About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Pat Robertson on gay marriage: "[W]hen two men get together and make a baby, I'll change my point of view."

May 13, 2009 3:53 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (May 13, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
      13  
      It sounds like Pat wants to watch.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Victor Colorado (May 13, 2009 4:29 pm ET)
        3  
        Well done, Col.! Your post survived the drive by thumbs down clicks of Mr. Grumpy Pants!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (May 13, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
        3  
        I thought he meant that he'll move from outside at the window to inside at the keyhole.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (May 13, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
        2  
        HA! That's what I was thinking too.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (May 13, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
           
        HA! That's what I was thinking too.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (May 13, 2009 3:59 pm ET)
      4 1
      Telll you what, Paddy Boy. Whenever you open your cakehole and don't sound like a moron, I'll change my point of view that you're not a bloviating theocrat. Not that I'm holding my breath...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by roundhouse (May 13, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
        5 1
        I'll second that and add that when virulent anti-gay zealots stop getting busted for acts of homosexuality, I'll change my point of view.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Victor Colorado (May 13, 2009 3:59 pm ET)
      4 1
      Did not realize he's opposed to adoption. I wonder why.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DonSchenck (May 13, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
        6
      Again, just his opinion.

      Nothing to see here ... move along.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Victor Colorado (May 13, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
        5 1
        Shouldn't you be Twittering?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 14, 2009 7:55 am ET)
        1  
        I'm sure that you'd like us all to ignore the more embarrassaring elements of your party. The problem is that the way your party is moving to embrace them, they're pretty much the only ones left.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by seeryer (May 13, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
      5 1
      Pat, what about men and women who can't procreate? Would you be ok with them marrying someone of their same sex since they have no biological clocks running? Pat, didn't your wife give birth to your son shortly after your wedding, meaning, not 9 months later? Were you sinning?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (May 13, 2009 4:26 pm ET)
        5  
        I think he was busy calling daddy to get him off of that troop transport on its way to korea.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pointofview (May 13, 2009 5:22 pm ET)
          2 2
          Pat has an opinion, and is entitled to it. Its that simple.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by theatre goon (May 13, 2009 9:04 pm ET)
            5  
            And everyone here is entitled to point out that he's a bigoted hypocrite, shown by his expression of that opinion. It's that simple.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pointofview (May 14, 2009 8:50 am ET)
              1  
              And so far, Pat is the only one expressing his opinion with out name calling and showing obvious hate.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (May 14, 2009 9:36 am ET)
                   
                I suddenly feel sorry for bigots who are called bigots. We really should show respect for racists as well, so that their feelings aren't hurt. Thank you for showing us the light.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by friedbergboy1422 (May 14, 2009 11:34 am ET)
                   
                Certainly, not "obvious" hate, but hate nevertheless. Is Pat objecting to two senior citizens getting married late in life too?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (May 13, 2009 9:15 pm ET)
            3  
            Thanks for pointing that out, skippy. That's super!

            I have an opinion about Robertson's opinion and I am entitled to it. It's that simple.

            YOU may even have an opinion about my opinion about Robertson's opinion and you are entitled to that. It's that simple.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (May 13, 2009 11:30 pm ET)
            1  
            Wanda Sykes is entitled to her opinion as well, right?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by royman1 (May 13, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
      9 1
      So I assume Pat is opposed to a marriage between a man and a woman if either one of them is sterile?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (May 13, 2009 4:58 pm ET)
           
        He must really hate those hetro couples who chose not to have kids.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 13, 2009 11:40 pm ET)
        2  
        It does sort of sound that way.

        What I find bizarre is how this could be grounds for opposing gay marriage. Is a gay man denied that right more likely to marry a woman and have children, or live with another gay man? My money's on the latter. So what's the difference? You're not gaining any procreation either way. And it's not like we're trying to repopulate the earth after a nuclear war or something anyway. We've got plenty of people as it is. He comes across like his thought process is completely off the rails, and it's been like that for years.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (May 13, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
         
      It's been done. 2 gay men donate their sperm to a sperm bank, and eventually...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (May 13, 2009 4:56 pm ET)
         
      It's been done. 2 gay men donate their sperm to a sperm bank, and eventually...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (May 13, 2009 5:00 pm ET)
      2  
      This same stupid argument can be used against a guy like myself by the right-wing freaks...

      My wife and I have had three children... I have since had a vasectomy... so what he is basically saying is that since we can no longer have more children, we should not be allowed to be married anymore, let alone not allowed to have sex??

      My point is: What difference does it make that two people are in love that can't make babies somehow have no right to be happy? The entire right-wing message of hate and vileness is beyond reprehensible! I have met several hetro-couples that have been married for decades with no children... should they be forced out of their marriage simply because they did not have children?

      Pat Robertson is a pathetic insect. He is one of the few people I would slap across the face if I saw him!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (May 13, 2009 5:09 pm ET)
      1  
      Pat's completely gone off the rails lately...

      It's sad when the elderly lose their grip on reality.

      Pat seems to have created a cottage industry of lunacy. Sadly, the man is close to becoming a complete laughingstock.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (May 13, 2009 8:08 pm ET)
      1  
      When Pat says something relevant to the 21st century, I'll care.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fawltylogic (May 13, 2009 8:08 pm ET)
         
      When Pat says something relevant to the 21st century, I'll care.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Kiracomplex (May 13, 2009 9:21 pm ET)
         
      Can you Imagine trying to give birth with Pat watching you...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by smittymatt16 (May 13, 2009 11:03 pm ET)
        4
      C'mon, he did not say if a woman is not capable of having children, or that if a man is unable to provide sperm for a child, or if someone had a vasectomy then they should no longer be married. He is simply saying that if two men can have relations and produce a human life, then he would change his view. The reason being is because it has never been done. No two people with male parts can reproduce. That is his statement.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 13, 2009 11:19 pm ET)
        1  
        I don't think the context supports your argument. Note the phrase "how else do you have babies?" which immediately preceded the highlighted quote. His point is not simply that he'll never change his mind, it's that marriage is supposed to be for procreation. That does open the door for questions about heterosexual couples who cannot or will not reproduce.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 14, 2009 7:59 am ET)
        1  
        1) Procreation is an ireelevant argumnent. People can get married and also simply CHOOSE not to have kids. Procreation is not anywhere near the only reason for two people to marry, and it's pure idiocy to suggest that it is.

        2) Hmmm... seems to me that "two people with male parts" did just recently get pregnant. They have a cable show, and the RW (predictably) got sick over it. MMFA touched on some of the more absurd and abusive comments that were made. NOW... I realize that the example may not satisfy what you're talking about, but you should be more careful how you say it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (May 14, 2009 8:31 am ET)
          1  
          Are you sure both people had "male parts"? That's not the impression I had, unless you're counting a beard as a "male part".
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 14, 2009 8:42 am ET)
               
            Whoops... No I was mistaken. There was a 100% woman in teh relationship, but she was not the one carrying the baby. (All the same, she was also not the father - I think we can assume that was a man, no?) The other was a post-op transexual. Yes, s/he had 'male parts.' The technicality here is the s/he also still had some 'female parts' left over, on the inside. It's a goofy example, but it does satisfy the 'two people with male parts' statement. And it's no more goofy that suggesting that having kids is the only reason two people would get married.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (May 14, 2009 9:33 am ET)
                 
              I thought that the "op" in "post-op" was a mastectomy. We're talking about Beatie, right? The birth was vaginal, so that's more than just "on the inside". I wouldn't consider a lack of breasts to be a "male part", and as far as I know, that's all that there was.

              I do agree the procreation argument for marriage is idiotic.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 14, 2009 12:27 pm ET)
                   
                Hmmmm... I thought I'd read that it was a cesarian delivery, and that s/he infact had the full sex change, but I can't seem to find a reference confirming that, so I guess I may have been wrong in that assumption. All the same, having "male parts," as you define them, would not have stopped this - though, admittedly, it is an absurd example. :)

                (Just an aside.... I know a TG'd person online who was all geeked out about this "miracle" when the stroy first broke and I was like... "What's the big deal? Person with womb gives birth. Wow. Stop the f-ign presses!" LOL.)
                Report Abuse
    • Author by VoiceOfReason (May 14, 2009 12:13 pm ET)
         
      How do you guys feel about the fact that Obama is against gay marriage? Because he is against gay marriage. I've heard him state explicitly that he's against it. And I'm sure that all of you media junkies have heard the same clips I have. You know, the one where he says he's AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. I'll expect the same childish insults and lack of argument that you've directed against this old nobody to be redirected toward Obama now. Because he's against gay marriage. But what do I know - after all, I'm just the VOICE OF REASON.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tman418 (May 14, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
           
        Yeah, but unlike Pat Robertson, Obama is not a bigot, nor will he take any active stance against it. He doesn't really care, and unlike Bush, he's not trying to get some useless, stupid constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nation wide in the wake of recent states' decisions to allow gay marriage (which is not imposing gay marriage).

        I personally think he doesn't have a problem with it, he just can't say it publicly. He made a joke about Iowa actually in the WHCD.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by VoiceOfReason (May 14, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
             
          ROUND AND ROUND YOU GO, WHERE YOU STOP, NOBODY KNOWS! Whew! I must have stumbled into my washer because I'm in the spin cycle. Why can't you just come clean and be honest? The people on this board are no better than the pundits they seek to criticize. They're just on the opposite side. Their bias is transparent and their hypocrisy relentless. States don't "choose" gay marriage; courts overturn the will of the people. The public overwhelmingly opposes it.

          And if Obama doesn't have a problem with it, as you say, but says he does, what does that make him? I'll let you fill in the blanks. But what do I know? After all, I'm just the VOICE OF REASON.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (May 15, 2009 12:46 am ET)
               
            I don't see the word "choose" in that post, so I'm not sure why you put that in quotes. Courts interpret state Constitutions. State Constitutions trump the will of the people.

            If Obama doesn't have a problem with gay marriage, which is my impression as well, then that makes him a smart politician. As you noted yourself, the public opposes it. Embracing it is suicidal, so the smart thing to do is to approve of civil unions, and stay quiet while gay marriage slowly gains ground. It's not only the better way to go for personal gain, it's better for the cause. Standing up for gay marriage and losing an election likely puts a gay rights opponent into office, which sets the cause back, while at worst someone who supports civil unions will try to help accomplish something for gay rights.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by carojoy (May 15, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
         
      Making a baby is what constitutes a marriage? What about women who were born with damaged ovaries or men whose testicles may have been destroyed in war? Are these people banned autmonatically from being married?

      If a couple loves each other, they should be afforded the right to marry. My brother has been divorced three times and he's straight. My sister and her partner, who have been together for almost thirty years, have outlasted his "normal marriages". Talk about "equal rights" there.

      I just don't understand men like Pat Robertson and Focus on the Family. Family should be of the heart, not of the law. Let two people marry as long as they want to and especially if they love each other unconditionally.
      Report Abuse