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 24
    More: Obvious, Pat Robertson, god, mental illness, sex-change operations, personality disorders, gays and lesbians  
•       •       •

11601 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2013 at 10:03 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-12-05 10:09:30 AM
5 votes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexuality_in_Iran

Congratulations Pat, you've about as progressive as the Ayatollah
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-12-05 08:47:06 AM
3 votes:
I think Pat Robertson has simply gone from crazy to senile.
2013-12-05 08:34:18 AM
3 votes:
So, God makes mistakes on His assembly line?
2013-12-05 01:08:03 PM
2 votes:
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 11:41:14 AM
2 votes:
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 10:15:59 AM
2 votes:

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?
2013-12-05 10:13:53 AM
2 votes:
Funny, I think being religious should be a mental illness.
2013-12-05 09:10:15 AM
2 votes:

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?
No, I'll watch a man and a woman making love.
Do you like the man to have a small, half flaccid penis?
No, I like big hard throbbing co.... I did not know that about myself.
2013-12-05 08:50:49 AM
2 votes:

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


Like electronics, his quality assurance guy assured him a 10% failure rate is ok
2013-12-05 12:29:22 PM
1 votes:

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 11:57:44 AM
1 votes:

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 11:46:42 AM
1 votes:

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 11:21:23 AM
1 votes:
I don't understand this point of view from fundamentalists, whether Iranian or derpy Christian. You're saying that God's not okay with people subverting his plans of men and women pairing up for reproduction, but sometimes he messes up and puts someone in the wrong body and he's cool with them fixing that, even though they cannot reproduce after they do? I think this really reveals the true roots of their anti-gay crap and it's a fear of non-traditional gender roles. It's abominable to them to have someone who looks like a man abasing another man by farking him, or abasing himself by being farked. If one partner looks and acts like they think a woman should look and act, though, it's all good.
2013-12-05 10:42:33 AM
1 votes:

Theaetetus: 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?


Pretty much this.  It would also explain why homophobes tend to make an exception for lesbians.  When you have two women together, you still have one woman in the "submissive" role, and because the other woman isn't dominating a man, the men's dominant role isn't under threat.  But when you have two men together, then (in their rigid dom/sub mindset) one of them must therefore occupy the "submissive" role, and they feel highly threatened by the idea of men being submissive to anyone becoming normalized.

It's never been a fear of "teh ghey", it's been a fear of eventual societal acceptance of men being able to occupy a position of submission by default.

(hell, I've even had people explicitly argue to me that heterosexual relationships where the woman is dominant are okay so long as she does not publicly emasculate him and the general public can still look at the relationship and maintain the comfortable illusion that the man is in charge.  It's the fact that you can't even trick yourself into believing that a man is not in a submissive position in a gay relationship that makes it so threatening)
2013-12-05 10:31:36 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-12-05 10:29:47 AM
1 votes:
IT'S A TRAP!

t3.gstatic.com
2013-12-05 10:26:40 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-12-05 10:25:18 AM
1 votes:
Newsflash-a large percentage of christians believe homosexuality is a sin. How many times can you be outraged by this?
2013-12-05 10:15:15 AM
1 votes:

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


What is the Trinity but a sort of theological union? And you know what union guys are like.
2013-12-05 10:11:33 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-12-05 10:08:17 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-12-05 09:07:41 AM
1 votes:
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?
2013-12-05 08:33:17 AM
1 votes:
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.'
2013-12-05 08:27:14 AM
1 votes:
So if a man plugs another man in the brown eye, its bad but if that same brown eye target changes his willy wacker into a catchers mitt then it's A OK?

I echo others, this is scary and confusing
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report