Pat Robertson Says Divorce Ok if Spouse Has Alzheimers

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson told his "700 Club" viewers that divorcing a spouse with Alzheimer's is justifiable because the disease is "a kind of death."
During the portion of the show where the one-time Republican presidential candidate takes questions from viewers, Robertson was asked what advice a man should give to a friend who began seeing another woman after his wife started suffering from the incurable neurological disorder.


"I know it sounds cruel, but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again, but make sure she has custodial care and somebody looking after her," Robertson said.

http://news.yahoo.com/pat-robertson-says-alzheimers-makes-divorce-ok-000952197.html

 

He's such a pig. I hope if he ever gets ill his wife dumps him. Preferably for a younger sexy guy.

 

I sort of took it as him saying "if you are going to cheat anyway why not just get divorced instead of violating your marriage vows"

........WHICH is the attitude that man women have, including many women in this form

"If he's going to cheat on me he should just leave"

 

Agreed.

 

He needs to die. He gives religion a bad name.

 

There's a special place in hell directly next to Jerry Falwell for Pat Robertson and those of his ilk.

 

[YOUTUBE]MyE5wjc4XOw[/YOUTUBE]

 

you could look at it that way but he wouldnt have the mindset to say that. he is a douchebag

 

religion had a bad name before him. he just took it to another level

 

Well I've never been a fan of Pat anyway, but that said, it's nice how he's taking creative license with the Bible to support this stance. Divorce due to disease is not supported by scripture. If you intend to use scripture as a guide, and I would think Pat of all people would, there are very few reasons given under which divorce can be sought, and illness is not one of them. Even if he does consider it a 'kind of death'... hell we're all terminal, no one gets a pass on dying, so if he's going to use that as an excuse then everyone's got a new out.

He seems to switch ships midstream though with the whole 'leave before you cheat' suggestion. Pat needs to make up his mind, pick a message, and stick to it... or better yet, just STFU. In general, not specifically dealing with one partner being ill, I personally agree that if you're thinking about cheating, you might as well file for divorce. I think in most cases if you have that desire, then something isn't satisfactory, though that may simply be that you crave variety. I understand that you can love your partner completely, but still crave sex with other people, and sometimes sex is nothing more than need fulfillment and it has nothing to do with love. However, in my experience that's hard for most people to appreciate. and women in particular associate love with sex and so it's typically considered cheating and off-limits to them.

The issue is more complicated when one partner is unable to have sex, and while I couldn't leave someone solely for that reason, and I do not believe the Bible gives anyone an out to do so, I do believe sex qualifies as a biological need. Were I in a relationship and unable to satisfy that need for my partner, he'd have my blessing to do so elsewhere, and I would expect him to do precisely that and would not hold it against him when he did. If he felt he needed to divorce me, then so be it.

 

I vote for him to STFU, but then I've been saying that for 30 years and no one's listened yet LOL

 

I find it interesting that many people who claim adherence to their religious tenets to function with a kind of "situational" ethics.

In particular, I'm reminded of the practice employed by Muslims, often from the Saudi Region, to engage in "temporary marriages" when traveling away from home. Those marriages are viewed as a way to avoid the very serious religious and criminal offense of adultery.

The subject of sex is certainly complex. I've observed that many people would follow the course that you described , based on a biological need justification. I first want to say that I'd never judge anyone for doing whatever they felt their heart and moral perspective supports for them. However, I can't help but wonder, though, if this consideration is unduly selfless as people expect their spouses to cheat when faced with this situation.

Why would a partner who has close emotional bonds with his/her "sick" spouse be moved to want sex outside of that relationship? In other words, if the issue is purely about sex, why isn't masturbation a viable option for the other spouse?

If the matter is more related to a loss of the feeling of intimacy between the parties, is it possible to find new ways alternate ways to replace the waning or lost communication, perhaps reading to that spouse much like a parent finds comfort and closeness in reading to their babies? Can the sense of physical closeness be maintained by continued sleeping with the spouse, holding hands or touching one another?

I'm not advocating that anyone shouldn't follow his/her own conscience in difficult decisions. Personally, I tend to examine most issues including my own sense of ethics, in a dispassionate way, perhaps too much so for most people.

 

I have to spread the love before I can rep you again, Swirl, but I agree. There are many ways for people to be intimate, and even sexually intimate, when there are health issues.

 

Shocked and disappointed to read this. What happened to "in sickness & in health, for better or for worse?"

 

I do think that you have to take scripture, understand it to the best of your ability, and then apply it to your life. I don't believe in taking the word of anyone else, as in the end I'm the one paying for the mistakes I make, so I'll be the one interpreting what it means for me. However, there are some areas where the Bible is really clear, and divorce is one of them. It says no where you get an out if they're sick, though there is scripture that deals with instances where your spouse cannot provide for you, but that deals with monetary support, not sexual needs. So I think Pat's just pulling this out of the air. You watch in a few months his wife will turn up with Alzheimers and he'll file for divorce.

I agree with you both that there are plenty of ways to be intimate, but I don't think it's lack of intimacy that necessarily drives someone outside a marriage when faced with a situation where they are unable to have sex with their partner for a protracted amount of time. Sex and intimacy are not the same thing. Masturbation and sex are not the same thing and don't satisfy in the same way IMO. I doubt anything will ever be able to fully replicate the feel of being inside another person, or having them inside you... the feel of their skin against yours... seeing their face as they enjoy you, and as you please them. It's sex combined with that human touch that makes it satisfying, and nothing manual or battery operated is going to achieve that, at least not for me.

That said, I wouldn't seek sex outside a marriage if my partner was unable to provide that because I wouldn't feel that was right for me. However, I wouldn't attempt to force anyone else to accept my view on that, so as I said if I were not able to provide that for him, he's free to get that elsewhere. Now I don't want the details on that, and there would be some safety rules, but I'd be fine with it in those circumstances. I look at it like this, I love him therefore his happiness, well-being and satisfaction are priorities to me... sex is typically something people enjoy and expect to some degree in a relationship... if I can't meet that need, then it should be met elsewhere. It would be important to me that he be happy, and I would never want someone going against their nature, or denying their own needs solely out of a sense of loyalty to me. From the religious aspect, it's not adultery if I okay it. I think what two consenting adults agree to within their relationship is their business and as long as they are both fine with it, then that's what matters.

I realize the concept probably offends some people, but I'm not saying I think everyone should do that, it's just what I would feel was the right thing to do were I in that situation.

 

It does not offend me, but then I'm the woman who won't get seriously involved because of her MS, and that's one of the reasons. I would not want to tie someone down to that. On the other hand if things were different and I was with a man who could no longer have intercourse, I would not look outside the relationship - it's just not how I'm built.

I have a friend who has been a paraplegic since she was 18. She's married, and she can technically have sex, but she doesn't feel it. She does it for her husband. On the other hand, all of her sexual responses somehow wound up transferred to her ears, and he's always and forever playing with them when they're in public and driving her absolutely crazy :-D

 

I agree chesbaygrl. I hope his wife had her ears open.

 

Divorce is also okay when dumb ass statements like that come out of your mouth.