jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (71 posts)

Pat Robertson's Homophobia

  1. 0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    Pat Robertson, the beacon of hope for all of the world, recently said that homosexuality is "somehow related to demon possession."  This isn't the first thing he said either.  He also has called same-sex marriage an "abomination," which is a reference to the Old Testament he does not even come close to following consistently.  Marriage equality is evidently on par with rape and murder!

    Has the Christian Right abdicated reality in favor of a medieval view of the world, where demon possession was seen as a common occurrence?  I thought humanity was past this nonsensical blather by now.  I hope these people never capture the Congress and the White House...

    1. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The average age of a 700 Club viewer is approximately 85 years old. They tend to also be terrified of the modern world. Robertson is just another evangelical huckster that makes millions terrifying old people into handing over their money.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really?  I didn't know his average viewer was so old.  It does make sense though, since he represents a dying form of Christianity.

        1. Paul Wingert profile image78
          Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Robertson really needs to take his medication. Actually he should of been retired and dead a long time ago.

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Remember when he said you can divorce a spouse who has Alzheimer's?  Yeah, the man is disgusting.

    2. SomewayOuttaHere profile image59
      SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ...all of the world...really?...luckily there are more sane people that don't follow anyone who speaks about 'demon possession' and 'homosexuality' in the same sentence....that's a big red flag....whateva??????...just another loonie tune after other loonie tune's money.....peace out

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A failed attempt at humor.  My apologies.  I would never suggest with a straight face he is a beacon of hope for anyone or anything.

      2. 0
        kimberlyslyricsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile

    3. stclairjack profile image79
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      pat roberston is a poor and tourtured man suffering from a rare and often miss understood medical condition and i for one am sick and tired of all these left wing bullys picking on this harmless god fearing man!

      cranial-rectal-displacement is a real and tragic disease,...  tragic.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        LOL!!!  Very amusing.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image67
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, it is a terrible, apparently incurable affliction which he developed early in life.

        1. stclairjack profile image79
          stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          drs and resaerchers are theorizing that the onset of the dissease begins in the same way that crossed eyes dissorder or funny faces complex does,....

          so the next time your mom says,... "if you kee makion that face its gona stick that way",... she might be right!

          whitness' to mr robberts early life state that his mother warnned him more than once,... "pat, if you dont get your head out of your ass, its gona get stuck there for ever."

          cranial-rectal-displacement,.... tragic

          1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image59
            SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image59
              SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              excuse me for laughing at something so tragic

    4. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You seem to be under the assumption that God changes because the social norms change. That's just inventing a God that agrees with everything you think is right and wrong. If we say that some sins are ok and some are not then we aren't really being truthfull to ourselves.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Of course he does.  Bikini's are now quite acceptable, alcohol intake is not a sin in Europe and slavery is now evil. 

        God's definition of sin has always changed with changing mores of the local society.  If it were not so we would still be burning witches, stoning each other for wearing multiple types of cloth and selling our daughters into slavery.  Churches must keep up with the times or perish, and so do the requirements of any God.

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          As the evolution of biblical morality shows!  Good point.

        2. Onusonus profile image87
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Just because bikinis and alcohol are acceptable today doesn't mean it's not a sin. The bible also said slavery was supposed to be a six year deal and not the horrible injustice that the liberals in the South turned it into. Back then it was a six year contract of servitude in exchange for something, not a cradle to grave institution. People didn't follow the guidelines that were set out by God due to the hardness of their hearts and so it is justified that it is gone.
          The Bible does not mandate that people have slaves, it simply said that if they insisted that they have them there would be rules to follow which people liberally interpreted until it became the stain on history that it is. Ultimately it was the pulpit preaching of American abolitionists that caused slavery to be ended in America. Because they, (the conservative republicans), understood that all men are created equal, as it is so evidently pointed out in the bible.

      2. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How do you choose what is God's law and what isn't?

      3. livelonger profile image89
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What about polygamy?

        1. Onusonus profile image87
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What about it?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Has it ever been okay?  And is it now, or has your god's laws changed? 




                                          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

      4. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You have just described modern christianity.

      5. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        HAHAHAHA you hypocrite in political discussions we have had you dared to speak about liberty and freedom, how very quick you are to turn around and call for oppression and government mandated difference when you don't agree with the cause, many people do not agree with your god and in the United States we have a separation of church and state so it does not matter what you may believe is a sin the right to gay marriage is just that, a right.

        1. Onusonus profile image87
          Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Really? I'd like to see where in the constitution it says separation of church and state. And I haven't said anything about gay marriage. I think you are projecting just a tad. Read more carefully before commenting.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image67
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Main article: Separation of church and state in the United States

            "In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[7] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.[8] The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, all nine justices agreed that there was a wall of separation between church and state, but a majority held that the present case (a local authority paying to transport parochial students to school), the benefits to the children outweighed the Constitutional objection.[9]"

            1. Onusonus profile image87
              Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              See? It's not in there. Just a bunch of liberals usurping power through judicial activism. We'll just have to wait and see if that's the same case for Obamacare.

  2. Electro-Denizen profile image86
    Electro-Denizenposted 4 years ago

    The offence felt in some Christian circles, whether it be over homosexuality itself, or gay marriage, really boils down to one psychological characteristic: feeling threatened.

    I have no idea why the church and people waste so much time over this issue, when there are far more burning issues to be resolved, in society and the within the Church itself: abuse, hunger, disease, poverty... It's preposterous.

    Come on religious church people, get a perspective :-)

  3. adjkp25 profile image92
    adjkp25posted 4 years ago

    Interesting timing of this thread because I just wrote a hub about Robertson and some of the off the wall things he has said over the years.

    Unfortunately his beliefs seem to be that most of the bad things that happen in the world can have some kind of connection to homosexuality; I guess it is his own twist on the six degrees of Kevin Bacon theory.  The theory is that you can link an acting role to Bacon in six or less steps.  Robertson has cut out the middle man and connected tragedy to homosexuality in one step.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm checking out!

  4. peoplepower73 profile image87
    peoplepower73posted 4 years ago

    Two things: (1) After you have been married for 10 years, it's all same sex marriage anyway. (2) If you are an extremists, you can not help but be a hypocrite.  It's just a matter of time.  Look at all the evangelical leaders, like Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart,and others that have commited adultry. Pat Robertson is probably homosexual and it's just a matter of time until he comes out of the closet.

    1. Electro-Denizen profile image86
      Electro-Denizenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ha ha I love your first point. That's making me laugh a lot.

    2. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hahahaha.  I very much enjoyed your first point.

  5. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    I'm more of an Ernest Angley man myself

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UEmb-majjQY/TzGeOQo8-PI/AAAAAAAAEw0/s-G1Sz2uO1E/s1600/Ernest_Angley.jpg

  6. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    not to forget, Van Impe..

    http://improbable.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/VanImpe_200w.jpg

  7. Daniel Carter profile image89
    Daniel Carterposted 4 years ago

    Reading this thread is like being forced to read the exact same newspaper for 365 days in a row.

    There isn't anything new, or that I haven't read, heard or seen already.

    Homophobia is as redundant as committing suicide because Christians hate you. (Aren't hateful Christians already dead?)  That also explains several things about Mr. Robertson and a metric butt load of other walking, talking dead redundancies.

    Over and out.

  8. WD Curry 111 profile image60
    WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago

    I don't care much for Pat Robertson. Still, I am sick of being labeled as a “homophobe”. A phobia is an intense, unreasonable fear. Just because I think homosexuality is contrary to nature does mean I fear, loathe or mistrust anyone. When you go to a ridiculous extreme to describe someone opposed to your views, it undermines the credibility of your cause.

    For the record, I believe in live and let live. If you want to have sex with a consenting adult, knock yourself out. Just do it in private.

    1. livelonger profile image89
      livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Who's having sex in public??

      1. Greek One profile image80
        Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        i used to

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I did once... on a dare.  But it was heterosexual sex so that's fine.

      3. 0
        Peelander Gallyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        (a page error isn't letting me reply directly to WD Curry)

        I'm glad you believe in living and letting live, but I'm just going to leave this here:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual … in_animals

        Also, the fabulous gay swans are going to be having sex in public even if no one else is, so.

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I thought he meant people.  Although we are just evolved animals...my world is shattering as I type!

        2. livelonger profile image89
          livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You're right. Those gay swans, and all the heterosexual ones, too, need to be thrown in jail!

          1. 0
            Peelander Gallyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Clearly a normative trend occurring naturally in the wild is contradictory to God's plans. It's a sad day on Earth when blaspheming socially liberal bed bugs are impaling each other with their penises.

            Also, getting back to the thread topic, if a hateful bigoted corpse is allowed to have TV show, I think the swans and the bed bugs should be allowed to get married.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Once again, your god's plans didn't pan out as he expected.  Creating imperfect beings doesn't sound good for a guy who's supposed to be omnipotent.  His messengers all seemed to be flawed in their interpretations of what he wants too.  Poor god! sad   




                                                         http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

            2. livelonger profile image89
              livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              As Jesus said at least 430 times in the Bible, bug-on-bug fornication is an abomination. (He might have phoned it in from his Hummer on the way to the Pharisaic gun rally)

    2. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wrong.  It's not unnatural.  And every credible psychologist and psychiatrist no longer classifies it as a mental disorder.  When an individual has NO basis to oppose same-sex marriage (if you are opposed), then there is no other conclusion to draw.

      I am also curious about who is having sex in public...

    3. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is the homophobic equivalent of the I am not racist BUT excuse tongue
      No one is having sex in public, people are just asking for the same rights and treatments as are afforded to other human beings, if you oppose that then you have no right to say that you support freedom or liberty.

    4. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Liberals often pretend to not know how to interpret the very definitions they caused to be in the dictionary.  Ironic.
      Then they go about picking on other people's words trying to hold them to total exactness even when it's unnecessary.

      I agree with you WD.

      1. 0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don't be on the wrong side of history.  Same-sex marriage will become a reality eventually, and it will be considered backwards to not support it, the same way it is now considered to oppose interracial marriage (which was a "controversial" issue in the past). 

        If I were against gay marriage, but I also saw the writing on the wall, I would jump on the bandwagon just so I wasn't grouped with all of the people who opposed gay marriage.  History will not be kind to you.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not in the least concerned about whether "history" is kind to me in the way you describe it!  LOL.  Seriously, I can't believe someone would say that, that I should worry about not being popular!
          That's a horribly weak motive.

          By the way, the "writing on the wall" was God's judgement on people, not graffiti written by people.  I don't cow down to graffiti.  Sorry that you do!

          1. 0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No.  You are taking an irrational and discriminatory position.  There is no justification for being against homosexuality today.  The arguments have been discussed extensively in the media and households.  You don't change your mind based on evidence, so I am making an attempt to appeal to the future of how history will look at America during this time.

            If you have no use for history, then that's fine.  You have no obligation to wonder about history's judgment upon you.  But it will happen.  It's just a matter of time.  I'm simply arguing that you should consider whether your discriminatory and irrational position will hold up in 100 years when your great great great grandkids read about how their ancestors believed.   

            The grandkids today are NOT proud of the racism that spewed from their relatives.  Don't put yourself in the same boat.

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              This subject has nothing whatsoever to do with the color of anyone's skin.

              There's no justification whatsoever for you to even compare the two issues.

              You've apparently been reading graffiti.

              I have a lot of use for history!  Just not the graffiti that's being used today in an attempt to paint over true history.

              And I happen to know several black people who also are very offended that anyone would compare the push for legalization of homosexuality to the previous legitimate civil rights movement.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You know black people?

                1. Greek One profile image80
                  Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  tanned / black ... whatever

                2. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah.
                  And I know gay people too.
                  What??!
                  Does that bust your liberal bubble to think that I actually know the facts of life, that I don't just sit in an isolated hut somewhere at the edge of a "flat earth", afraid to step out my door?  LOL.

                  1. Greek One profile image80
                    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Nice hat, Brenda!  smile

                    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__gLDNk9r8c4/TTcQA4cYaiI/AAAAAAAABck/cFKzq-rzE8E/s1600/driving%2Bmiss%2Bdiasy.jpg

                  2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I think that's carp...

                3. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ROFLMAO!

              2. 0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Judging someone based on 1) an irrelevant characteristic and 2) claiming that irrelevant characteristic makes them inferior, is indefensible.  Someone being gay has no bearing on what type of person they are (the same way race doesn't).  And homosexuality is not a defect that is wrong with the person (the way racists claimed dark skin was).  The parallels are obvious.

                Defend yourself.  Why do you believe homosexuals are defective?  What is it about homosexuality that makes a person immoral?  I'm rather confused.  You need a rock-solid case to support institutional discrimination.

              3. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The situations are the same, we have people who through no choice of their own but by the fortune or misfortune of their birth are treated differently, are denied rights that others have because they were born different and we have people with the courage and determination to say no we don't approve of cursing a man for his birth nor do we believe that one man or one relationship is above another in any way but it's virtues people who believe in the constitution and the separation of church and state and thus with complete justice declare the denial of rights of another human being a stain on the country and people who allow it as well as the freedom, liberty and right to the pursuit of happiness that the country guarantees.

                The fact that some that once benefited from the same people fighting for their rights have forgotten their dues to others is of no concern to the issue at hand. I once marched besides them at civil rights rallies fighting for their equality and I will continue to do so until all have equality under the law as should be, that time for homosexuality at least is not too far off indeed in several states it is already a reality. The ignorance and stupidity of those that oppose equality will be defeated in this issue as it was in the war for race equality.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "...forgotten their dues"?!
                  Sounds like you're saying blacks owe it to the homosexual agenda to back that agenda.
                  Now, that's an awful thing to say!

                  And by the way, the Constitution gives everyone their rights.  When blacks were oppressed and enslaved, that violated the Constitution, yes. 
                  But that's been corrected.  Admittedly after a long struggle, but still, corrected.

                  The homosexual agenda activists would like to claim that bandwagon for their own.  They're still trying.  But it will never legitimately be theirs.  There is no provision in the Constitution for special rights based upon how people want to have sex.  Their intentions don't hold water, common-sense nor Constitutionally.   No wonder Obama wants to trash the Constitution!  It doesn't say what he wants it to say.  So he tries to re-write it.  And he's using the willing graffiti-writers to help him.  Pawns in a political game.  How long will people take his word for Gospel?  Unbelievably, some have now for 4 years.

                  1. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I believe they do owe their support to gay equality as do all people who believe in equality and freedom but especially those who asked for our help in their struggle and received it now owe it to others to help them when they fight for their own equality, fight against the same enemy in fact, the christian right.

                    The constitution gives people the right to the pursuit of happiness, how can you be happy if you are denied the right to love and be loved by the person of your choosing?  The right to be married and joined together for life? I would be unhappy if I was denied that right, but more fundamentally the constitution says that every man is equal beneath the law and that every man is born equal those are the things we are fighting for, equality under the law and against the discrimination of the ignorant, perhaps the noblest of struggles.

                    I have never taken Obama's word as gospel and you may be shocked to know that the struggle for equality for gay people as an organised force predates Obama by decades, what I take as gospel is that every man has inalienable rights and one of the most profound of those is the right to love and marry who he or she chooses, any other suggestion is just preposterous those who would deny people their freedoms, rights and equality are just scum.

              4. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I would be willing to bet that I know more black people than you and most of them do equate the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement...  leading me to believe- ONCE AGAIN- that your finger isn't exactly on the pulse of black america.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not the one who wants my fingers on people.  LOL.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Try it, it might loosen you up.

          2. livelonger profile image89
            livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I was wondering where you were!



            We know you don't really believe that. If you were really concerned with G-d's judgment, then you'd be far more concerned with your own behavior.

    5. Daniel Carter profile image89
      Daniel Carterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, because apparently there are so many people having sex in public...
      Is that why you threw in that last bit?

  9. peoplepower73 profile image87
    peoplepower73posted 4 years ago

    I worked with a lady who told her mother as soon as she could talk, she said: Mom take me back to the hospital and make me a boy instead of a girl." 

    I have a niece who never wore dresses since she was a little girl, but felt comfortable in male clothes.  Now she is a grown woman, but is built like a man.  I don't think these people have a choice in the matter, it was they way they were born, not something they were taught or learned.

    All of you who think homsexuality is unnatural, you are lucky you don't have any children that are, because I would feel sorry for you and the child when it comes to coping with a problem like this.

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I thank God that I changed, and my parents did.  If my brother would not have been accepted, it scares me to imagine what he might have done.

 
working