Pat Robertson addressed the Chick-Fil-A controversy on the 700 Club, and in particular a protest by LGBT students at a few dozen colleges around the country, by telling the students to shut up until they have babies. And then, of course, he quotes Leviticus.
Aug 14 2012
Pat Robertson Tells Gay Students to Shut Up
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About the Author
17 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Jasper of Maine (I feel safe and welcome at FTB)
August 14, 2012 at 12:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dear Pat,
No.
Thanks,
Jasper
ShowMetheData
August 14, 2012 at 12:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Hey, you kids!! Get off of my hetero privilege!”
Michael Heath
August 14, 2012 at 12:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed reports:
Mr. Robertson could have cited CJ John Roberts’ majority opinion in the Bong Hits for Jesus ruling (Morse v. Frederick), especially Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion. ;)
Mr Ed
August 14, 2012 at 12:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Was that a wool jacket with a silk lining? Got me some rock just the right size for infidels like him.
a miasma of incandescent plasma
August 14, 2012 at 12:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ugh, that’s terrible.
“Hey kids, your school is your ‘parent in place’, so be happy they didn’t use their totally reasonable right to take you to the shed and whoop you for whatever disciplinary reasons they
make upfind.”baal
August 14, 2012 at 1:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“that part of the anatomy that they concentrate on”
Um, who exactly is always concentrating on “that part”?
oranje
August 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Methinks it’s Pat’s ilk who are a bit too focused on certain parts of the female anatomy. And like 17th-century colonialists, they want to come over and claim sovereignty over it.
thalwen
August 14, 2012 at 1:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well I’m perfectly capable of pushing a baby out of that certain part of the female body that I am apparently focused on because gay people only focus on sex. However, doing so based on a dare from someone as repulsive as Pat, I think I’ll pass.
Crip Dyke, MQ, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden
August 14, 2012 at 3:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Okay, let’s remember now that in Pat’s world, lesbians barely exist. When he says gays, he’s thinking of young, hung twinks with a glistening sheen of sweat over their evil, evil bodies – bodies designed to tempt, to corrupt, to condemn with their endless invitation to please, please focus on this delightful bit of male anatomy. Oh my, how sinful! How dare they prance about so invitingly, seducing Godly men from their marital duties the way that they often do in Virginia Beach, especially after a wholesome night of theater when they are walking arm in arm towards some desert house. The images Satan forces into a godly brain!
Yeah. I don’t think that when he talks about a body part on which gays focus he’s thinking of vaginas, vulvas, or really anything specifically female. Now whether he’s talking about a foreward bulge or a backward bung, I really can’t say. He’s too whackaloon for me to understand his obsessions, but I do feel sure that in his mind Gay != woman/lesbian
busterggi
August 14, 2012 at 3:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Pat shouldn’t be quoting Leviticus IF he believes that Jesus fulfilled the law and created a new covenant with humanity as his religion teaches.
Maybe this shows
a) some doubt in Jesus afterall.
b) that Pat is ignorant of his own church’s teachings.
c) that Pat is a hypocrite.
d) all of the above.
fifthdentist
August 14, 2012 at 5:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But, nearly everything the Chick-Fel-Ate supporters have been spouting is that their “protest of devouring processed chicken parts” is NOT about the homosex — it’s about freedom of speech.
So … Pat Robert’s stance on protecting free speech is to tell other people to shut up.
Yeah, that sounds like fundie Christian logic to me.
evodevo
August 14, 2012 at 6:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What busterggi said …
And, I used to shut my fundie gay-hating coworkers up with the fact that lesbians aren’t mentioned in the Bibull at all. Anywhere, period. Set them back on their heels, I’ll tell ya. They don’t mention that kind of stuff around me any more. I know Bibull verses to counter almost any winger position. They have never studied it enough to know how many internal contradictions it has.
Silence is golden.
F
August 14, 2012 at 9:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Maybe Pat can shut up until he dies.
Or there may be justified individual cases, for example he can cover his mouth when he talks, where this can be … a first bit of responsibility, to redevelop the understanding that not everything is permitted and that one may not do everything one wishes.
Pieter B, FCD
August 15, 2012 at 5:05 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’d say Pat Robertson is a good piece of evidence for the proposition that it is possible to get pregnant from anal sex.
jonmilne
August 15, 2012 at 7:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, for fuck’s sake. I’m gonna paraphrase from something a friend of mine once wrote online about this whole ridiculous bullshit.
Look, Pat, technically, you’re correct: gay couples cannot produce their own children. However, there are a fuckload of ways that a homosexual couple can legally acquire their own genetic offspring:
Then there’s the methods gay couples can acquire custody of non-descendant genetic kin:
Then there’s all the ways that they can gain custody of children from separate genetic lines:
Let’s not forget all the ways that Pat’s oh-so-special straight couples can be just as childless as same-sex couples:
And it’s worked out pretty well for lots of same-sex couples, who have full legal custody over their own children right now:
There’s actually only two ways that opposite-sex couples can acquire children that same-sex couples can’t:
So Pat? These gay couples CAN in fact produce children, and contrary to many of the ridiculous claims your side makes, they are not “Darwinian Dead Ends” anymore than adoption, grandparental and filial support, military and police self-sacrifice, intraspecies symbiosis, and other forms of altruism and social management are dead ends. Gay couples are neither uniquely nor de facto childless. Both gay and straight couples are the full-time legal guardians of their own offspring and of others’. But that’s OK, because even if this WERE true I don’t actually understand how this even matters. I don’t understand why an opposite-sex remarried partner’s past children count for more than a same-sex remarried partner’s past children. I don’t understand why the future children that a same-sex couple can’t have count for more than the future children that an infertile opposite-sex couple can’t have. I don’t even understand why a couple’s fecundity has anything at all to do with their legal recognition. The fact that same-sex couples can’t make babies but opposite-sex couples can seems to have about as much to do with protests about the bigotry of a commercial chain of restaurants as the fact that humans can make cars but dogs can’t has to do with drivers’ licenses. They can’t, but that’s not the reason why.
Banning gay marriage/adoption and displaying bigoted practices against homosexuals doesn’t stop then from walking, kissing, sleeping, or living together. It doesn’t even stop them from getting married, it doesn’t stop anyone from referring to them as spouses, and it sure doesn’t stop them from creating children or having a family. What it does do is make it harder for committed or married (but unrecognized) couples to manage their family, which I would think is the one thing that everyone ought to agree same-sex couples should be allowed to do.
Now why don’t YOU shut the fuck up, Pat?
brocasbrian
August 15, 2012 at 12:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
omg. I almost spit coffee all over my laptop.
brocasbrian
August 15, 2012 at 12:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I would like Pat to shut up with all his je$u$ bothering.