Pat Robertson, on the 700 Club, had this little gem of fear-mongering against the new LGBT-inclusive hate crimes legislation that recently passed in the House:
“Ladies and gentleman, just figure this: You got somebody, he’s really weird, and—and his ‘sexual orientation’ is he likes to uh–have sex with ducks. Is he protected under hate crime? Is he protected if he likes to have sex with little boys? They haven’t made that clear! It’s sexual orientation which he[, our own 700 Club reporter,] said covers, what, thirty different,” he sputters, “pathologies. And what are we going to do about that?”
Here’s what we’re going to do about that: We’re going to protect paedophiles and zoophiles and, well, everybody from discrimination! Raping children and animals and other beings which are incapable of giving or understanding consent is wrong. Let there be no doubt about that. But, as wrong and illegal as it is to fuck a little boy or a dog or–if you can figure out how to do it–a duck, people who commit those acts should not be harassed, unduly, by the public.
We shouldn’t have to continue adding groups to the hate crimes legislature, a crime of hate can happen to anyone, no matter what group they are a part of, and all crimes of hate should be illegal. Let the courts deal with the duck fucker, Mr. Robertson, it’s not your job to take him to the gates of the city and stone him. Nor is it your job to publicly humiliate him, as is your wish with homosexuals, or to spread damaging lies about him, as is your wish with homosexuals, or to raise up an army of pious sheep against him, as is your wish with homosexuals, or, well, you’re starting to see the pattern here, aren’t you.
Notice it’s the Christians, who whine about being oppressed by hatred, that are radically anti-hate crimes legislation and it’s the gays and secularists, who the Christians whine are the ones being hateful and oppressive, that are pushing for hate crimes legislation. What does this tell you?
(via Media Matters)
Pat Robertson is an idiot (not that you didn’t know that). Duck f*cking is not a “sexual orientation”, it is a paraphilia, which is not covered under HR 1913. Of course the idiots like Robertson continuously fail to mention that they are covered by hate crimes legislation, and merely want to prevent LGBT people from having the same protections they enjoy and have taken for granted for a decade.
Bloody hypocritical bigots.
Comment by Buffy — 30 April 2009 @ 7:51 pm
Abolutely! I’ve thought along the same lines, but your articulation makes it more clear to me. Who cares if the (slightly) ambiguous term “sexual orientation” includes those who get sexual pleasure from painting unibows on themselves with molasses? They’re people too, and they don’t deserve to have hate crimes committed against them just because their sex acts are more creative than the rest of the populace.
Comment by Harrison — 30 April 2009 @ 8:26 pm
I would agree with just about everything you wrote. Pat Robertson, in my opinion, has on the whole done more harm than any amount of good in his so-called ministry. If the very book you claim to ascribe to has your hero, model and savior sitting next to a known adulterer, without even a hint of wanting to stone her (John 4), it may should give you pause on how you talk about people, regardless of the perceived sin.
Like you said, Reed, it is not Robertson’s, mine, or anyone’s right to humiliate, slander, or physically attack someone who we might view as delinquent or whom we disagree with (I would stop someone from having sex with a duck, though).
It’s amazing how people like Robertson can’t tell the difference between saying something offensive because you CARE and saying something offensive because you DON”T CARE. It is obvious from everything that Robertson says that he doesn’t care a rat’s ass about anyone but those that agree with him, which means that I feel no qualms about dismissing what he says, and labeling it as Reed has, as “fear-mongering”.
Comment by Trey Jackson — 1 May 2009 @ 11:50 am
Weird. Trey and I are almost in full agreement here! The only thing we differ on is stopping the duck fucker. I wouldn’t stop him immediately. I’d film it for /b/ and turn the video into a .gif… then I’d probably ask him to stop if the duck looked uncomfortable. If the duck didn’t appear to be in immediate pain, I’d let it go until the cops arrived. But the camera would still be rolling.
Comment by Rev. J. Reed Braden — 1 May 2009 @ 1:50 pm
Sorry for not commenting in a long time!
This I agree with, and that’s all I can really say. Forming an angry mob doesn’t just create a dangerous environment/”distrupt the peace”, but it also puts the offenders’ family through more shame and embarrassment. Do they really need that, Pat? Come on, they didn’t do it, so don’t take it out on them.
Although I must say, if I did happen to see someone raping a cat, giving them a black eye would be tempting . . . just not tempting enough to actually do.
I’m currently typing this on my laptop in a field. A field full of sheep. In Wales.
I’m bound to encounter at least one zoophile, isn’t that right, Daffyd?
Comment by Tom — 5 May 2009 @ 6:19 am