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.

(The Raw Story)   Pat Robertson says "God I love trannies...uh, no homo"   (rawstory.com) divider line 151
    More: Obvious, Pat Robertson, god, mental illness, sex-change operations, personality disorders, gays and lesbians  
•       •       •

11608 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2013 at 10:03 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 11:29:24 AM  

MayoSlather: Funny, I think being religious should be a mental illness.


This...
 
2013-12-05 11:32:31 AM  
I've said it before, I'll say it again. When Pat Robertson dies, champagne and cake will be served at my house. I generally don't condone celebrating the death of someone, but this coont will take the hatred he spews out with him.
 
2013-12-05 11:35:49 AM  

reillan: Kibbles: reillan: nekom: Diogenes: Vaguely reminds me of a guy who used to hang out at our (now gone) local bar.  Guy was hoot, and fun to drink with.  But he was kind of a homophobe, and was amazed when I came out to him.  He wasn't negative, per se, just shocked.

Then, later in the evening he said, "You know, even though I don't get the gay thing, you know what's HOT?  Brazilian trannies!  I would totally do a Brazilian tranny!"

Now, shouldn't his own feelings and attractions alone serve as evidence to him that people come in all varieties?

It's like Ron White says, we're all gay, it's just to what extent.
Not me man, not at all.
Yeah you are, and I can prove it.
Fine, prove it!
Do you like porn?
Yeah, I love porn, you know that.
Do you only watch scenes with two women?

Yes.  So... now what?

Does either othe muse a flaccid dildo?

I always think it's weird when they use objects.


I've always been I the opinion that whatever people do behind closed doors is their own business. Unless it involves underage people or animals. Then I have a problem.

Otherwise....whatever/whomever makes you happy.

/and no chains. NO MORE CHAINS.
//cuffs are still ok
 
2013-12-05 11:41:14 AM  
You can see the gears grinding in Pat Robinson's tiny brain if you look into his black, beady rodent eyes.

The mills of God grind slowly
Yet they grind exceedingly fin
Though with patience they stand waiting
With 'xactness grind they all.


One, the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, gay love or gay marriage. Levitical law condemns a man who lies with another man as with a woman to death. Thus levitical law condemns anal intercourse with a man but not homosexual love, for example. Prince Jonathan loved the future King David with a love surpassing the love of woman according to a later book of the Bible. That sounds a wee bit gay to me.

Two, if you can accept sex changes I can't imagine why you can't accept homosexuality unless it's all about maintaining your little cubby holes of thought. Trannies are OK because they choose to fit themselves into the male (dominant) - female (passive) cubby hole. But a man is a man is a man and even if you flip his penis inside out and make a pseudo-vagina, it's a dude, baby, genetically and possibly neurologically. Things get fuzzy, including logic. Get used to it, because it is only going to get worse.

I'm surprised that Pat Robinson has moved as far as he has on the subject. The people I call "Old Testament Christians" are very attached to any moral rule that is old and seemingly sanctioned and immutable. I also call these people "Pharisees". I reserve "Sadducees" for the older, more upper class religionists who may or may not believe in religion, God, Heaven, Hell, the Devil, Scriptures, the Soul, Immortality, etc., but believe that religion is good for women,  children and servants. The Sadducees did not believe in the immortality of the soul or resurrection, so they make a good touchstone for that type of Christianity.

Levitical law, however, originally applied only to the Levites. As a "higher critic" of the Bible, I don't believe it applied retroactively any more than Kosher laws did (although the authors and editors of the Pentateuch apparently applied their laws retroactively to more ancient times). Furthermore, very few Christians keep Kosher or obey all of the levetical laws. When Saint Peter had his dream about the net let down from Heaven full of non-kosher animals with the injunction "to take and eat", Kosher when out the window. It was bound to happen because Judaism was being adopted by a lot of people and inter-marriage between Jews and non-Jews was happening too frequently for the Orthodox to deal with all the new degrees of new believers.

In short, Christianity is Judaism-lite, without the Law.

In fact, Jesus and Paul emphasis that he who abides by the Law will be judged by God by the Law, while Christ's mission was to liberate believers from the strictness of the Law.

Conservatives accuse liberals and moderates of "picking and choosing", but the strictest fundamentalists pick and choose as much or more so, obeying the letter of the Law when it suits them, and junking it when it thwarts their purposes. As Saint Paul says, "All have sinned." All Christians have picked and chosen which levitical laws to follow. I see no reason to:

avoid non-kosher meat such as lobster, clams, pork, etc.
condemn men to death for having sex with other men
avoid mixing wool, silk and other fibres in your clothing
eating a ham and mayo sandwich
seething a calf in its Mother's milk (dairy and meat are scrupulously separated by Jews to avoid breaking this rule, even if the milk comes from a sheep and the meat comes from a cow)
not eating tomato sauces because it might conceal non-Kosher blood

and so forth.

All of these levitical rules are rules of purity and dammit, we don't need much of that kind of purity nowadays. We have medicine and science and hygiene instead.

Some of the laws in the Torah are wonderfully practical and wise, but that doesn't matter. The point is that they are purity laws which apply only to Jews and probably only to Levites and priests at that.

In my opinion, Jews are generally prone to going too far in the name of logic*, reason*, truth* and piety*. Really. No ketchup? What do they think Mr. Heinz gets up to in his factories?

To make a long argument, short, the biblical inerrantists and Old Testament Christians are, by the words of The Word and the Lord themselves, wrong. This is a heresy that is peculiarly strong among Protestants, especially those of American sects founded after 1600 but also some Old World Protestants. This heresy even taints the right wing of the Roman Catholic and other Churches, including the Eastern Orthodox, the Copts, the Assyrians, the Rastafarians and so forth.

Christians are Jews No More. Stop damning yourself to Hell by subjecting yourself to the Torah!

Stop damning yourself, stop damning yourself, why are you damning yourself! That would be a good caption for a cartoon about an atheist bully picking on True Believers.

If I were going to revert to Christianity, I would revert to my highly liberal Christian background, which wouldn't be much of an improvement over atheism in the eyes of certain types of Christian. My family has belonged to the United Church of Canada for over five generations (in the US, their sister church is the United Church of Christ, a little less modern and liberal than the Unitarians and the liberal Quakers perhaps, or perhaps a little more.

It's quite a stretch to say that God hates the sin and not the sinner and then go on to pour hatred and condemnation on the sinner for being something God presumably hates.

If you really hated the sin, you'd hate blowjobs, not homosexuals, anal sex, not farkers, abortion and not women.

Need I point out that the vast majority of Americans have absolutely no qualms about engaging in sodomy, masturbation, premarital or adulterous sex, etc., but still hate and distrust homosexuals while letting their own kind off the hook?

I'm not saying the problem with Christians is hypocrisy, but the problem with Christians (and all the rest of the world's religionists and unbelievers) is hypocrisy. Two weights and two measures.

So many clergymen and Republicans have been caught out you wonder if they are all closet cases or just supralapsarian Calvinists. Look it up.

But enough theology. It's very tempting for atheists to show off when ignorant Christians muck up their facts, let alone their opinions. Humility is an atheist virtue. You have to be able to say "I don't know" before you chuck out what you don't know or what can not be known.

 *Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
2013-12-05 11:41:58 AM  

Inquisitive Inquisitor: pkellmey: Barfmaker: Didn't he say that a while ago? Sounds familiar.

Yes, he has made this type of statement or something equivalent several times in the past, so it isn't very surprising. It surprises a lot of the people who tune into him, though.

It's one of the few positions that he has been consistent on.  Robertson has repeatedly stated that transsexality is a medical/mental condition and needs to be treated accordingly.  There's no Biblical reason to believe otherwise, save a verse in Deuteronomy that says eunuchs aren't allowed in the Temple.

Now if he'd just respect the findings of the medical community regarding homosexuality.  I don't care if some wrinkled prune of an old man dislikes it.  That's his prerogative. I just wish he'd shut up about it.


Unfortunately, those wrinkled old prunes that agree with Robertson's bigoted ideas tend to vote, and there are plenty of politicians who will gladly pander to them for the easy support.

The silly thing is that the right-wing politicians that the old folks love tend not to vote for progressive laws that make things better for the senior citizens, e.g. funding and laws to stop nursing homes from becoming hell holes.  Old people associate right-wingers with "The wonderful good old days when the air was clean and sex was dirty, coffee cost a nickel and there were no taxes" that they wish to bring back.

When it comes to politics, old people are really their own worst enemy, but all society suffers when they keep blindly supporting the tiny-minded bigots.
 
2013-12-05 11:42:15 AM  

FarkedOver: So if there is a man trapped in a woman's body or a woman trapped in a man's body..... is Pat trying to say that God farked up while delivering a soul from the Guf into a new born? God makes mistakes!?


Maybe it's not so much God's fault as it is the fault of his Quality Control Dept. Angels drinking and smoking weed while on the job, man.

stjent.pinnaclecart.com
 
2013-12-05 11:44:52 AM  
In response to a viewer who asked if her gay nephew needed to pray for himself to be helped, Robertson recalled that homosexuality was considered to be a personality disorder by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973.
"A few years ago the psychiatrists, the psychologists used to say that homosexuality was a mental illness," the TV preacher remarked. "Now, the Supreme Court has said that it is a protected right."



A few years, 40 years. Meh, when the world is a whopping 6,000 years old, 40 years is the same as " a few", I guess...
 
2013-12-05 11:44:56 AM  

brantgoose: Levitical law condemns a man who lies with another man as with a woman to death. Thus levitical law condemns anal intercourse with a man but not homosexual love, for example.


That's a mistranslation. It's supposed to be "thou shalt not lie  to another man as thou wouldst  to a woman." Basically, it outlaws pillow talk between bros.
 
2013-12-05 11:46:12 AM  

starsrift: I wish people like Pat Robertson would stay the fark out of my bedroom. None of his goddamn business what two consenting adults are doing.


He gets your address off those checks that you send him.
 
2013-12-05 11:46:42 AM  

fireclown: gecizzle: Sin... the whole concept is retarded

I disagree.   There are acts that are evil and harmful.  Being gay just isn't one of them.


That's not what "sin" is, though.  "Sin" is defined as something being wrong because God says it is.  While there is significant overlap between "sin" and "things that can be proven harmful to society", the push to make the concept of "sin" obsolete isn't to make it okay to do bad things, but to recognize "because God says so" as being a useless metric of morality.
 
2013-12-05 11:46:52 AM  
Still think the guy is a complete tool.
 
2013-12-05 11:50:11 AM  

Kit Fister: IT'S A TRAP!

[t3.gstatic.com image 194x259]


Jesus, I HAD to search the image thru Google and then find out what a "Trap Thread" was? Dammit!
 
2013-12-05 11:52:43 AM  

Diogenes: George Babbitt: Diogenes: George Babbitt: Diogenes: doubled99: Newsflash-a large percentage of christians believe homosexuality is a sin. How many times can you be outraged by this?

Congratulations on missing the point.

We know his views on homosexuality.  It's the twisted 'logic' he employs to give transsexuals a moral exemption that's key here.

So you're jealous of the high standing that transsexuals have in his opinion?

Don't be dense.

That's just me trying to be funny. Didn't work this time either?

LOL.  Fair enough.  Came off a tad trolly.  It's hard to discern this stuff in text sometimes.

But as I said, his 'morality' on this particular point is so odd - it's grounded in "square pegs need square holes."


It's not that odd. Transsexuals can be viewed as trying to change their body to match their soul; Pat apparently agrees with that logic, and from his viewpoint the logical extension is that TS people should follow the laws that match our souls, not our bodies.

Makes perfect sense to me.
 
2013-12-05 11:55:25 AM  

IdBeCrazyIf: Diogenes: So, God makes mistakes on His assembly line?

Like electronics, his quality assurance guy assured him a 10% failure rate is ok


So if there is a complication in tranny surgery, does s/he get the 'red ring of death'?
 
2013-12-05 11:57:44 AM  

fireclown: gecizzle: Sin... the whole concept is retarded

I disagree.   There are acts that are evil and harmful.  Being gay just isn't one of them.


"Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
        Robert A. Heinlein
 
2013-12-05 12:03:22 PM  

Weaver95: IdBeCrazyIf: Diogenes: So, God makes mistakes on His assembly line?

Like electronics, his quality assurance guy assured him a 10% failure rate is ok

This comment wins the internets


But only the 10% of it that is FAIL.
 
2013-12-05 12:10:16 PM  

Kibbles: reillan: Kibbles: reillan: nekom: Diogenes: Vaguely reminds me of a guy who used to hang out at our (now gone) local bar.  Guy was hoot, and fun to drink with.  But he was kind of a homophobe, and was amazed when I came out to him.  He wasn't negative, per se, just shocked.

Then, later in the evening he said, "You know, even though I don't get the gay thing, you know what's HOT?  Brazilian trannies!  I would totally do a Brazilian tranny!"

Now, shouldn't his own feelings and attractions alone serve as evidence to him that people come in all varieties?

It's like Ron White says, we're all gay, it's just to what extent.
Not me man, not at all.
Yeah you are, and I can prove it.
Fine, prove it!
Do you like porn?
Yeah, I love porn, you know that.
Do you only watch scenes with two women?

Yes.  So... now what?

Does either othe muse a flaccid dildo?

I always think it's weird when they use objects.

I've always been I the opinion that whatever people do behind closed doors is their own business. Unless it involves underage people or animals. Then I have a problem.

Otherwise....whatever/whomever makes you happy.

/and no chains. NO MORE CHAINS.
//cuffs are still ok


Wait, chains are wrong, should I not have done that?
 
2013-12-05 12:21:51 PM  
Fun Canada fact: Alberta is the cheapest province in the country when it comes to health care. They won't pay for vision, dental, or prescriptions. They are also one of the most conservative provinces in the country, and are generally called "The Texas of Canada."

They will also pay for an ENTIRE sex change transition, from the first psych evaluation and hormones and the rest of it.

/it's okay if you need to change your physical body, but two guys just really can't kiss
//notice how it's rarely ever about women
 
2013-12-05 12:23:24 PM  
Ah, Christianity strikes again, the so-called "religion of peace and love".
They say not all Christians are the same, but then tell me, why don't all the other ones condemn these extremists?
 
2013-12-05 12:26:36 PM  

Begoggle: Ah, Christianity strikes again, the so-called "religion of peace and love".
They say not all Christians are the same, but then tell me, why don't all the other ones condemn these extremists?


Because part of what makes us different is accepting that we don't speak FOR God?
 
2013-12-05 12:27:24 PM  
Ah, Christianity strikes again, the so-called "religion of peace and love".
They say not all Christians are the same, but then tell me, why don't all the other ones condemn these extremists?


Isn't it great when your bigotry is socially acceptable?
 
2013-12-05 12:27:42 PM  

corn-bread: I see.
So when god took a woman and hooked on the wrong gear......would that be considered a "mistake"?
And if so how can Robertson justify it being ok to correct that type of "mistake" but not others?

/Ten bucks says he has a tranny child / relative / close friend.
//"Honor dies where interest lies."


Ayup.  Either that, or he's been cramming for his upcoming final.  Because he will be meeting his maker sometime, and that meeting will be interesting if he is still being judgmental.
 
2013-12-05 12:29:22 PM  

Diogenes: Vaguely reminds me of a guy who used to hang out at our (now gone) local bar.  Guy was hoot, and fun to drink with.  But he was kind of a homophobe, and was amazed when I came out to him.  He wasn't negative, per se, just shocked.

Then, later in the evening he said, "You know, even though I don't get the gay thing, you know what's HOT?  Brazilian trannies!  I would totally do a Brazilian tranny!"

Now, shouldn't his own feelings and attractions alone serve as evidence to him that people come in all varieties?


A lot - I would not be surprised if it was a majority - of gay-bashers have gay feelings themselves.
We straight people do not care what gay people do.  Why would we?
 
2013-12-05 12:33:43 PM  

doubled99: Ah, Christianity strikes again, the so-called "religion of peace and love".
They say not all Christians are the same, but then tell me, why don't all the other ones condemn these extremists?

Isn't it great when your bigotry is socially acceptable?


Oh look what we have here, another typical libtard defending Christians.
I can't wait until 2014 when the Jesus-Follower in Chief is out of office.
 
2013-12-05 12:35:34 PM  

The hopeless imp: Funny thing about that... the bible didn't mention homosexuality at all originally. It wasn't until the King James version that it did. Not only that, but it was one of several possible interpretations of passages made vague by the fact that they were written centuries earlier and used figures of speech for a lot of things. Tthe pre-Jesus parts had more to do with Jewish customs clashing with local customs - in other words, temple prostitutes were men in drag (as per the local custom). The Jewish laws prohibited that practice. There's also some other passages that aren't clear what is meant because the context is lost. Jewish Rabbis today are still debating what the hell those passages really meant.
Now when you get to post-Jesus, well it's just Paul and where appears to be talking about homosexuals he's actually talking about "effeminate men." And before anyone gets their panties in a twist, what HE meant by effeminate is NOT at all what we mean by it today. He was talking about men who shirk their civic duties. In other words, acting like women.
However, the bible DOES specifically mention men who castrate themselves - i.e. have a sex change. God doesn't like it when someone fixes his mistakes it seems.

TL;DR, Pat Robertson has non-biblical reasons for liking trannies, it seems.


Especially the parts about them ragging on dogs.  They most likely weren't talking about Fido and other canine companions, but most likely the male temple prostitutes.
 
2013-12-05 12:45:17 PM  

Theaetetus: brantgoose: Levitical law condemns a man who lies with another man as with a woman to death. Thus levitical law condemns anal intercourse with a man but not homosexual love, for example.

That's a mistranslation. It's supposed to be "thou shalt not lie  to another man as thou wouldst  to a woman." Basically, it outlaws pillow talk between bros.


Since the concept of homosexuality as we know it (wanting happily ever after with the same sex) didn't exist then, I interpret Leviticus with its "as with woman" phrase that doesn't exist in the nearby verses about incest and bestiality as meaning "It's still adultery, even with a man," a view which many in the ancient world did not subscribe.
 
2013-12-05 12:47:01 PM  

Peki: //notice how it's rarely ever about women


yep

When they make an AIDS/STD anti-gay argument it's not about women.

When they make a child abuse anti-gay argument it's not about the girls.
 
2013-12-05 12:47:53 PM  

Valiente: Tom Cruise?


So far in the closet he's on a field trip to Narnia.
 
2013-12-05 12:48:59 PM  

jso2897: eyeq360: Bareefer Obonghit: We're all so lucky to have a direct conduit to God here on earth to bounce our ideas off of. Quick, someone ask him if Jesus did in fact 'lose it' because he did not 'use it.'

If you believe the New Testament, he did not have sex with anyone.
However, in the less-accepted texts that definitely did not make it into the New Testament, he was banging Mary Magdalene and was married to her(though some might argue that marriage equals "little to no sex"), and in the Heretical Gospel of Mark, he was involved in some kid of esoteric teachings that involved possible homosexual leanings.  After all, just because you go to a hidden spot to "teach" someone religion, and the other person is a young, attractive male who is wearing next to nothing (something faintly gauzy and see-through) for an entire night, it doesn't mean that Jesus is gay or anything.

Of course not. Would a gay man go traipsing around the desert in sandals and flowing robes with twelve other guys and no women?
The entire idea is utterly absurd.

Naturally.  Which brings me to the question of how did Jesus support himself financially?  Sure, you get donations after doing the miracles and pulling coins out of the mouths of fishes can only go so far.  Which brings me to the conclusion that Jesus and the Apostles were actually the Biblical equivalent of a biker gang selling Holy Land drugs.
God did say use the plants on the Earth because they are good, as in Genesis.  Weed is a plant.  Magic mushrooms are plants.  So they must be good and God approves of their use.
Now Jesus is wandering around the Holy Land doing miracles when he realizes he needs protection and who better than 12 guys with beards?  One of them is a tax collector, so you have the accountant and
government connection.  You have Peter, who is the rock, and your future kingpin heir.  Of course, he's gonna deny you're the son of the God Father and for knowing you, but that happens in Mob movies for the drama.  Judas is a dirty rat stoolie who betrays you for money, so he's the snitch.  The brothers are part of the Family.  And having Zealots who know how to use weapons are muscle.
Donkeys were the pimped out rides back then. You call your product "a new religion" to keep the authorities off your back.  You live the good life, "performing miracles" and hooking up with Mary Magdalene, who is the faithful woman and rich as well.  Sugar momma and boo.
But the Pharisees and Saducees are rival gangs who have the ear of the Man--the Roman authorities.  They use their connections to get you killed, cause they've got to keep the status quo.
Makes perfect sense.  Jesus was a drug dealer.

Joseph, of the Old Testament, now he's gay.  Spending all his time with the sheep.  Wearing a multi-colored coat.  Resisting the temptation of the jailer's hot wife.  Definitely gay.
 
2013-12-05 12:49:44 PM  

Lawnchair: Barfmaker: Didn't he say that a while ago? Sounds familiar.

He has made roughly the same comment before.  It may also sound familiar because it's the exact same position the Iranian theocracy takes on the issue.  So that's nice.


Yeah, I don't have linkies, but basically this. It's his known stance. Also oddly Islamic.
 
2013-12-05 12:50:17 PM  

doubled99: Newsflash-a large percentage of christians believe homosexuality is a sin. How many times can you be outraged by this?


Until it stops.

I'm still outraged that some people are racist.
 
2013-12-05 12:51:27 PM  

fireclown: niet3sche: Sure, it appeared in the DSM at one point

Pfffft.  So did Aspergers at one time.  Thank heavens we did away with THAT.


www.cinemablend.com

Is that a hamburger?
Oh no... I have ass burgers.  No cure.  Better send me home.
 
2013-12-05 12:53:54 PM  
I don't understand transsexuals. I don't judge them, either, I just don't understand them. Their gender issues don't compute in my brain, it doesn't make sense to me. I've tried to understand it from a few different angles, but I always arrive back at "So just be gay." I know that's not right, it's much deeper than that, but for the life of me I don't get it. There's just this part of me that believes there's GOT to be a mental deficiency here that makes a person want to mutilate themselves into a different sex. I don't know. They probably feel the same way trying to understand why Pat Robertson is such a colossal farking asshole.
 
2013-12-05 12:55:59 PM  

mooseyfate: I don't understand transsexuals. I don't judge them, either, I just don't understand them. Their gender issues don't compute in my brain, it doesn't make sense to me. I've tried to understand it from a few different angles, but I always arrive back at "So just be gay." I know that's not right, it's much deeper than that, but for the life of me I don't get it. There's just this part of me that believes there's GOT to be a mental deficiency here that makes a person want to mutilate themselves into a different sex. I don't know. They probably feel the same way trying to understand why Pat Robertson is such a colossal farking asshole.


Lets say you wake up tomorrow without your penis or vagina, would you want it back? I imagine it's something like that...
 
2013-12-05 01:08:03 PM  
This thread is depressing me.  Linus moment:

The concept of sin, good and evil, heaven and hell, God and the devil weren't born out of hatred.  They were borne out of love.  The point in not sinning and trying to go to heaven is to be better than the world we live in.  To be better people than we would be by nature.  This doesn't mean to remind everyone that your better or to point out there shortcomings.  They don't lie when they say it's natural, it is the very essence of human nature to sin.  The purpose of avoiding sin is to better mankind, not to belittle what's already there.  Until we can learn to love and respect that our nature exists, we will forever be trapped in a cycle of hatred and those who see themselves as absolved will never be able to understand those in need of absolution.  Christians were commanded to pray in a closet for a reason.  Piety bears no fruits to the outside world, only further divides.
 
2013-12-05 01:13:38 PM  

mooseyfate: I don't understand transsexuals. I don't judge them, either, I just don't understand them. Their gender issues don't compute in my brain, it doesn't make sense to me. I've tried to understand it from a few different angles, but I always arrive back at "So just be gay." I know that's not right, it's much deeper than that, but for the life of me I don't get it. There's just this part of me that believes there's GOT to be a mental deficiency here that makes a person want to mutilate themselves into a different sex. I don't know. They probably feel the same way trying to understand why Pat Robertson is such a colossal farking asshole.


Sexual orientation deals with preference of mate, while gender identity deals with preference of self.  Asking a trans person why they can't just be gay is like asking a person who expresses sexual interest in blondes why he doesn't just dye his hair.

I once had a friend who described herself as a "gay man in a woman's body".  She was sexually attracted to men, but only if she imagined herself as a man, too.  So telling her to "just be gay" wouldn't work (however, I believe her mindset was born more of her extreme fetish for homosexual porn rather than a genuine gender identity crisis)
 
2013-12-05 01:41:31 PM  

Fast Moon: I once had a friend who described herself as a "gay man in a woman's body".  She was sexually attracted to men, but only if she imagined herself as a man, too.  So telling her to "just be gay" wouldn't work (however, I believe her mindset was born more of her extreme fetish for homosexual porn rather than a genuine gender identity crisis)


Is this the person you speak of?

img.fark.net
 
2013-12-05 02:43:26 PM  

reillan: Kibbles: reillan: Kibbles: reillan: nekom: Diogenes: Vaguely reminds me of a guy who used to hang out at our (now gone) local bar.  Guy was hoot, and fun to drink with.  But he was kind of a homophobe, and was amazed when I came out to him.  He wasn't negative, per se, just shocked.

Then, later in the evening he said, "You know, even though I don't get the gay thing, you know what's HOT?  Brazilian trannies!  I would totally do a Brazilian tranny!"

Now, shouldn't his own feelings and attractions alone serve as evidence to him that people come in all varieties?

It's like Ron White says, we're all gay, it's just to what extent.
Not me man, not at all.
Yeah you are, and I can prove it.
Fine, prove it!
Do you like porn?
Yeah, I love porn, you know that.
Do you only watch scenes with two women?

Yes.  So... now what?

Does either othe muse a flaccid dildo?

I always think it's weird when they use objects.

I've always been I the opinion that whatever people do behind closed doors is their own business. Unless it involves underage people or animals. Then I have a problem.

Otherwise....whatever/whomever makes you happy.

/and no chains. NO MORE CHAINS.
//cuffs are still ok

Wait, chains are wrong, should I not have done that?


You ignored our safe word.
 
2013-12-05 02:53:14 PM  
Until it stops.
I'm still outraged that some people are racist.


I'm against things that are bad. Someone should do something.
 
2013-12-05 02:58:17 PM  

rkettens: Diogenes: Sybarite: Also, God's okay with you putting your brain in the body of a killer robot...just not a gay one.

The Bible is a sadly incomplete instruction manual.

Actually, if you think about it, it's not.  It was a book originally designed to appease the masses and convince them their government/occupiers were on the same page morally.  Over 2000 years later (well whatever the age is) it is still being used to control the masses.  I'd say that is a pretty impresive accomplishment for a bunch of sheep hearders and the soldiers and politicians who edited it.  Plus it is a living document, it's been updated by various powers that be over centuries to suit their needs and yet they can still convince the hordes of people who follow it that it is the "exact, infallible" word of God.


It's got an instruction manual. Its called the Talmud.  You tards took our book translated it from its original Aramaic Hebrew to Greek and English and whatever other heathen tongue and then forgot the user guide.

Then you added some crap by some dudes who claimed a crucified dude said 150 years after he died or whatever.

Yes, the Talmud is 900 pages long and has a plurality of opinions all of which are valid.  Imagine that. Its to prevent the terrible scenario we have today of religious crackpots spouting stupid shiat based on absolutely nothing.
 
2013-12-05 02:58:33 PM  

doubled99: Until it stops.
I'm still outraged that some people are racist.

I'm against things that are bad. Someone should do something.


rambly-ramblings.2308065.n4.nabble.com
 
2013-12-05 03:06:36 PM  

Theaetetus: DarnoKonrad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran

Congratulations Pat, you've about as progressive as the Ayatollah

So, if you're gay, you're an abomination to be put to death... unless you want to change gender, then it's a-okay?
Actually, this is consistent with what some people have been saying for years - a lot of homophobia is really insecurity about gender roles, hence the "who wears the pants" or "which one's the girl" comments. If you change gender but still fit into that rigid dichotomy, then they're okay. However, if you're androgynous, or a non-stereotypically feminine woman or a non-stereotypically masculine man, then it outrages them. After all, then how do they know who to oppress?


THIS
 
2013-12-05 04:31:52 PM  

Diogenes: But as I said, his 'morality' on this particular point is so odd - it's grounded in "square pegs need square holes."


It seems to be grounded in 1 hole = bad.  2 holes = okay.  It just doesn't matter how you got the second hole.  It's part of his holey teachings.
 
2013-12-05 04:44:29 PM  
Does this mean watching Jane Marie is ok? For science, of course
 
2013-12-05 06:25:18 PM  

Lawnchair: He has made roughly the same comment before. It may also sound familiar because it's the exact same position the Iranian theocracy takes on the issue. So that's nice.


Came here to post this. Yikes.
 
2013-12-05 07:48:34 PM  

kortex: Does this mean watching Jane Marie is ok? For science, of course


Also see: Bailey Jay
 
2013-12-05 08:29:23 PM  

eyeq360: Which brings me to the question of how did Jesus support himself financially?  Sure, you get donations after doing the miracles and pulling coins out of the mouths of fishes can only go so far.  Which brings me to the conclusion that Jesus and the Apostles were actually the Biblical equivalent of a biker gang selling Holy Land drugs.


Not quite. The financial backers of the early Christian ministry (and that's the wrong term, I can't remember what they called themselves when Jesus was alive) were women who were the wives of purple dye makers. This is important, because purple dye was extremely expensive (there's a reason it's called royal purple), so that's where a lot of the money came from.

Fast Moon: mooseyfate: I don't understand transsexuals. I don't judge them, either, I just don't understand them. Their gender issues don't compute in my brain, it doesn't make sense to me. I've tried to understand it from a few different angles, but I always arrive back at "So just be gay." I know that's not right, it's much deeper than that, but for the life of me I don't get it. There's just this part of me that believes there's GOT to be a mental deficiency here that makes a person want to mutilate themselves into a different sex. I don't know. They probably feel the same way trying to understand why Pat Robertson is such a colossal farking asshole.

Sexual orientation deals with preference of mate, while gender identity deals with preference of self.  Asking a trans person why they can't just be gay is like asking a person who expresses sexual interest in blondes why he doesn't just dye his hair.

I once had a friend who described herself as a "gay man in a woman's body".  She was sexually attracted to men, but only if she imagined herself as a man, too.  So telling her to "just be gay" wouldn't work (however, I believe her mindset was born more of her extreme fetish for homosexual porn rather than a genuine gender identity crisis)


Well done. To add (especially to the OP):

Sex = what's between your legs. Gender = what's between your ears (or what you wear on your body)

Honestly, the best way to "get" being trans is to actually try to dress and pass as the opposite gender for a day. Do you, as a heterosexual whatever you are (for my purposes here, I'll assume you're male), think you would feel "comfortable" in fishnet stockings? High heels? We're okay a society if you put those on for Halloween, but what people actually  perceived you as a woman, and started calling you "Toots"? Make you a little squirrely? It's not part of your identity. It feels just foreign for a trans female to put on a bra and stockings as it would be for a straight male, doesn't matter that society prefers that she wear that as a tie.

Identity is dependent on two things; how you perceive yourself, and how other people perceive you. Trans people are trying to resolve the conflict between what they know themselves to be, and what other people tell them they are. If we weren't so culturally rigid in our gender/sex roles and expression, I think fewer people would have the mental illnesses associated with being LGBTQ (the culture condemnation and resultant abuse and discrimination causes the problems, not that LGBTQ people are inherently mentally ill) and fewer people might resort to surgery to resolve the conflict.

I appreciate the honesty in the OP that they just don't get it. It's not a mental  deficiency though, just a variation. Like brown skin versus pink, or being a lawyer versus a doctor. The  deficiency is a cultural judgment, and that is were the problem is. For example, we as a culture don't think women are mentally deficient for piercing their ears, and that's definitely a painful body modification. Tattoos, similarly (although of course there are people who would argue that both are practices of the mentally ill, but that's a different conversation).

So there's a good place to start. Replace the phrase "mental deficiency" in your mind and on your tongue with the phrase "mental variation," and see how that works for you for awhile. You might find your way of thinking changing a little too.
 
2013-12-05 09:16:21 PM  

Peki: eyeq360: Which brings me to the question of how did Jesus support himself financially?  Sure, you get donations after doing the miracles and pulling coins out of the mouths of fishes can only go so far.  Which brings me to the conclusion that Jesus and the Apostles were actually the Biblical equivalent of a biker gang selling Holy Land drugs.

Not quite. The financial backers of the early Christian ministry (and that's the wrong term, I can't remember what they called themselves when Jesus was alive) were women who were the wives of purple dye makers. This is important, because purple dye was extremely expensive (there's a reason it's called royal purple), so that's where a lot of the money came from.

Fast Moon: mooseyfate: I don't understand transsexuals. I don't judge them, either, I just don't understand them. Their gender issues don't compute in my brain, it doesn't make sense to me. I've tried to understand it from a few different angles, but I always arrive back at "So just be gay." I know that's not right, it's much deeper than that, but for the life of me I don't get it. There's just this part of me that believes there's GOT to be a mental deficiency here that makes a person want to mutilate themselves into a different sex. I don't know. They probably feel the same way trying to understand why Pat Robertson is such a colossal farking asshole.

Sexual orientation deals with preference of mate, while gender identity deals with preference of self.  Asking a trans person why they can't just be gay is like asking a person who expresses sexual interest in blondes why he doesn't just dye his hair.

I once had a friend who described herself as a "gay man in a woman's body".  She was sexually attracted to men, but only if she imagined herself as a man, too.  So telling her to "just be gay" wouldn't work (however, I believe her mindset was born more of her extreme fetish for homosexual porn rather than a genuine gender identity crisis)

Well done. To add (especially to the OP):

Sex = what's between your legs. Gender = what's between your ears (or what you wear on your body)

Honestly, the best way to "get" being trans is to actually try to dress and pass as the opposite gender for a day. Do you, as a heterosexual whatever you are (for my purposes here, I'll assume you're male), think you would feel "comfortable" in fishnet stockings? High heels? We're okay a society if you put those on for Halloween, but what people actually  perceived you as a woman, and started calling you "Toots"? Make you a little squirrely? It's not part of your identity. It feels just foreign for a trans female to put on a bra and stockings as it would be for a straight male, doesn't matter that society prefers that she wear that as a tie.

Identity is dependent on two things; how you perceive yourself, and how other people perceive you. Trans people are trying to resolve the conflict between what they know themselves to be, and what other people tell them they are. If we weren't so culturally rigid in our gender/sex roles and expression, I think fewer people would have the mental illnesses associated with being LGBTQ (the culture condemnation and resultant abuse and discrimination causes the problems, not that LGBTQ people are inherently mentally ill) and fewer people might resort to surgery to resolve the conflict.

I appreciate the honesty in the OP that they just don't get it. It's not a mental  deficiency though, just a variation. Like brown skin versus pink, or being a lawyer versus a doctor. The  deficiency is a cultural judgment, and that is were the problem is. For example, we as a culture don't think women are mentally deficient for piercing their ears, and that's definitely a painful body modification. Tattoos, similarly (although of course there are people who would argue that both are practices of the mentally ill, but that's a different conversation).

So there's a good place to start. Replace the phrase "mental deficiency" in your mind and on your tongue with the phrase "mental variation," and see how that works for you for awhile. You might find your way of thinking changing a little too.


You're in the wrong place, i'm afraid. Educated and thoroughly logical viewpoints are frowned upon here. I'd suggest trolling as a hobby instead of enlightening others. You'll get more feedback and it's entertaining. Attempting to change ANY world viewpoint on fark is tantamount to pushing a string or using over-cooked spaghetti for shoelaces.

Good luck though. I know it made you feel better to get it all out. (No snark intended)
 
2013-12-05 09:29:01 PM  

Peki: Honestly, the best way to "get" being trans is to actually try to dress and pass as the opposite gender for a day. Do you, as a heterosexual whatever you are (for my purposes here, I'll assume you're male), think you would feel "comfortable" in fishnet stockings? High heels? We're okay a society if you put those on for Halloween, but what people actually  perceived you as a woman, and started calling you "Toots"? Make you a little squirrely? It's not part of your identity. It feels just foreign for a trans female to put on a bra and stockings as it would be for a straight male, doesn't matter that society prefers that she wear that as a tie.


It makes more sense when you put it that way.  I know it seems like a "no-brainer" as I've said I've tried to see this from different angles, but I've never thought about it in this kind of context.  It's something that's always bothered me about myself.  I mean, it makes perfect sense to me how someone could be homosexual.  I just thought "You know how you feel about a woman you really like?  That's how a gay person feels about a same-sex person they really like."  It's an easy bridge to cross.  But once I got to that borderline of "Transgender/Transexual" my brain would always say "This doesn't make any farking sense" and start heading back to where the porn and food is.  So thanks for explaining it in that way, Fast Moon's post didn't quite reach me as completely as yours did.

Peki: Identity is dependent on two things; how you perceive yourself, and how other people perceive you. Trans people are trying to resolve the conflict between what they know themselves to be, and what other people tell them they are. If we weren't so culturally rigid in our gender/sex roles and expression, I think fewer people would have the mental illnesses associated with being LGBTQ (the culture condemnation and resultant abuse and discrimination causes the problems, not that LGBTQ people are inherently mentally ill) and fewer people might resort to surgery to resolve the conflict.


I see what you're saying.  It's easy to see a person dressed in a "non-approved" way and just go "Whelp, they're farking crazy."  It's not fair, and when almost every stranger you come across in your day-to-day life treats you like you're an insane freak, you might just start believing it.  So yeah, I think the whole world would benefit from shedding these ludicrous ideas of "gender roles".  That's the beautiful thing about being human, being sentient:  We get to take a step back, look at how we conduct ourselves and proclaim "That's farking stupid, why are we doing this to ourselves?  The world isn't doing it, WE are."  Regardless of what the Florida tagged articles on Fark would have us believe, we are, as a race, far more intelligent than we ever have been in the history of man.  We're also more tolerant.  We're even less ignorant.  But we're not finished yet.  I'm not a typically optimistic person, but I can't help but think that life is only going to get better and better (atleast in the US) for LGBT people.  I mean, just looking at how far we've come since I was a child and first became aware of the concepts of homosexuality and anger/hatred/fear of homosexuality...That's only been maybe 20 years, and I feel like we've already gone so far with so much further to go.

Peki: I appreciate the honesty in the OP that they just don't get it. It's not a mental  deficiency though, just a variation. Like brown skin versus pink, or being a lawyer versus a doctor. The  deficiency is a cultural judgment, and that is were the problem is. For example, we as a culture don't think women are mentally deficient for piercing their ears, and that's definitely a painful body modification. Tattoos, similarly (although of course there are people who would argue that both are practices of the mentally ill, but that's a different conversation).


As I mentioned in my OP, I don't actually believe that being transgender is a mental illness or deficiency.  It's just what my brain would come back with when it tried to make sense of the whole situation.  Granted, I've met and shared words with some BAT-SHIAT-INSANE transgender people, but at no more frequency than I meet batshiat insane people in general.  So anyways, thanks for the insight, I appreciate it!
 
2013-12-05 11:03:35 PM  

Kibbles: Good luck though. I know it made you feel better to get it all out. (No snark intended)


No offense taken, but it's something I'm planning on doing as a living. If I can't make it work here, I might as well forgo graduate school.

mooseyfate: So thanks for explaining it in that way, Fast Moon's post didn't quite reach me as completely as yours did.


Awesome! Glad I could help!

mooseyfate: So anyways, thanks for the insight, I appreciate it!


Thank you for being open-minded enough to consider it. I am actually working with my church (we're Unitarian Universalist) to put together a 3-part trans series to do this very thing--help people gain a perspective on trans identities (there's way more than just one, but I won't overwhelm you just yet). You gave awesome feedback and encourage me that the tactic may work! Feel free to use my email in my profile if you have more questions.
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report