Lee, 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. (emphasis mine)Sigh. While I recognize the profound and legitimate disagreement between some of us here, I am thankful that we have risen above this ludicrous and grotesque slippery-slope argument.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Quote of the Day
Pat Robertson, during an interview last week, answered a question on the legalization of gay marriage:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One of my favorite political interviews of all time was the reaction of an AP reporter to an answer former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) gave him in a discussion about gay sex. After explaining he has "no problem with homosexuality," only "homosexual acts," the interview takes this odd turn:
SANTORUM: Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you.
Yeah, that's pretty funny. You can still feel the reporter's discomfort.
Post a Comment