Pat Robertson continues to demonstrate (if there were any doubt), that he just doesn’t “get it.” Today’s example: if we legalize gay marriage, in direct contradiction to the Bible, then the next thing you know we’ll be legalizing child molestation and zoophilia (bolding mine).
ROBERTSON: Lee, we haven’t taken this to its ultimate conclusion. You got polygamy out there. How can we rule that polygamy is illegal when you say that homosexual marriage is legal. What is it about polygamy that’s different? Well, polygamy was outlawed because it was considered immoral according to biblical standards. But if we take biblical standards away in homosexuality, what about the other? And what about bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia? How can we criminalize these things and at the same time have constitutional amendments allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals. You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent.
Robertson’s position seems to be that the only reason we’ve ever thought something wrong or should be illegal is because it’s opposed in the Bible, so if we take the Bible out of the equation, there is no basis for morality and people will be raping and/or slaughtering each other in the streets.
Where to begin?
First off, places that either don’t follow the Bible or have a largely secular society don’t seem to be wallowing in blood and depravity. I’m not aware of a huge upsurge of pedophilia in the Netherlands (where gay marriage is legal), or in Sweden (highly secular), or in China (which is hardly a Bible-thumping nation). Massachusetts has had gay marriage for a while now, and sheep may still safely graze there. To argue that the only basis for morality, and the only thing standing between society and riots in the streets, is the Bible is to paint an unsupportable view of both sociology and history.
That’s not to say that the Bible has had no influence on laws in the West, including the United States, or that it provides no moral framework (good and bad) for personal behavior. But it’s not the only thing standing between humanity and The Lord of the Flies.
Secondly, to take Robertson’s specific point, the Bible actually doesn’t seem to condemn polygamy as “immoral.” Indeed, a number of folks in the Old Testament have either multiple wives or ongoing relationships with more than just their wives. In some cases this actually seems to be approved of, when not mandated, by God.
Sure, Jesus talks about marriage in terms of couples. But that’s because polygamy was out of style in 1st Century Palestine, and speaking differently wouldn’t have made any sense. Jesus didn’t speak in parables about tomatoes or quantum physics or kangaroos — he spoke to what people knew about.
Polygamy was outlawed in the US, not because of biblical standards per se, but because it wasn’t in style for the majority. The Mormons were persecuted for it because it was part and parcel (and a very visible sign) of their religion, which orthodox Christian society found too goofy to put up with.
Lastly, taking the other side of the coin, the Bible doesn’t actually say diddly about child molestation per se. Bestiality, homosexuality, wearing different fibers in one’s clothing, shellfish, touching a woman during her period — yeah, all those are condemned. Correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t believe there’s anything specific in there about pedophilia.
Wow, I guess, by Robertson’s rules, that means it’s okay!
Now, of course, Robertson would argue (when it’s convenient) that we’re talking here about “biblical standards.” That tends to mean anything that someone wants to interpret out of the Bible, regardless of what it actually says (or doesn’t say). When Liberals do this, it’s considered relativism and apostasy. When Conservatives do it, it’s considered being God-fearing and orthodox.
Thus, Robertson would argue that child molestation is against explicit, literalist “biblical standards” probably because it’s fornication (sexual conduct outside of marriage). That’s the only hard, literal injunction I can think of that would apply from the Bible. Presumably if someone managed to get married to an 11 year old, that would alleviate that; such a marriage wouldn’t be legal in the US, but could happen elsewhere, or it could be something done purely in a church, rather than filed with the state.
That’s not to say that Christians don’t think pedophilia is wrong, or don’t have good reason to think so. But it’s not because Jesus or Paul or Moses spoke out against the practice. It’s both interpreting and inferring from what’s (literally) in the Bible plus what we have, societally, decided is important (consent) in a relationship. Those things don’t magically go away if someone says the Biblical injunction against homosexuality shouldn’t prevent the state from allowing it.
Which raises my last point, which is that Robertson’s argument doesn’t apply just to gay marriage, but to homosexuality itself. It directly pertains to whether gays should be arrested and thrown in jail, not just whether they should be allowed to be married. Biblical standards for immorality don’t bear compromise. If, by Robertson’s take on “biblical standards,” homosexuality is immoral, then it should be illegal to engage in, not just illegal to get married within. Is that what he really wants? It certainly doesn’t seem to be the opinion of the majority of Americans, who are against re-criminalizing homosexuality, whether or not they “approve” of it. But if the primary reason for opposing gay marriage is because the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, you can’t split hairs that way.
Ultimately, that Robertson can’t look at a loving gay couple making a permanent commitment to “love, honor, and cherish” all the days of their lives, and see the difference between that and some guy trolling for 9-year-olds on the Internet or having sex with a sheep … says more about Robertson than it does about the gay couple. So does his position that the Bible and the “standards” he gleans from it are the sole basis for law and morality, and the only things keeping us all, himself included, from lives of depravity and debauchery.
