Completely not the response I was expecting. Wow. How do Christian conservatives claim the moral high ground again?
That's actually not an unreasonable response. I'm not seeing the evil here.
She's not dead, she's got a terrible brain disease. Welcome to the Gingrich club, please leave your humanity at the door.
I don't know. If you imagine his exact words being said by Dan Savage, it's like it's not even a Pat Robertson response. Weird.
I'm not saying this guy shouldn't go out and have relationships with other women, by the way. Denying him that would be being needlessly cruel to a man already experiencing the cruelties of life in ways we all try to not even think about.
It's just -- why does he need to divorce his poor, sick wife to do that?
Oh fuck you dead cat. When a brain disease wipes out the personality, memories and characteristics of a person, leaving only a drooling bodily husk, it's an open question whether or not the person you married is still alive. I'm not sure if I agre with Robertson's answer in the clip, but it is a reasonable answer.
Until you use that brain of yours to think through some of the ramifications of what Alzheimer entails, try not to spill your stupid onto the screen. Please. Do it for the children.
Oh, I'm sorry. Divorcing her, and running off because a terminal disease has reduced her to a living shell and left her completely dependent upon others, is so much more responsible and caring.
And to answer dead cat's question, (posted while I was typing my first response) he needs to divorce his wife because extra-marital sex is a sin, even when the person you're married to is currently a vegetable. So in order to observe the letter of the law, he needs to divorce her. However, Robertson also stipulated that he needs to ensure that his former wife is taken care of, thus satisfying the Christian ideal of kindness to your fellow human being.
Honestly, Robertson's answer was perfectly acceptable, both from a Christian perspective and a secular perspective. Baleen is absolutely correct when he says it doesn't sound like a Pat Robertson comment. But judge the comment based on its content, not who utters it.
- I've read the bible. In order to observe the letter of his religious law, he would be stuck celibate. And please explain to me how abandoning your wife is less of a sin than adultery.
- I don't care who says it: "abandon your dependent loved ones because staying would be really hard" is an awful thing to say. He didn't say the wife was a vegetable or a husk, either; her mental activity is unknown to us aside from her not being able to recognize her husband. This isn't him deciding to leave a potato.
- This isn't even a question from the husband, it's a question from a nosy friend who is shocked/pissed that the husband is seeing other women while married, even though his wife as he knew her is more or less gone and their marriage is no longer even remotely normal.
You keep saying "her" like there's a person in there. Alzheimer's can last for over a decade, and by the end there's less detectable cognitive activity than a zombie. Robertson gave the perfect response, that Alzheimer's is a form of death and it's not the neighbor's right to judge.
The fact that you think this belongs here is indicative of a huge loss of perspective on your part.
I've watched a relative go through this dilemma over a period of about 15 years, eventually losing his house, his entire life savings and contact with his adult daughter in the process.
Dead Cat is a moron.
Wow, it's almost like Alzheimer's disease is something horrible beyond words that turns all your options into a shit sandwich.
Now you're starting to get it. No option is "good" when it comes to Alzheimer's. You have to choose between the least bad option, both practically and ethically. It's not clear which is option fits that description, but Robertson's proposed set of actions is at least a decent stab at it.
What do you mean "now"? I haven't changed my position.
Also, if weasel friend gets the living shit beat out of them when they try badgering the husband to divorce his wife, I will smile.
By "now" I mean your acknowledgement that all options are horrible, so judging between them is a fool's errand. If you want to go back to your retarded original position where you have the audacity to judge someone put in that impossible position, then I return to my original comment to you: fuck off.
I'm sorry, but WHO am I judging? The man in the scenario seems to have found a method that works for him, that helps him stay sane an care for his wife. Whether he stays with her till the end is his own business, but if he's stayed this long, I seriously doubt he would divorce for anything short of necessity. He's not the one I'm judging.
Pat Robertson is the one saying that this man should divorce his wife -- not for necessity, but *convenience*. As I've already said, the husband seems to have found something that works for him. It's Robertson saying that the husband needs to divorce her because his own interpretation of Christian law -- which, incidentally, follows neither the letter nor the spirit of it -- can't stand things as they are. And again, I can't understand why the husband is expected to leave his wife just so he can see other women, or why Robertson seems to think that would be the most moral or compassionate action.
This is a question Pat should have passed on -- there is no answer he could have given that wouldn't either piss off xtian assholes, or make him sound like a ghoul.
|Corpus Delectable |
"But isn't that the vow that we take when we marry someone? It's for better or for...."
"Yeah, well, shut up, bitch. Respect the weenis. Insubordinate whore."
|Jet Bin Fever |
WOW. EVIL. I certainly didn't see that shit coming
Till death or inconvenient illness do us part.
I HATE Alzheimer's!
Here's the full clip:
It seems to me Robertson actually passes on the question. He ends it by saying "get some ethicist besides me to give you an answer." (Which, by the way, is the sanest thing the man has ever said: literally no one in their right mind would ask Pat Robertson for advice on personal matters).
While I can appreciate the glimmer of moral humility here, it's a bumbling, flippant and nearly incomprehensible answer that exposes an underlying hypocrisy in his ethos. The good news is that the one or two people left who still take Robertson seriously will probably be in an uproar over this.
But pick a clip from his show at random and you'll find something more evil than this.
That was one of the most rational and responsible things I've heard the man say.
My grandparents went through the exact same situation, but my grandpa had the emotional support of our family and friends, as well as being terminally ill himself. He chose to stay faithful, but I really couldn't fault a person for breaking the other way. If I was the one with Alzheimer's, I'd tell my wife to consider me dead by the time I reached vegetable stage.
Oh, your 'friend' huh? Right, sure.
I'm surprised Pat's advice wasn't "This is a very common problem. All I will say is that you have a pillow and the element of surprise. Go for it."
When she gets to heaven and is reunited with her mental capacity, she is gonna be pissed.
Old people sex is disgusting anyway. You're not missing anything gramps.
Whoo-hoo! Someone's getting some action tonight!
Wow...I would NOT have expected that response from Pat Robertson.
Okay, but wouldn't it have made more sense for Pat to just faith-heal her through the airwaves like usual?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|