If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wisconsin Gazette)   Who looks more like a real woman? The drag queen on the left or the anti-gay Christian-right leader on the right?   (wisconsingazette.com) divider line 162
    More: Amusing, sexual immorality, homophobias, drag queens, Wisconsin Constitution, certification mark, RuPaul  
•       •       •

24293 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2013 at 4:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-08 04:04:17 PM
FTFA:  "Our University of Wisconsin System is placing the stamp of approval on homosexual propaganda and explicitly immoral content ... that sends the wrong message to our next generation of leaders, parents, and families,"

I'm guessing this idiot has never been to any of our campuses...ever.
 
2013-03-08 04:06:15 PM
$3 to see Shangela? Oh honey I would so be there if I lived closer. I loves me some RPDR.
 
2013-03-08 04:07:20 PM
Shoot the hostage.
 
2013-03-08 04:07:40 PM
{{{Stop It Boner}}}
 
2013-03-08 04:07:49 PM
Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"
 
2013-03-08 04:08:39 PM
FTFA:Since fundamentalist Christians condemn sexual behavior outside the context of a heterosexual marriage, Appling presumably has never experienced human sexuality.

Also, lol.
 
2013-03-08 04:09:00 PM
Lock your doors, close your minds.... its time for the two minute warning.... DKs
 
2013-03-08 04:09:03 PM
If those two were the only other humans left in the world...and I had to choose one...

/impossible choices
 
2013-03-08 04:09:49 PM
When I attended University of Wisconsin/Madison, the gheys were still in the closet.  NTTAWWT.
 
2013-03-08 04:10:05 PM
It's A Trap!
 
2013-03-08 04:11:20 PM

JMel: {{{Stop It Boner}}}


atlantablackstar.com
 
2013-03-08 04:11:52 PM

asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"


What serious social issue would that be?
Whether a person should to go to a show or not?
Or whether people should mind their own business or not?
 
2013-03-08 04:12:12 PM

asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"


Exactly!  Because, women never cast judgement on other women based on outward appearances.
 
2013-03-08 04:12:22 PM
You said "right" twice, Subby.
 
2013-03-08 04:12:27 PM
"Human sexuality is both a gift and a responsibility given to man by God," wrote Appling. Since fundamentalist Christians condemn sexual behavior outside the context of a heterosexual marriage, Appling presumably has never experienced human sexuality.

You know playa the game, you know maka the rules.
 
2013-03-08 04:12:54 PM
Me and my confused erection have no idea what to make of this...

Also, that drag queen is kinda hot too...
 
2013-03-08 04:13:00 PM

asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"


Drag queens are a serious social issue? Since when?
 
2013-03-08 04:13:14 PM
She's jells
 
2013-03-08 04:13:48 PM
Three dollars to see a show and to get it right up the bigots at the same time.

I'd say that's a pretty good deal for the locals.
 
2013-03-08 04:14:24 PM
FTA: "In a strongly worded statement posted on the Wisconsin Family Voice, Julaine Appling demonized the event as a "display of immorality" intended to propagandize young people."

Right, right. Because what you and your ilk are doing isn't propaganda, so it's ok.
 
2013-03-08 04:14:42 PM
SO, whoever looks more like a woman is correct?
 
Ehh
2013-03-08 04:15:27 PM

asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem.


Yeah, you're right. The one on the right does look like a man.
 
2013-03-08 04:15:39 PM
Is that the old chick from Glee?
 
2013-03-08 04:15:40 PM
Lady is as lady does.

/And I'll bet Julaine Appling doesn't
 
2013-03-08 04:16:53 PM
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.coms

I'm sorry, my dear, but now you must go home.  Sashay away!

/I love love LOVE her show. Lurve it.
 
2013-03-08 04:17:10 PM
Well one looks like a natural aging person and the other looks like an overdone clown with serious psychological issues. What do I win?
 
2013-03-08 04:17:43 PM
I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?
 
2013-03-08 04:17:48 PM

whyaduck: $3 to see Shangela? Oh honey I would so be there if I lived closer. I loves me some RPDR.


Hallelu!
 
2013-03-08 04:18:27 PM
A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

memedepot.com
 
2013-03-08 04:18:49 PM
"Human sexuality is both a gift and a responsibility given to man by God," wrote Appling.

If that were true our genitals wouldn't look so funny.
 
2013-03-08 04:19:18 PM

asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"


Um, yeah, subby, what does a "real woman"  look like?
(P.S.  Wish I still had a car -- Wisconsin's an easy drive away, and this show sounds like fun)
 
2013-03-08 04:20:24 PM
So just drag, not transsexual?   Not nearly as interesting.  That hideous thing on the right should not be given attention.
 
2013-03-08 04:21:42 PM

whyaduck: $3 to see Shangela? Oh honey I would so be there if I lived closer. I loves me some RPDR.


Years ago RuPaul was a spokesperson for MAC cosmetics. He said "Honey, I'm an old black man and if this makes me look this good just think of what it can do for you".
MAC has the best lipsticks, ever.

Unfortunately, the woman on the left looks like your average 'real woman' subby, but the drag queen is oh so glamorous.
 
2013-03-08 04:21:53 PM

C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.



I imagine this is what the inside of their closet looks like

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-08 04:22:15 PM

asynchron: "Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"


It's not an article about a serious social issue. It's an article about a moralizing, stuffed-shirt pain in the ass with a superiority complex who can't help but whine about anything and everything that she personally doesn't like as if she's the arbiter of what other people should and should not be allowed to do.

Fark her. She deserves nothing but taunting and mockery and she invited it entirely on herself by sticking her nose in where it didn't belong.
 
2013-03-08 04:22:20 PM
"The 'main attraction' is the guest appearance of self-proclaimed male homosexual transvestite 'Shangela' from a lewd reality television show 'RuPaul's Drag Race,' in which homosexual male drag performers compete for prizes.

Let's start how far this lady has her head up her ass.
Self proclaimed male homosexual. *ahem* He's out, get used to it sister. It's just about a hate crime to bust his chops on that.
Male transvestite. As opposed to like, uh, Hilary Clinton?
And as for labeling the rest fo the performers as gay, not all drag queens are gay, babe. Pull your farking head out and go out and see a show sometime.

Koonts like this need to die off already.
 
2013-03-08 04:23:45 PM

C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

[memedepot.com image 152x143]


Repressed middle aged dykes are so hostile. I say we start up a fund to buy her a double header to share with her 'roommate'.
 
2013-03-08 04:24:46 PM
Here's a question: How does being transgender fit into the "no gay marriage" platform? Does your birth gender control, or your post-op gender? Or, can you just not marry, period? How about after you're married. If one spouse in a married couple undergoes gender reassignment, do they have to get divorced?
 
2013-03-08 04:25:09 PM

enik: Well one looks like a natural aging person and the other looks like an overdone clown with serious psychological issues. What do I win?


I agree, but the drag queen's makeup definitely does cover those signs of natural aging.
 
2013-03-08 04:25:25 PM
Niether.
 
2013-03-08 04:25:28 PM

Diogenes: If that were true our genitals wouldn't look so funny.


You think YOUR genitals are funny? MINE are goddamned  hilarious.

/it's the little clown hats
 
2013-03-08 04:25:54 PM
Uncle Miltie would never make it on TV today.

www.hollywoodphotostore.com
jewishcurrents.org
24.media.tumblr.com

Neither would Jamie Farr.
 
2013-03-08 04:26:00 PM

vudukungfu: She's jells


I'd like to think that if she went to the show, the queens would take her backstage and show her how to do hair, makeup and wardrobe... something that no one has ever cared enough to show her... and they would bond over this, she would gain some femininity, self-esteem and compassion and they would all become close friends.
 
2013-03-08 04:27:49 PM
on the right we have someone who is unmarried, looks happy and knows how to have fun with men.

on the right we have a old, frigid, killjoy, crone who wouldn't know a good time if it hiked those utters up from her kneecaps and slapped her with them.

the one on the right is obviously the woman.

/ducks
 
2013-03-08 04:28:29 PM

rkiller1: When I attended University of Wisconsin/Madison, the gheys were still in the closet.  NTTAWWT.


When was this, the 50s?  I was there from 98-05, and gay life was literally celebrated in the streets during the gay pride parade.  The gay/straight alliance dance was a fun time every year.  Maybe there were some closeted bois in the frats, but that's nothing new.
 
2013-03-08 04:28:35 PM

C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

[memedepot.com image 152x143]


Would like to point out the Watertown is a shiat hole.  So, it seems fitting she lives there.
 
2013-03-08 04:30:12 PM
And in response to the article, the homohater lives with another woman.  In some circles, that makes her a big old dyke.  No doubt she is; can't wait for her to get outed.
 
2013-03-08 04:31:03 PM
She walked like a woman and talked like a man.
 
2013-03-08 04:31:06 PM

AbbeySomeone: I say we start up a fund to buy her a double header to share with her 'roommate'.


Word. Sadly she's not listed on switchboard.com, so getting it there might be tricky. Maybe it's on her Amazon wishlist.
 
2013-03-08 04:32:22 PM
www.crewmagazine.com
 
2013-03-08 04:32:28 PM

C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

[memedepot.com image 152x143]


WELL ISN'T THAT SPECIAL!
 
2013-03-08 04:33:32 PM
Thats a man baby!
 
2013-03-08 04:33:59 PM
A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.
 
2013-03-08 04:35:19 PM
If I were forced to pick which one I had to sleep with, I think I would cut off my own penis.
 
2013-03-08 04:35:46 PM
I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32
 
2013-03-08 04:39:54 PM
Julaine Appling (lady on the right in the picture made me think of the God Warrior lady...

God Warrior Lady
 
2013-03-08 04:45:19 PM

C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

[memedepot.com image 152x143]


I bet their carpets are very clean.
 
2013-03-08 04:45:39 PM
Since drag queen threads on Fark are few and far between I'll just leave this here.

Willam's Beatdown, the crudest/funniest YouTube beauty video review hosted by a drag queen out there.
 
2013-03-08 04:45:42 PM

Nineinchnosehair: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.


Every time I read this quote in this thread I start guffawing loudly.
 
2013-03-08 04:46:15 PM
Don't like it? Then don't farking watch it, you twat.
 
2013-03-08 04:53:03 PM
HORSE CACK TRANNY THREAD!!
 
2013-03-08 04:53:30 PM

asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"


Shh, your derp is showing.
 
2013-03-08 04:53:38 PM
in this thread: anyone who is anti-gay is secretly gay, including 95% of all historical figures
 
2013-03-08 04:54:25 PM

asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"


Another idiot who doesn't understand what "ad hominem" means.

Insulting someone you disagree with isn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when you insult someone, then use that insult to dismiss the argument without actually refuting it.


"You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.
 
2013-03-08 04:55:04 PM

Chinchillazilla: I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?


I've never understood this either.  Seriously, can someone with a better understanding of Christian theology explain this one for us?  I mean, if Jesus died for our sins and this means that as long as we accept Jebus as our savior we can now eat bacon for breakfast or have lobster for dinner or do a bunch of the other list of things that Leviticus says is a no-no if you want to get into heaven, then why is a guy sucking another guy's dick is still considered the equivalent of a "Go directly to Hell, do not meet Jesus, do not collect 200 sheckels" card?

I really do wish someone could explain this.  I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of theological justification for it--what is it?
 
2013-03-08 04:56:02 PM

Nineinchnosehair: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.


Uh huh, riiiiiiight. A defender of traditional marrage who is not married and lives with another unmarried woman? The only problem with this theory is that it means someone would have had to stick their tongue in there.
 
2013-03-08 04:56:18 PM

Douchie McBaggus: If those two were the only other humans left in the world...and I had to choose one...

/impossible choices


I'd just write a beautiful eulogy for the human race and take the drag queen.
 
2013-03-08 04:59:53 PM
Actually, they both look like women. Only one of them looks like a reasonably attractive woman.
 
2013-03-08 05:02:21 PM
I want the repressed dyker washed
then done up like the retraining scene in clockwork orange

she can watch what I do to the other
 
2013-03-08 05:03:22 PM

nmrsnr: Here's a question: How does being transgender fit into the "no gay marriage" platform? Does your birth gender control, or your post-op gender? Or, can you just not marry, period? How about after you're married. If one spouse in a married couple undergoes gender reassignment, do they have to get divorced?


To the fundies, anything other than repressing all sexual urges, and farking only your wife, to make her pregnant, is a crime against their religion. No matter who is doing the farking or how unrelated and distant the fundie is from the act.
 
2013-03-08 05:03:52 PM
in all fairness, that outfit would make anyone look frumpy.
 
2013-03-08 05:07:53 PM

Cyberluddite: Chinchillazilla: I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?

I've never understood this either.  Seriously, can someone with a better understanding of Christian theology explain this one for us?  I mean, if Jesus died for our sins and this means that as long as we accept Jebus as our savior we can now eat bacon for breakfast or have lobster for dinner or do a bunch of the other list of things that Leviticus says is a no-no if you want to get into heaven, then why is a guy sucking another guy's dick is still considered the equivalent of a "Go directly to Hell, do not meet Jesus, do not collect 200 sheckels" card?

I really do wish someone could explain this.  I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of theological justification for it--what is it?


There is no special justification for it. They just make shiat up..

Spent years in church before I figured that out.
 
2013-03-08 05:10:17 PM

xen0blue: in this thread: anyone who is anti-gay is secretly gay, including 95% of all historical figures


did you see this part in the article? "A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown. "

This is most of the backlash right there
 
2013-03-08 05:12:56 PM
I finally went to check the photos, lemme tell you, I'm getting a definite scent of camphor and kerosene from Ms. Appling.
 
2013-03-08 05:27:41 PM
Which one was the drag queen?
 
2013-03-08 05:31:27 PM
I've seen some VERY attractive transgender folks- I would almost categorically say that 99% of men would be attracted to some of the misdirected sex assignments the good lord above has made. There is a case for the man in a women's body and vice versa. I'm reminded of the lyrics in Lola by The Kinks. Some of them don't even require much work to finish the transformation. That pic of "Shangela" in the article is a prime example of how at first glance, it's almost impossible to tell someones gender. No need to get phobic or confused. It's just aesthetics-

Drove a cab in San Francisco in the late 70's/early 80's for a number of years and was confused numerous times over exactly who was sitting in the back seat of my cab. Gorgeous girl with a deep husky voice. Learned all about adam's apples and the only real way to tell-by the fingers on the hand. MANY a out-of-town businessman thought he had sex with a chick, when he was being gayer than he could know. The drunk ones especially; so sloppy they couldn't tell what was going where in whom.
 
2013-03-08 05:31:34 PM
c) Justin Bieber

/It's always c
 
2013-03-08 05:32:28 PM

Cyberluddite: Chinchillazilla: I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?

I've never understood this either.  Seriously, can someone with a better understanding of Christian theology explain this one for us?  I mean, if Jesus died for our sins and this means that as long as we accept Jebus as our savior we can now eat bacon for breakfast or have lobster for dinner or do a bunch of the other list of things that Leviticus says is a no-no if you want to get into heaven, then why is a guy sucking another guy's dick is still considered the equivalent of a "Go directly to Hell, do not meet Jesus, do not collect 200 sheckels" card?

I really do wish someone could explain this.  I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of theological justification for it--what is it?


Short answer:  You are right.
Long answer:
a)  Catholicism:  Because Dogma (Priests who like their wine are fun at parties, even more fun when they are relatives)
b)  Other:  Levitical Law is about location and time period and much is not applicable anymore.  New justification for anti-gay is God creating man and woman to be with each other in Genesis. Heaven is not earned, but can be denied for unrepentant sins.  To summarize: it is bad to be gay, but worse not to repent it and it is better not to sin than to sin and repent.

//every two weeks - breakfast with a christian mens group.  Challenging the 2 fundies in the group on their own turf  is a hoot.  Mostly we just vent about life, our wives, and kids.
 
2013-03-08 05:33:46 PM

Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32


1 Peter 3:6 "- Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external-the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear- but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands..."

Restated in numerous other passages, such as 1 Timothy 2:9 and Isaiah 3:16-24

Sounds like Ms. Unmarried Gold-chain Pretty-blouse-wearing Appling will be there as well.

/If you're going to cherry-pick, expect me to bake your ass into a pie
//I can guarantee I can find a Biblical passage that can be translated to condemn ANY person  you put forward
 
2013-03-08 05:34:17 PM

Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32


fark off,  you Westboro Baptist coont.
*PLONK*
 
2013-03-08 05:37:43 PM
 
2013-03-08 05:40:21 PM

Cyberluddite: Chinchillazilla: I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?

I've never understood this either.  Seriously, can someone with a better understanding of Christian theology explain this one for us?  I mean, if Jesus died for our sins and this means that as long as we accept Jebus as our savior we can now eat bacon for breakfast or have lobster for dinner or do a bunch of the other list of things that Leviticus says is a no-no if you want to get into heaven, then why is a guy sucking another guy's dick is still considered the equivalent of a "Go directly to Hell, do not meet Jesus, do not collect 200 sheckels" card?

I really do wish someone could explain this.  I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of theological justification for it--what is it?


The way I understand it is that the Old Testament Law required blood sacrifices to atone for sins committed (breaking the laws as laid out in Leviticus, etc). Jesus was the final sacrifice that atoned for all sins forever, thereby completing the requirements of the Law. Since the requirements have been completed, those who accept that Jesus was the final sacrifice (aka Christians) are no longer bound by the OT Law and no longer have to follow it.
 
2013-03-08 05:40:45 PM

asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"


2/10
 
2013-03-08 05:43:47 PM
These 'morality' lunatics really need to start another religion. I'm sure Christ would spit in their face if they were in front of him (well, he probably wouldn't but I'm sure he'd want to).
 
2013-03-08 05:49:32 PM

LavenderWolf: nmrsnr: Here's a question: How does being transgender fit into the "no gay marriage" platform? Does your birth gender control, or your post-op gender? Or, can you just not marry, period? How about after you're married. If one spouse in a married couple undergoes gender reassignment, do they have to get divorced?

To the fundies, anything other than repressing all sexual urges, and farking only your wife, to make her pregnant, is a crime against their religion. No matter who is doing the farking or how unrelated and distant the fundie is from the act.


I'm sure there is no relationship between these teachings, toe tapping in public restrooms and child molestation. 99% of the time it's a 'straight' married, religious man.
 
2013-03-08 05:51:38 PM

catmandu: Cyberluddite: Chinchillazilla: I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?

I've never understood this either.  Seriously, can someone with a better understanding of Christian theology explain this one for us?  I mean, if Jesus died for our sins and this means that as long as we accept Jebus as our savior we can now eat bacon for breakfast or have lobster for dinner or do a bunch of the other list of things that Leviticus says is a no-no if you want to get into heaven, then why is a guy sucking another guy's dick is still considered the equivalent of a "Go directly to Hell, do not meet Jesus, do not collect 200 sheckels" card?

I really do wish someone could explain this.  I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of theological justification for it--what is it?

The way I understand it is that the Old Testament Law required blood sacrifices to atone for sins committed (breaking the laws as laid out in Leviticus, etc). Jesus was the final sacrifice that atoned for all sins forever, thereby completing the requirements of the Law. Since the requirements have been completed, those who accept that Jesus was the final sacrifice (aka Christians) are no longer bound by the OT Law and no longer have to follow it.


Hit "add" too soon. The reason most fundies still follow their cherry picked version of the OT as "God's Law" is because they want a list of rules and regulations that tell them what to do. Living their lives according to principle instead of rules is just too hard. It makes them feel like they are following God's will when they can point to something in the Bible and say that they are doing that. Easier to tithe the OT law of 10% and say they did their financial duty than to pray about where they should apply their money. If they do that, God may ask them for more and may actually want them to help out the poor.
 
2013-03-08 05:53:35 PM
Wow. It's like somebody mated Emma Thompson and Christopher Walken and then stuck the head onto the "Darksided" mom from Wife Swap.
 
2013-03-08 05:58:34 PM

Sofa King Smart: vudukungfu: She's jells

I'd like to think that if she went to the show, the queens would take her backstage and show her how to do hair, makeup and wardrobe... something that no one has ever cared enough to show her... and they would bond over this, she would gain some femininity, self-esteem and compassion and they would all become close friends.


To Shangela,
Thanks for everything.
Julaine Appling
 
2013-03-08 05:59:34 PM

Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32


You do, huh?

Matthew 7:1-5
John 8:7
 
2013-03-08 06:03:02 PM
You do can, huh?

FTFM
 
2013-03-08 06:03:19 PM
static1.businessinsider.com
 
2013-03-08 06:09:01 PM

Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32

 
2013-03-08 06:10:20 PM

blatz514: C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

[memedepot.com image 152x143]

Would like to point out the Watertown is a shiat hole.  So, it seems fitting she lives there.


With batshiat crazy like that I figured she was out of something like West Bend.
 
2013-03-08 06:10:36 PM

Acharne: Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32


That post was a witty retort, Fark had the image working in the preview but when posted it failed. I am *not* 'QFT' Mija's silly and ignorant post.
 
2013-03-08 06:19:35 PM

Ken VeryBigLiar: blatz514: C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

[memedepot.com image 152x143]

Would like to point out the Watertown is a shiat hole.  So, it seems fitting she lives there.

With batshiat crazy like that I figured she was out of something like West Bend.


I was guessing somewhere in the Delafield/Wales/Muckwanago derpfecta

/In-laws live in Wales. I love 'em but they fit the Waukesha County stereotype
 
2013-03-08 06:20:35 PM

KellyKellyKelly: Sofa King Smart: vudukungfu: She's jells

I'd like to think that if she went to the show, the queens would take her backstage and show her how to do hair, makeup and wardrobe... something that no one has ever cared enough to show her... and they would bond over this, she would gain some femininity, self-esteem and compassion and they would all become close friends.

To Shangela,
Thanks for everything.
Julaine Appling


John Leguizamo might be willing to reprise his role for that.
 
2013-03-08 06:33:45 PM

Ed Grubermann: asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"

Drag queens are a serious social issue? Since when?


24.media.tumblr.com

Since I've been making boys cry when they ask for BIE.
 
2013-03-08 06:34:32 PM

grokca: C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

I bet their carpets are very clean.


Subaru on the drive?
 
2013-03-08 06:37:37 PM

Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.


No, only God can do that. Been a heretic long?
 
2013-03-08 06:44:34 PM
The one on the right looks like she gets hit with an ugly stick every morning.
 
2013-03-08 06:51:03 PM

grokca: asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"

What serious social issue would that be?
Whether a person should to go to a show or not?
Or whether people should mind their own business or not?


I think he was talking about right wing bigotry, and the fact that people still feel comfortable admitting that they are christian in public.

Shameful!
 
2013-03-08 06:52:41 PM

Douchie McBaggus: If those two were the only other humans left in the world...and I had to choose one...

/impossible choices


not so.  give the the drag queen.

/ gotta have some one fun to drink with
 
2013-03-08 07:01:35 PM
How bout no to both. I dont like my women to have teh crazy and being a fundie and thinking you are a woman when you have a cawk both sound crazy to me.
 
2013-03-08 07:03:03 PM

vernonFL: s

I'm sorry, my dear, but now you must go home.  Sashay away!

/I love love LOVE her show. Lurve it.


Ditto. Also got my straight male SO hooked because it's the only honest *and* damn entertaining reality show.

/Shangela better open the library and read that 'woman'
//that said I'm amazed at her staying power. Never one of my faves
///pulling for jinxxx now but I'd be cool with Alaska too
 
2013-03-08 07:03:21 PM

Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32


I'll keep a seat warm for you until you get there.
 
2013-03-08 07:10:03 PM
"Hey fundies: Thanks for the free advertising!"
 
2013-03-08 07:12:17 PM

whyaduck: Since drag queen threads on Fark are few and far between I'll just leave this here.

Willam's Beatdown, the crudest/funniest YouTube beauty video review hosted by a drag queen out there.


I have never seen this before. You have wasted my Friday afternoon with silly gay fun.

Thank you.
 
2013-03-08 07:13:46 PM
How much time does this woman spend "researching" all of these sinful, sinful activities? She seems pretty knowledgeable about RuPaul's Drag Race, after all...

Plus, there's the whole "devoted her life to another woman" thing.
 
2013-03-08 07:22:38 PM

AbbeySomeone: C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

[memedepot.com image 152x143]

Repressed middle aged dykes are so hostile. I say we start up a fund to buy her a double header to share with her 'roommate'.


Throw in a Holly Near album and I'm in.  When I was a kid my best friend's mom was the prototypical middle-aged dyke.  Folk music, hot water bottles and macrame owls, OH MY!
 
2013-03-08 07:27:45 PM
Let me get this straight...it's okay to attack someone's looks and how they dress, cut their hair, etc. if you disagree with them politically?

The less attractive of the two is wrong (IMHO), but attacking her for her looks is no different than attacking Maddow for her look.  When people do the latter, everyone seems to lose their shiat.

//So many things to criticize someone about, unless they are a model their look is irrelevant.
 
2013-03-08 07:30:09 PM

Strike a pose!

i651.photobucket.com

"Taxpayers should beware, and quickly take action to defend our shared values. The Badger State's standards for it's [sic] families are much higher than this shameful display of sexual immorality on our campuses in an our local communities."


Pretty strong words...for a tranny.
 
2013-03-08 07:30:44 PM

Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32


How cute. You think your imaginary friend is real.
 
2013-03-08 07:34:29 PM

Ghastly: Ed Grubermann: asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"

Drag queens are a serious social issue? Since when?

[24.media.tumblr.com image 850x508]

Since I've been making boys cry when they ask for BIE.



Uncle Ghastly's cleavage: the only reason to have drag threads.


I'll put five bucks in the Double-Header Fund for this closeted hag before she explodes.  Plenty of people have gone through plenty of crap so she doesn't have to live that way, poor old duck.
 
2013-03-08 07:38:39 PM

Ghastly: Ed Grubermann: asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"

Drag queens are a serious social issue? Since when?

[24.media.tumblr.com image 850x508]

Since I've been making boys cry when they ask for BIE.


Since you'd rather prance around than draw more God-damned Zipper Ninja, you mean.
 
2013-03-08 07:41:23 PM

AbbeySomeone: C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

[memedepot.com image 152x143]

Repressed middle aged dykes are so hostile. I say we start up a fund to buy her a double header to share with her 'roommate'.


All the young girls love Alice
Tender young Alice they say
Come over and see me
Come over and please me
Alice it's my turn today

All the young girls love Alice
Tender young Alice they say
If I give you my number
Will you promise to call me
Wait 'til my husband's away
 
2013-03-08 07:50:07 PM
Never in a million years did I ever think I would see my hometown, Menasha, in the news. Much less on Fark.

Sad to admit my mother probably supports this woman. Loved growing up in WI but I am sure glad I got the hell out 20 years ago.
 
2013-03-08 07:53:58 PM
Ewwwwwww
 
2013-03-08 08:05:13 PM

AbbeySomeone: C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

[memedepot.com image 152x143]

Repressed middle aged dykes are so hostile. I say we start up a fund to buy her a double header to share with her 'roommate'.


Even if no one starts a real one, we could do sort of a virtual one.  Many years ago, a DC comic did a kind of fundraiser where if you donated to your favorite cause IRL, you send a copy of the receipt with the amount highlighted, and they would count up the numbers after so long, and give that amount to a charity in the DC Universe.  We should each "give" something like the last two digits of our SocSec, phone, or FARK number, as dollars or cents, add them up, and see how many high quality Double Headers we could buy if the final amount was actual money.
 
2013-03-08 08:05:21 PM
Nevermind the attractive part, wonder about who is the happier, more joyful, kind hearted, and relaxed person in life.

Some folks waste a lot of perfectly good life hours thinking about other people are doing things that they think are wrong instead of enjoying themselves.
 
2013-03-08 08:16:16 PM
I absolutely love that this article pointed out she's not married and lives with another unmarried female.  You make it your business to tell other people how to live, the way you live your life is fair game.  Mind your own damn business if you want to keep your own shiat private.
 
2013-03-08 08:16:34 PM

mjbok: Let me get this straight...it's okay to attack someone's looks and how they dress, cut their hair, etc. if you disagree with them politically?

The less attractive of the two is wrong (IMHO), but attacking her for her looks is no different than attacking Maddow for her look.  When people do the latter, everyone seems to lose their shiat.

//So many things to criticize someone about, unless they are a model their look is irrelevant.


Generally I'd say no it's not, but in the case of the seriously anti-homo folks (not the, I don't want to see two dudes making out, it's icky, but I'm not against giving them rights people) there is usually something psychologically and sexually wrong with them that seems to be the root cause. Often, it seems like they are repressed homosexuals or bisexuals themselves. Other times, most especially in the case of women, they are so fugly/mean/crazy that they aren't getting the sexual attention they desire, so they lash out. A variation on that theme is when a conventionally unattractive women has married a closeted gay man, and she fears losing him and believes she will never find another man, so she joins him in his homophobic activities and fear mongering to bind him to her.

In her case it looks like the ugliness might be a factor, so I don't see a problem with people pointing it out. This is NOT a woman with happy sex life, and that undercuts her argument that it's about all these other social things and not just her being mad and jealous.
 
2013-03-08 08:32:20 PM
I'd rather watch a drag show where people are happy and celebrating life and who they are than some biddy who tries to smush everyone into her narrow minded bigoted view point.
 
2013-03-08 08:44:30 PM

FunkOut: Nevermind the attractive part, wonder about who is the happier, more joyful, kind hearted, and relaxed person in life.

Some folks waste a lot of perfectly good life hours thinking about other people are doing things that they think are wrong instead of enjoying themselves.


Nothing is less attractive than obsessively trying to force people to be the way you want them to be.
 
2013-03-08 08:45:36 PM

shut_it_down: Hallelu!


came here for this.  leaving happy.  <3
 
2013-03-08 08:51:30 PM

ambercat: Generally I'd say no it's not, but in the case of the seriously anti-homo folks (not the, I don't want to see two dudes making out, it's icky, but I'm not against giving them rights people) there is usually something psychologically and sexually wrong with them that seems to be the root cause. Often, it seems like they are repressed homosexuals or bisexuals themselves. Other times, most especially in the case of women, they are so fugly/mean/crazy that they aren't getting the sexual attention they desire, so they lash out. A variation on that theme is when a conventionally unattractive women has married a closeted gay man, and she fears losing him and believes she will never find another man, so she joins him in his homophobic activities and fear mongering to bind him to her.


I still don't think it's right to attack someone because they're unattractive.  Far better targets for derision.
 
2013-03-08 09:01:23 PM
Most trannies look better than the women I know.
And yes I am deeply depressed.
 
2013-03-08 09:10:02 PM

mjbok: ambercat: Generally I'd say no it's not, but in the case of the seriously anti-homo folks (not the, I don't want to see two dudes making out, it's icky, but I'm not against giving them rights people) there is usually something psychologically and sexually wrong with them that seems to be the root cause. Often, it seems like they are repressed homosexuals or bisexuals themselves. Other times, most especially in the case of women, they are so fugly/mean/crazy that they aren't getting the sexual attention they desire, so they lash out. A variation on that theme is when a conventionally unattractive women has married a closeted gay man, and she fears losing him and believes she will never find another man, so she joins him in his homophobic activities and fear mongering to bind him to her.

I still don't think it's right to attack someone because they're unattractive.  Far better targets for derision.


Fair enough, I will now judge her on her viewpoint.  It's disgusting.
 
2013-03-08 09:17:46 PM

jake_lex: You make it your business to tell other people how to live, the way you live your life is fair game. Mind your own damn business if you want to keep your own shiat private.


She's an attention whore.  That has to count for something,.
 
2013-03-08 09:26:48 PM
The one on the right doesn't look mannish, but the one on the left is definitely more conventionally attractive.

/the term for a male-to-female transsexual is "trans woman"
//the term for a performer like this "drag queen"
///"tranny" is considered offensive by the transgender community
////Please get it right
 
2013-03-08 09:42:31 PM

MeanJean: The one on the right doesn't look mannish, but the one on the left is definitely more conventionally attractive.

/the term for a male-to-female transsexual is "trans woman"
//the term for a performer like this "drag queen"
///"tranny" is considered offensive by the transgender community
////Please get it right


It's pretty complicated. I'm a crossdresser. I don't consider myself gay or transgender. I've been to a Tri-Ess meeting in Philly and I met so many different variants.  Some men were transitioning towards actual female parts, some were happily married to understanding wives - including where the men were allowed to indulge away from their wives at certain times.  I met policemen, firemen, linesmen, etc. - very "manly" on the outside, but they feel feminine at times and they dress in feminine clothes.  I don't see them being gay.  In fact, I saw them being very comfortable with themselves and manly.  Playing pool, talking about their jobs, normal joe-job stuff.

I had a problem with a therapist of mine.  She went against me because she felt my outlook on crossdressing is fetishism and I felt she judged me on that.  I still feel she is one of the best activists for TG.  She is human and she made a mistake.  One of the best therapists I ever met and I'm happy that she expanded my universe.
 
2013-03-08 09:48:44 PM
Ghastly: "Since I've been making boys cry when they ask for BIE"

Bureau of Indian Education?
 
2013-03-08 09:55:54 PM

Bung_Howdy: Ghastly: "Since I've been making boys cry when they ask for BIE"

Bureau of Indian Education?


Bureau didn't he'p me none any.  Alls I can tells ya, is they's a short where's Gumby wuz workin' for the BIA.  'Splains a whole mess of a lot, right there.
 
2013-03-08 10:27:08 PM

Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32


Some of us outgrow imaginary friends.
 
2013-03-08 10:55:47 PM

Cyberluddite: Chinchillazilla: I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?

I've never understood this either.  Seriously, can someone with a better understanding of Christian theology explain this one for us?  I mean, if Jesus died for our sins and this means that as long as we accept Jebus as our savior we can now eat bacon for breakfast or have lobster for dinner or do a bunch of the other list of things that Leviticus says is a no-no if you want to get into heaven, then why is a guy sucking another guy's dick is still considered the equivalent of a "Go directly to Hell, do not meet Jesus, do not collect 200 sheckels" card?

I really do wish someone could explain this.  I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of theological justification for it--what is it?


Jesus's death was meant to take away the need for a blood sacrifice to atone for one's sins, not abolish the Old Testament laws (as confirmed by Matthew 5:17). Many Christians believe that St. Peter's vision of a sheet filled with animals meant that at the same time Gentiles were allowed to receive the Gospel, animals ceased to be clean or unclean and just became food. The OT law still stands, but that doesn't keep most people from ignoring it.

/source: 15 yrs in the Christian school system
//atheist, as you probably guessed :)
 
2013-03-08 11:03:24 PM
FTFA: "A self-proclaimed defender of 'traditional marriage,' Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown."

Self-hating closeted lesbian says what, now?
 
2013-03-08 11:09:24 PM
www.austinchronicle.com
 
2013-03-08 11:13:57 PM

grokca: C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

[memedepot.com image 152x143]

I bet their carpets are very clean.


So clean one could eat off of them.
 
2013-03-08 11:22:29 PM

Ghastly: Ed Grubermann: asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"

Drag queens are a serious social issue? Since when?

[24.media.tumblr.com image 850x508]

Since I've been making boys cry when they ask for BIE.


If you went on Drag Race I'd watch the shiat out of it. They'd have to change the title to "Uncle Ghastly's Drag Race."
 
2013-03-08 11:23:12 PM

Ed Grubermann: AbbeySomeone: C0rf: A self-proclaimed defender of "traditional marriage," Appling has never married and has lived for decades with another never-married woman in a home the two own jointly in Watertown.

[memedepot.com image 152x143]

Repressed middle aged dykes are so hostile. I say we start up a fund to buy her a double header to share with her 'roommate'.

All the young girls love Alice
Tender young Alice they say
Come over and see me
Come over and please me
Alice it's my turn today

All the young girls love Alice
Tender young Alice they say
If I give you my number
Will you promise to call me
Wait 'til my husband's away


Godammit! I had that song in my head when reading a recent thread about the dance teacher and her student.

/Poor little darlin'
//hey, hey, hey, it's my turn today

//violent bass riffs
 
2013-03-08 11:29:24 PM

ambercat: Other times, most especially in the case of women, they are so fugly/mean/crazy that they aren't getting the sexual attention they desire, so they lash out. A variation on that theme is when a conventionally unattractive women has married a closeted gay man, and she fears losing him and believes she will never find another man, so she joins him in his homophobic activities and fear mongering to bind him to her.


So how do you explain Michelle Bachman?  She seems to straddle categories.
 
2013-03-08 11:59:02 PM
Meh.  Religious old biddies (and feminists) are also against clubs where women perform for straight men.  So I guess they are "anti-straight"?  I feel persecuted.  Yawn, no not really.
 
2013-03-09 12:30:09 AM
OK, none of these are drag queens, but still:

Miriam Rivera:

www.planeta-kobiet.eu

Kim Petras:

img.karaoke-lyrics.net

Ann Coulter:

si0.twimg.com
 
2013-03-09 12:38:00 AM

spqr_ca: Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32

Some of us outgrow imaginary friends.


Is that why you live at Foster's?
 
2013-03-09 12:39:07 AM
LavenderWolf:Insulting someone you disagree with isn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when you insult someone, then use that insult to dismiss the argument without actually refuting it.


"You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.


Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.
 
2013-03-09 12:43:12 AM

Cyberluddite: Chinchillazilla: I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?

I've never understood this either.  Seriously, can someone with a better understanding of Christian theology explain this one for us?  I mean, if Jesus died for our sins and this means that as long as we accept Jebus as our savior we can now eat bacon for breakfast or have lobster for dinner or do a bunch of the other list of things that Leviticus says is a no-no if you want to get into heaven, then why is a guy sucking another guy's dick is still considered the equivalent of a "Go directly to Hell, do not meet Jesus, do not collect 200 sheckels" card?

I really do wish someone could explain this.  I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of theological justification for it--what is it?



The short answer is that both the Old Testament and the New Testament  supposedly condemn homosexuality (obviously the point is debated, but many Christians believe so.)  Thus being allowed to ignore the Old Testament's rules, which most Christians do, permits them to eat shellfish, for example, but homosexuality is still a sin because of the New Testament.

We have Paul (who wrote much of the New Testament) to thank for that.
 
2013-03-09 12:54:17 AM

fariasrv: ambercat: Other times, most especially in the case of women, they are so fugly/mean/crazy that they aren't getting the sexual attention they desire, so they lash out. A variation on that theme is when a conventionally unattractive women has married a closeted gay man, and she fears losing him and believes she will never find another man, so she joins him in his homophobic activities and fear mongering to bind him to her.

So how do you explain Michelle Bachman?  She seems to straddle categories.


I think she's a batshiat crazy, possibly closet lesbian married to a badly closeted man. She's not unattractive, but I think her crazy does act as a repelling force to, well, just about anyone who doesn't have a similar lack of sanity level. I would guess that her religion is the source of her closeting, and I would not be surprised if she and her husband had discussed the subject and had some kind of 'let's keep each other from falling into sin' pact on the subject. You'll notice, they've had a lot of foster children in their house, NONE of them boys.
 
2013-03-09 01:44:38 AM

Ghastly: Ed Grubermann: asynchron: Wow, subby, nice argument ad hominem. You are what's wrong with the world.

"Ooh, an article about a serious social issue! Let's compare how good-looking the two sides are! That will be super meaningful!"

Drag queens are a serious social issue? Since when?

[24.media.tumblr.com image 850x508]

Since I've been making boys cry when they ask for BIE.


you throw me off every time. bravo.
 
2013-03-09 02:17:57 AM

ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting someone you disagree with isn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when you insult someone, then use that insult to dismiss the argument without actually refuting it.


"You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.


But it was never implied in this case.
 
2013-03-09 03:05:24 AM

Diogenes: "Human sexuality is both a gift and a responsibility given to man by God," wrote Appling.

If that were true our genitals wouldn't look so funny.


They didn't look funny before the Fall. Duh.
 
2013-03-09 04:02:00 AM

LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting someone you disagree with isn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when you insult someone, then use that insult to dismiss the argument without actually refuting it.


"You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.

But it was never implied in this case.


Her argument doesn't need to be refuted because it's based entirely on bigotry and therefor deserves mocking rather than debate.  The fact that she's fugly (especially compared to the drag queen she's protesting against), possibly a closeted self-hating "deviant" herself just adds a big helping of delicious irony to the pie.
 
2013-03-09 05:50:01 AM

whyaduck: $3 to see Shangela? Oh honey I would so be there if I lived closer. I loves me some RPDR.




And I'd drive us there.
 
2013-03-09 10:16:01 AM
images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-03-09 11:00:16 AM

ciberido: Cyberluddite: Chinchillazilla: I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?

I've never understood this either.  Seriously, can someone with a better understanding of Christian theology explain this one for us?  I mean, if Jesus died for our sins and this means that as long as we accept Jebus as our savior we can now eat bacon for breakfast or have lobster for dinner or do a bunch of the other list of things that Leviticus says is a no-no if you want to get into heaven, then why is a guy sucking another guy's dick is still considered the equivalent of a "Go directly to Hell, do not meet Jesus, do not collect 200 sheckels" card?

I really do wish someone could explain this.  I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of theological justification for it--what is it?


The short answer is that both the Old Testament and the New Testament  supposedly condemn homosexuality (obviously the point is debated, but many Christians believe so.)  Thus being allowed to ignore the Old Testament's rules, which most Christians do, permits them to eat shellfish, for example, but homosexuality is still a sin because of the New Testament.

We have Paul (who wrote much of the New Testament) to thank for that.


I realize this thread is finished, but for reference in future 'they eat shrimp, why can't I suck dick threads",  Christians aren't ignoring the Old Testament's rules when it comes to dietary restrictions. In my youth, I was taught that the rules changed when Peter had a revelation in the book of Acts, chapter 10. This interpretation  of his vision of the "vessel" and the formerly forbidden foods is supposedly bolstered by Christ's " Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." in Matthew.
 
2013-03-09 11:00:41 AM
I wonder why she picked this one drag show to get up in arms about. Last I checked, most of the UW campuses put on a drag show at some point during the year.

/been to the drag shows at UW Oshkosh and UW Whitewater
//hoping to see how fabulous the one at UW Madison is this year
 
2013-03-09 11:33:45 AM

Mija: I don't know but I can tell you who will be going to hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Romans 1:18, 26, 27, 32


These passages don't mean what you think they mean...

Corinthians
Romans
 
2013-03-09 12:11:06 PM

LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting "You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.

But it was never implied in this case.



Perhaps not.  Rather than argue that question, could we not perhaps agree that, in general, sometimes when a person says "X" what they're really saying is "Y because of X" and we should concern ourselves with that logic (or lack thereof)?
 
2013-03-09 12:16:27 PM

wellreadneck: ciberido: Cyberluddite: Chinchillazilla: I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality from fundies. They ignore almost everything else in Leviticus.

Jesus died for our sins so that we would be able to get into heaven without worrying about following all the crazy Old Testament rules, right? Is Jesus's sacrifice not good enough for you, fundies?

I've never understood this either.  Seriously, can someone with a better understanding of Christian theology explain this one for us?  I mean, if Jesus died for our sins and this means that as long as we accept Jebus as our savior we can now eat bacon for breakfast or have lobster for dinner or do a bunch of the other list of things that Leviticus says is a no-no if you want to get into heaven, then why is a guy sucking another guy's dick is still considered the equivalent of a "Go directly to Hell, do not meet Jesus, do not collect 200 sheckels" card?

I really do wish someone could explain this.  I'm sure there's gotta be some sort of theological justification for it--what is it?


The short answer is that both the Old Testament and the New Testament  supposedly condemn homosexuality (obviously the point is debated, but many Christians believe so.)  Thus being allowed to ignore the Old Testament's rules, which most Christians do, permits them to eat shellfish, for example, but homosexuality is still a sin because of the New Testament.

We have Paul (who wrote much of the New Testament) to thank for that.

I realize this thread is finished, but for reference in future 'they eat shrimp, why can't I suck dick threads",  Christians aren't ignoring the Old Testament's rules when it comes to dietary restrictions. In my youth, I was taught that the rules changed when Peter had a revelation in the book of Acts, chapter 10. This interpretation  of his vision of the "vessel" and the formerly forbidden foods is supposedly bolstered by Christ's " Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which come ...


Yes, some Christians would argue that.  Not all Christians would agree with, or even be familiar with, that argument.  I was trying to give the "short" answer and so therefore of necessity oversimplifying a bit.

I still think it's fair to say that, in general, most Christians frequently ignore the rules laid out in the Old Testament, even when they don't admit to doing so.   Yes, it's a generalization, perhaps an over-generalization, but it serves as a reasonable "first answer" to anyone who genuinely has no idea, and there are a wealth of books, websites, and other resources if someone wants to explore the issue in depth.

I would also argue that it is not hypocrisy if the Christian in question can give an answer in good faith as to how they reconcile their "deviation" from the Bible, even if you think their answer is illogical or a bit self-serving.
 
2013-03-09 01:16:11 PM

Arumat: LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting someone you disagree with isn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when you insult someone, then use that insult to dismiss the argument without actually refuting it.


"You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.

But it was never implied in this case.

Her argument doesn't need to be refuted because it's based entirely on bigotry and therefor deserves mocking rather than debate.  The fact that she's fugly (especially compared to the drag queen she's protesting against), possibly a closeted self-hating "deviant" herself just adds a big helping of delicious irony to the pie.


Exactly. Insulting? Yeah, to the scoont who deserves it. Ad hominem (as the poster I was referring to stated)? Not a chance.
 
2013-03-09 01:17:12 PM

ciberido: LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting "You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.

But it was never implied in this case.


Perhaps not.  Rather than argue that question, could we not perhaps agree that, in general, sometimes when a person says "X" what they're really saying is "Y because of X" and we should concern ourselves with that logic (or lack thereof)?


Sorry, you've gone too general for me, heh.
 
2013-03-09 02:23:12 PM

LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting "You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.

But it was never implied in this case.


Perhaps not.  Rather than argue that question, could we not perhaps agree that, in general, sometimes when a person says "X" what they're really saying is "Y because of X" and we should concern ourselves with that logic (or lack thereof)?

Sorry, you've gone too general for me, heh.


Fair enough.  If it helps any, I think what I was originally trying to say was that, while I didn't think you were wrong, I also thought the guy you were arguing with wasn't exactly wrong, either.  It doesn't really matter now.
 
2013-03-09 05:27:59 PM
This appling coont is a closeted dyke spinster
 
2013-03-09 08:25:43 PM

Arumat: LavenderWolf: ciberido: LavenderWolf:Insulting someone you disagree with isn't an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when you insult someone, then use that insult to dismiss the argument without actually refuting it.


"You're ugly" is just an insult. "You're ugly and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" is an ad hominem.

Yes, but if the " and therefore I don't have to refute your argument" part is implied, then it IS an ad hominem.

Also, you're ugly.

But it was never implied in this case.

Her argument doesn't need to be refuted because it's based entirely on bigotry and therefor deserves mocking rather than debate.  The fact that she's fugly (especially compared to the drag queen she's protesting against), possibly a closeted self-hating "deviant" herself just adds a big helping of delicious irony to the pie.


How long does one wait before you ad hominem to menudo?
 
Displayed 162 of 162 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report