Pointing to a recent surge in businesses that have spoken out against same-sex marriage and other rights, Robertson made the eyebrow-raising statement in a recent "700 Club" broadcast, Right Wing Watch first reported.
"If you show me one couple that conceived a child through anal -- through anal intercourse -- just show me one in all the world, and I will say, ‘I agree with you and you are right.’ Show me one," he said. "It is unnatural, I’m sorry."
Robertson made headlines last week in an earlier broadcast after he implied that the gay community would force Christians to like anal sex, as well as polygamy and bestiality, in an effort to "make you conform to them."
Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage Is 'Unnatural' Because No One Has Conceived A Child Through Anal Sex
It seems like, according to Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity at least, the answer is no.
:shock::doh oooh boy.
Actually, it's not a whole lot different from the Catholic position, which says that if you can't consummate the marriage in the natural way because of, say, sexual disability, you can't have a valid marriage.
That's so dumb.
:doh
Actually, it's not a whole lot different from the Catholic position, which says that if you can't consummate the marriage in the natural way because of, say, sexual disability, you can't have a valid marriage.
Actually, it's not a whole lot different from the Catholic position, which says that if you can't consummate the marriage in the natural way because of, say, sexual disability, you can't have a valid marriage.
One more reason to celebrate that in America we make laws based on evidence and reason and not on religious traditions.
One more reason to celebrate that in America we make laws based on evidence and reason and not on religious traditions.
Which is precisely why I ignore everything they have to say.
Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage Is 'Unnatural' Because No One Has Conceived A Child Through Anal Sex
It seems like, according to Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity at least, the answer is no.
:shock::doh oooh boy.
Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage Is 'Unnatural' Because No One Has Conceived A Child Through Anal Sex
It seems like, according to Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity at least, the answer is no.
:shock::doh oooh boy.
If there is a chance for reproduction then sure, you let them. If it is absolutely certain that they will not be able to reproduce, then they cannot get married. This is already law in the Church. Those who are thought to be sterile can get married in hope that they might still reproduce. Those are are known to be impotent cannot get married.
If there is a chance for reproduction then sure, you let them. If it is absolutely certain that they will not be able to reproduce, then they cannot get married. This is already law in the Church. Those who are thought to be sterile can get married in hope that they might still reproduce. Those are are known to be impotent cannot get married.
If there is a chance for reproduction then sure, you let them. If it is absolutely certain that they will not be able to reproduce, then they cannot get married. This is already law in the Church. Those who are thought to be sterile can get married in hope that they might still reproduce. Those are are known to be impotent cannot get married.
Sterile people can get married, as long as there is disclosure to the other spouse before the marriage.
Impotent people cannot get married.
Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage Is 'Unnatural' Because No One Has Conceived A Child Through Anal Sex
It seems like, according to Pat Robertson's brand of Christianity at least, the answer is no.
:shock::doh oooh boy.
Actually, it's not a whole lot different from the Catholic position, which says that if you can't consummate the marriage in the natural way because of, say, sexual disability, you can't have a valid marriage.
What's "ooooh, boy" about it? Why shouldn't an infertile heterosexual not allowed to marry?
Read your own OP article.
Do you see the difference? No.
Oooooh boy, indeed. :lol:
Legally, those people can get married and in fact, the spouses do not have to inform the other (although not informing your spouse that you know you are sterile can be grounds for a divorce more in your favor.
Is that really true? If a person is disabled and cannot consumate the marriage, the Catholic church does not see that as a valid marriage? I wonder where they based that.
It's my understanding that it's the vow, or the commitment to cleave to each other, that makes a man and a woman considered married in the eyes of God.
No.
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.
Marriage is (amongst other things) an agreement to engage in sexual intercourse. If one is incapable, then one cannot validly marry.
Legality is not the same thing as canonical law. Catholic rules on marriage are not the same as actual laws of marriage.
The Church has the ultimate right to govern such matters.
And in any case, those are natural laws. Since they proceed from the very nature of the thing.
For their church, not others.
No, those are not "natural laws" because marriage is not natural, but rather man-made.
It is entirely natural for man to marry, thus why practically every society has marriage.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?