, only cater to the fundamentalist morality you foment, Mr. Robertson?

    Posted by: A | May 8, 2009 9:59:55 AM

  9. Robertson is so nutty... but it is the lies that drive me batty.
    "What is it about polygamy that’s different? Well, polygamy was outlawed because it was considered immoral according to biblical standards."
    Polygamy is actually upheld by biblical standards. He is always so careful with his selection of scriptures. This argument is getting old for even conservative & religious people.
    Are people marrying their pets & children in Canada, after 5 years of equal marriage?
    He makes me wany to "punch him across the face".

    Posted by: Stephen | May 8, 2009 10:00:56 AM

  10. Yawn... Just die, already.

    Posted by: ichabod | May 8, 2009 10:00:57 AM

  11. Guys, the slippery slope argument is the BIGGEST enemy we face. Don't pooh-pooh it as trivial or desperate. We have to thoughtfully parse out that claim.

    We need to distinguish why polygamy (the only valid slippery-slope argument when it involves consenting adults) is not necessarily the logical next step.

    We can't say because marriage is "traditionally" two consenting adults, and thus two gay people should be allowed to get married but no more. Because "traditionally", polygamy was okay.

    I'm not offering a solution. I'm just saying the polygamy specter looms over this debate larger than we all realize, and the laissez-faire attitude of activists who say "We don't care how many consenting adults get married! Rah Rah!" is exactly what these tired hacks are afraid of.

    Posted by: freddy | May 8, 2009 10:02:16 AM

  12. Fuck you Pat Robertson. I've been gay for more than a fortnight now and I've only had relations with a goat one time. Well, it was twice. But she liked it. And I only stuck the tip in.

    Posted by: Bill | May 8, 2009 10:03:22 AM

  13. Frankly, I don't think the reasons for polygamy being illegal are very strong, but that's another discussion.

    As for bestiality, pedophilia, etc, they would all still be illegal in our courts because they don't take place between consenting adults. A child or an animal can't marry someone because they don't have the legal ability to consent. Allowing gay marriage is in keeping with that standard - it does not lead to a slippery slope, as the Pat Robertsons of the world like to proclaim.

    Posted by: Geoff | May 8, 2009 10:03:45 AM

  14. some day our children and grandchildren will watch the grainy archive of this clip and cringe just like we do now when we see 60's clips of Geo. Wallace, Lester Maddox and other bigots of an earlier struggle.

    Posted by: Eric | May 8, 2009 10:05:56 AM

  15. Since when is the Bible against polygamy? How many wives did David have?

    This country has outlawed polygamy DESPITE the Bible, just like it has achieved racial equality and the abolition of slavery DESPITE the Bible.

    Posted by: Pender | May 8, 2009 10:09:46 AM

  16. Pat Robertson gets me so hot. He makes me feel so, well, taboo.

    Posted by: Mike | May 8, 2009 10:11:15 AM

  17. Freddy. You're right.

    I think that most of the slippery slope is pretty easy to dismiss (bestiallity, incest, etc.). Polygamy is more difficult. I guess the one difference that I can think of is that anti-polygamy laws don't discriminate against a specific class of people. But fundamentalist Mormon's might disagree with that statement.

    Posted by: darbnyc | May 8, 2009 10:11:54 AM

  18. I agree with him. I know that since I've become gay I seek out dog and horse cock and when I can't find that I hide in the brush near the park and watch the kids on the playground. Jeesh...what a moron.

    Posted by: Matt | May 8, 2009 10:23:41 AM

  19. The writers of "Big Love," the HBO show about a polygamous family that tries to blend in with mainstream society, have explored the analogy of same-sex marriage with polygamy. It's a fascinating connection, but one that is fraught with problems.

    Posted by: Peter | May 8, 2009 10:24:05 AM

  20. This is called the "slippery slope" argument, which goes like this: "If we accept this, what's to stop us from accepting that and that and that." The answer is obvious: Each societal change should be judged individually. It's bizarre to claim that no change can ever occur because it could lead to everything else. Rational people can make distinctions between what is arbitrary and what is important.

    I'm sure Robertson is not aware that the "slippery slope" argument was used years ago in exactly the same way to justify keeping inter-racial marriages illegal. Opponents said then if we allowed people of different races to marry each other it would lead to people marrying marry their dogs, and other insulting statements.

    No one can plausibly explain why the institution of marriage is at risk from gay unions. There are enough marriages licenses for everyone.

    Posted by: J. J. | May 8, 2009 10:24:52 AM

  21. What a fucking idiot. I think people are really beginning to wake up and jokers like Robertson are losing ground. If there really is a hell, I hope they've made room for people like him.

    Posted by: Rob A | May 8, 2009 10:26:48 AM

  22. Those are the same arguments bigots used against inter-racial marriage!!!

    Posted by: scar2 | May 8, 2009 10:27:25 AM

  23. Anything Pat Robertson finds abhorrent is fine by me.

    The polygamy 'question' is certainly out there, although I don't think it's the responsibility of marriage equality advocates to address it just because the other side brings it up (and neither do an increasing number of straight allies, who find the comparison between same-sex marriage and polygamy just as absurd as most gay people do). The way I see it, we're not asking for anything new here: we just want to enter into the same civil institution that straight couples enjoy.

    Despite the incessant claims of our opponents, we're not redefining anything. So the slippery slope argument doesn't apply. It's a distraction. To say that allowing gay couples to marry changes the definition of marriage is like saying that women's suffrage changed the definition of voting. Extending women the right to vote did not change what it means to vote, it just extended that institution to encompass a group who were previously unfairly excluded from it.

    Posted by: Matt | May 8, 2009 10:27:27 AM

  24. Obviously Pat Robertson doesn't read his Bible very closely, because there are plenty of instances of polygamy in the Bible. Also, God doesn't prohibit same gender affection and relationships. The prohibition, if one believes the word of God, the Bible only refers to one specific behavior: anal sex. There's only one way a man can lie with a man as with a woman and that is by penetrative sex. Lacking the same anatomy, the next logical part of the body is used. But relationships between men are not prohibited. Obviously, again Pat Robertson doesn't read the same Bible I do, because in my Bible, one only has to look to the story of David & Jonathan to know that God placed his blessing on the close relationship these two men shared. Their love for one another 'surpassed even the love of women' and their relationship "found favor in God's eyes". Pretty powerful stuff. I, and many other men, don't go the butt route, but do support same-gender-affection. Anal sex is proven to be 5000% more potentially dangerous than other expressions of intimacy, so it's a wise move to reject that behavior. That means one would have to have oral sex with 50 partners to equal the potential risk of just one anal encounter. Condoms fail 5% of the time. Many of us just aren't into Russian Roulette. We are the g0ys.

    Posted by: Patrick | May 8, 2009 10:28:48 AM

  25. I thought he was dead too. Is this guy married to a woman? Why hasn't she been charged with bestiality yet?

    Posted by: Patrick | May 8, 2009 10:32:11 AM

  26. 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Family the Focus of Equality California Public Education Campaign« «