Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[LGBT]: Bigots can go eat a bag of [Chick-Fil-A]

14546485051101

Posts

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    I think you would be surprised to see what Jesus actually said.

    And so would a lot of Christians!

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    I think most of them would be surprised that he wasn't speaking English.

  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    I imagine it would go somewhat like an episode of Golden Girls
    Sophia: They should go back to Latin, the language Jesus spoke
    Dorothy: Ma, He spoke Hebrew.
    Sophia: Even in church?

    steam_sig.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970 | Let's Play Avadon 2!
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    GnomeTank wrote: »
    Actually, those comments lead very nicely in to an article I read on Time the other day about "childism". Essentially the article was about how we don't wrap up the various child abuses in to a term called "childism", like we do with sexism or racism, and that the root cause is because we still have a model of "owning" our children. This kind of vomit is exactly that. Christians especially love to espouse the ideals of ownership of their children. It also got in to how as a society, we have this idea that children are inherently "wrong" and must be "corrected". Again, this is very much espoused in the Christian community.

    Concordantly, the primary focus of any concerted act of bigotry (especially legislatively-focused instatement of bigotry) is almost wholly upon a proposed need to "protect" children from unsavory influences, like things such as progressive thought or homosexuality are as catching as the common cold, and subsequently need to be quarantined from.

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    North Carolina Pastor Sean Harris Urges Parents to 'Punch' Their 'Girlish' Sons, Crack Their Limp Wrists
    Spoiler:

    The religion of love, everyone.

    This fits in nicely with that radio host who suggested that a caller (a father who thought his daughter might be gay) pay a friend to rape his daughter straight.

    Well, what he actually said was “You should get one of your friends to screw your daughter straight.” Still pretty horrifying but at least he apologiozed profusely for it the next day.

    I'm much more terrified by the beat gender norms into your kids speech.

  • DecomposeyDecomposey Registered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    North Carolina Pastor Sean Harris Urges Parents to 'Punch' Their 'Girlish' Sons, Crack Their Limp Wrists
    Spoiler:

    The religion of love, everyone.

    This fits in nicely with that radio host who suggested that a caller (a father who thought his daughter might be gay) pay a friend to rape his daughter straight.

    Well, what he actually said was “You should get one of your friends to screw your daughter straight.” Still pretty horrifying but at least he apologiozed profusely for it the next day.

    I'm much more terrified by the beat gender norms into your kids speech.

    There was an episode of the show Criminal Minds where a father did that to his son. You can probably guess how that turned out, considering it was on the show about serial killer profiling.

    Before following any advice, opinions, or thoughts I may have expressed in the above post, I feel I should warn you: I found Keven Costners "Waterworld" to be a very entertaining film.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »

    Well, what he actually said was “You should get one of your friends to screw your daughter straight.” Still pretty horrifying but at least he apologiozed profusely for it the next day.

    I'm much more terrified by the beat gender norms into your kids speech.

    Of course he apologized profusely the next day. He didn't want to lose his job. Seriously, I don't care how profusely he apologized to save his paycheck - the guy was advocating "corrective" rape. 'You should have one of your adult male buddies screw your underage daughter until she doesn't want to kiss girls anymore'?

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    Decomposey wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    North Carolina Pastor Sean Harris Urges Parents to 'Punch' Their 'Girlish' Sons, Crack Their Limp Wrists
    Spoiler:

    The religion of love, everyone.

    This fits in nicely with that radio host who suggested that a caller (a father who thought his daughter might be gay) pay a friend to rape his daughter straight.

    Well, what he actually said was “You should get one of your friends to screw your daughter straight.” Still pretty horrifying but at least he apologiozed profusely for it the next day.

    I'm much more terrified by the beat gender norms into your kids speech.

    There was an episode of the show Criminal Minds where a father did that to his son. You can probably guess how that turned out, considering it was on the show about serial killer profiling.
    That was a damn good episode. :(

    steam_sig.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970 | Let's Play Avadon 2!
  • Casual EddyCasual Eddy Fighting the War on String Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    "Elaboration" what? Dude proudly admits he's an asshole. He's written that he despises fat partners and would divorce Terry if Terry ever got fat, although he himself fully expect to get fat someday. He thinks bisexuals should pretty much leave lesbians and gays alone, and that biphobia is understandable because (in his opinion) too many people claim they're bisexual when they're just curious or afraid to say they're gay. He thinks bathhouses should be shut down and proudly admits he's a complete hypocrite on this as he met his husband in one. He posts a lot of gender-essentialist bullshit and doesn't have a fucking clue as to how sexism affects relationship dynamics. TL;DR, he's a wealthy white guy with a big platform and all the "but the world DOES revolve around my shit!" that too often goes with that.

    Now, it's ALSO true that he has been an outspoken advocate for queer rights, has raised tons of consciousness and money for important causes (not just marriage), and calls out bigots on their bullshit. He's done many good things, including pushing the It Gets Better project. His column (and I've been reading since his "Hey Faggot!" days) strongly promotes acceptance and understanding of healthy, consensual sexuality, and he goes places just about nobody else would go - for example, when a reader wrote in to say that he was sexually attracted to children, didn't want to abuse children and didn't know the first place to go for help, Savage brought in a therapist who commended the guy for being proactive and pointed him to resources that could help him.

    This Slate article is a little doofy at the end because, you know, Slate, but it's correct that we don't do our spokespeople any favors by bursting into tears and shouting "How DARE you criticize him when he does so many WONDERFUL things!" Savage can't get better if we don't call him on his bullshit.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/04/did_dan_savage_deserve_to_be_glitter_bombed_.html

    He used to think that about bisexuals but I'm guessing people aren't allowed to changed their minds

    I mean hell this thread gave that religious woman shit for learning to accept her gay son

    75trafim7bi2.png
  • Luncheon LoafLuncheon Loaf Registered User
    mythago wrote: »
    I think you would be surprised to see what Jesus actually said.

    And so would a lot of Christians!

    allegedly said.

    I have a strong inclination that I'm going to be very embarrassed to be a North Carolinian next week.

    xbl: halophilicNC
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    "Elaboration" what? Dude proudly admits he's an asshole. He's written that he despises fat partners and would divorce Terry if Terry ever got fat, although he himself fully expect to get fat someday. He thinks bisexuals should pretty much leave lesbians and gays alone, and that biphobia is understandable because (in his opinion) too many people claim they're bisexual when they're just curious or afraid to say they're gay. He thinks bathhouses should be shut down and proudly admits he's a complete hypocrite on this as he met his husband in one. He posts a lot of gender-essentialist bullshit and doesn't have a fucking clue as to how sexism affects relationship dynamics. TL;DR, he's a wealthy white guy with a big platform and all the "but the world DOES revolve around my shit!" that too often goes with that.

    Now, it's ALSO true that he has been an outspoken advocate for queer rights, has raised tons of consciousness and money for important causes (not just marriage), and calls out bigots on their bullshit. He's done many good things, including pushing the It Gets Better project. His column (and I've been reading since his "Hey Faggot!" days) strongly promotes acceptance and understanding of healthy, consensual sexuality, and he goes places just about nobody else would go - for example, when a reader wrote in to say that he was sexually attracted to children, didn't want to abuse children and didn't know the first place to go for help, Savage brought in a therapist who commended the guy for being proactive and pointed him to resources that could help him.

    This Slate article is a little doofy at the end because, you know, Slate, but it's correct that we don't do our spokespeople any favors by bursting into tears and shouting "How DARE you criticize him when he does so many WONDERFUL things!" Savage can't get better if we don't call him on his bullshit.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/04/did_dan_savage_deserve_to_be_glitter_bombed_.html

    He used to think that about bisexuals but I'm guessing people aren't allowed to changed their minds

    I mean hell this thread gave that religious woman shit for learning to accept her gay son

    She did not "learn", she spun on a dime. Different thing. And she did not "get shit" for changing, she got shit for how easily she did it.

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »

    Well, what he actually said was “You should get one of your friends to screw your daughter straight.” Still pretty horrifying but at least he apologiozed profusely for it the next day.

    I'm much more terrified by the beat gender norms into your kids speech.

    Of course he apologized profusely the next day. He didn't want to lose his job. Seriously, I don't care how profusely he apologized to save his paycheck - the guy was advocating "corrective" rape. 'You should have one of your adult male buddies screw your underage daughter until she doesn't want to kiss girls anymore'?


    Part of me knows that since he didn't immediately lose his job, it didn't really matter that he said that anyway. The apology was just blowing smoke.

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »

    Well, what he actually said was “You should get one of your friends to screw your daughter straight.” Still pretty horrifying but at least he apologiozed profusely for it the next day.

    I'm much more terrified by the beat gender norms into your kids speech.

    Of course he apologized profusely the next day. He didn't want to lose his job. Seriously, I don't care how profusely he apologized to save his paycheck - the guy was advocating "corrective" rape. 'You should have one of your adult male buddies screw your underage daughter until she doesn't want to kiss girls anymore'?


    Part of me knows that since he didn't immediately lose his job, it didn't really matter that he said that anyway. The apology was just blowing smoke.

    In what way is advocating corrective rape better than...

    advocating corrective rape? Like you say actually as though you were then going to say he said something different, but then repeated the same phrase as though it was less bad.

    Oh is it because he didn't say rape? Like damn, no that is still the exact level of bad.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Straight White Power!
    “During the conversation, Ms. Brunstetter said her husband was the architect of Amendment 1, and one of the reasons he wrote it was to protect the Caucasian race. She said Caucasians or whites created this country. We wrote the Constitution. This is about protecting the Constitution. There already is a law on the books against same-sex marriage, but this protects the Constitution from activist judges.”

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Straight White Power!
    “During the conversation, Ms. Brunstetter said her husband was the architect of Amendment 1, and one of the reasons he wrote it was to protect the Caucasian race. She said Caucasians or whites created this country. We wrote the Constitution. This is about protecting the Constitution. There already is a law on the books against same-sex marriage, but this protects the Constitution from activist judges.”

    Yeah I just saw that. It makes NO freaking sense... does NC have a massive population of minority gays?

    Or... Well... Did.. did they think they were banning interracial marriage?

    steam_sig.png
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Straight White Power!
    “During the conversation, Ms. Brunstetter said her husband was the architect of Amendment 1, and one of the reasons he wrote it was to protect the Caucasian race. She said Caucasians or whites created this country. We wrote the Constitution. This is about protecting the Constitution. There already is a law on the books against same-sex marriage, but this protects the Constitution from activist judges.”
    Yeah I just saw that. It makes NO freaking sense... does NC have a massive population of minority gays?

    Or... Well... Did.. did they think they were banning interracial marriage?
    They're just trying to make sure the racists turn out. They're a huge voting bloc in North Carolina.

  • Luncheon LoafLuncheon Loaf Registered User
    They're just trying to make sure the racists turn out. They're a huge voting bloc in North Carolina.

    Oh how I wish this wasn't true. Luckily there's quite a lot of overlap in the racist and anti-homosexual so at least they're not double-dipping bigots out to the polls. :(

    xbl: halophilicNC
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    They're just trying to make sure the racists turn out. They're a huge voting bloc in North Carolina.

    Oh how I wish this wasn't true. Luckily there's quite a lot of overlap in the racist and anti-homosexual so at least they're not double-dipping bigots out to the polls. :(

    How many traditionally black churches are there in NC? This probably puts some of them in a weird predicament, they have to chose between voting for the probable racist, or sticking with their conservative religious values.

    steam_sig.png
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User
    http://www.practikel.com/2012/01/27/christian-group-shows-up-to-chicago-gay-pride-holding-apologetic-signs/

    A rare, positive development.

    Just, y'know, don't read the comment section for the article. That way lies madness.

  • ForarForar #432 Already prepping for Toronto Fan Expo!Registered User regular
    This reminds me, I don't think I ever posted my pics from the 2011 Toronto Pride Parade, particularly those with religious organizations marching down the street along with police forces, military representatives, etc.

    I should probably do that someday. Y'know, before the 2012 parade hits.

    Tangentally, I also need to buy a super soaker. For once I'm gonna be packing heat. Err... cold water?

    sigtwo.png
  • Luncheon LoafLuncheon Loaf Registered User
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    They're just trying to make sure the racists turn out. They're a huge voting bloc in North Carolina.

    Oh how I wish this wasn't true. Luckily there's quite a lot of overlap in the racist and anti-homosexual so at least they're not double-dipping bigots out to the polls. :(

    How many traditionally black churches are there in NC? This probably puts some of them in a weird predicament, they have to chose between voting for the probable racist, or sticking with their conservative religious values.

    I don't think the black churches in NC are generally as fundamentalist as the white ones. There are exceptions of course. The big question will be will they come out to vote as much as the old white bigots in this state? Historically the answer is no.

    xbl: halophilicNC
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    They're just trying to make sure the racists turn out. They're a huge voting bloc in North Carolina.

    Oh how I wish this wasn't true. Luckily there's quite a lot of overlap in the racist and anti-homosexual so at least they're not double-dipping bigots out to the polls. :(

    How many traditionally black churches are there in NC? This probably puts some of them in a weird predicament, they have to chose between voting for the probable racist, or sticking with their conservative religious values.

    I don't think the black churches in NC are generally as fundamentalist as the white ones. There are exceptions of course. The big question will be will they come out to vote as much as the old white bigots in this state? Historically the answer is no.

    The black vote is tricky. Statistically, they're often more bigoted than just about anyone with regard to religious values, but they rarely vote with conservatives. It's what makes having social propositions on ballots during election cycles tricky, as they vote heavily Democratic but will support religious legislation.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    How many traditionally black churches are there in NC? This probably puts some of them in a weird predicament, they have to chose between voting for the probable racist, or sticking with their conservative religious values.

    Sticking with their conservative religious values != voting for this thing, racism or no. There's a difference between not thinking same-sex couples should marry, and trying to actively squash any attempt for same-sex couples to get legal rights. The latter doesn't seem to be quite as important to black Christians as to wackaloon white Christians, as a group.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • GodfatherGodfather Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    I must admit I am a little confused on the issue of Transgenders. I don't really have an issue against them, I just wonder if a lot of people get transgender "oppression" confused with "preference". Yes of course if a person is going to threaten hellfire and brimstone with physical violence that's obvious, but i'm discussing the fine line grey area here, not the extreme end of the spectrum so bear with me.

    To elaborate, say I go on a date with a girl where we hit things off pretty well, and then it turns out that she's actually a transgender. If it's the pre-stage, I wouldn't be interested in dating her because i'm straight; if it's the post-stage I wouldn't be interested in dating because I personally would like to have a wife that could physically conceive a family one day, and no amount of hormone treatment can make that a possibility for a trans.

    Would I be considered in the wrong for making this stance? Apparently to a few people I would be, but I don't really know why!

    Godfather on
    0WBv0.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    How many traditionally black churches are there in NC? This probably puts some of them in a weird predicament, they have to chose between voting for the probable racist, or sticking with their conservative religious values.

    Sticking with their conservative religious values != voting for this thing, racism or no. There's a difference between not thinking same-sex couples should marry, and trying to actively squash any attempt for same-sex couples to get legal rights. The latter doesn't seem to be quite as important to black Christians as to wackaloon white Christians, as a group.

    Ha! Black communities in my experience tend to be incredibly conservative. They merely lack the power to back up their preferences.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838226

    PSN: allenquid
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Ha! Black communities in my experience tend to be incredibly conservative. They merely lack the power to back up their preferences.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838226

    I don't even know what "lack the power to back up their preferences" means. And you clearly didn't read what I just said.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Ha! Black communities in my experience tend to be incredibly conservative. They merely lack the power to back up their preferences.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838226

    I don't even know what "lack the power to back up their preferences" means. And you clearly didn't read what I just said.

    Their options currently are between people that advocate screwing them over and people who won't. Black communities lack the option to enforce their own preferences at a national level but they're just as much against them as white conservatives. See: Graph. An overwhelming majority believes it to always be wrong. Coincidentally black churches aren't exactly known for welcoming gays in to the flock either.

    PSN: allenquid
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Their options currently are between people that advocate screwing them over and people who won't. Black communities lack the option to enforce their own preferences at a national level but they're just as much against them as white conservatives. See: Graph. An overwhelming majority believes it to always be wrong. Coincidentally black churches aren't exactly known for welcoming gays in to the flock either.

    So, again, we're back to attitudes about homosexuality not translating into votes oppressing LGBTs -that "lacking the option" thing you mentioned. That's...pretty much what I just said. Whatever black Americans think about homosexuality, that's not translating into stampeding into the voting booth to support whatever NOM just pulled out of its ass.

    I'm not disagreeing that the black community tends to hold more conservative values - that goes along with less higher education (also correlative of attitudes about homosexuality) and religious belief. Just that those values are not so strongly-held as they are with white evangelicals.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    mythago wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Their options currently are between people that advocate screwing them over and people who won't. Black communities lack the option to enforce their own preferences at a national level but they're just as much against them as white conservatives. See: Graph. An overwhelming majority believes it to always be wrong. Coincidentally black churches aren't exactly known for welcoming gays in to the flock either.

    So, again, we're back to attitudes about homosexuality not translating into votes oppressing LGBTs -that "lacking the option" thing you mentioned. That's...pretty much what I just said. Whatever black Americans think about homosexuality, that's not translating into stampeding into the voting booth to support whatever NOM just pulled out of its ass.

    I'm not disagreeing that the black community tends to hold more conservative values - that goes along with less higher education (also correlative of attitudes about homosexuality) and religious belief. Just that those values are not so strongly-held as they are with white evangelicals.

    I think they are, they just hold more strongly to not getting screwed over. Something white people don't have to worry about as much.

    But yeah we don't really disagree in essence. My mistake.

    PSN: allenquid
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Their options currently are between people that advocate screwing them over and people who won't. Black communities lack the option to enforce their own preferences at a national level but they're just as much against them as white conservatives. See: Graph. An overwhelming majority believes it to always be wrong. Coincidentally black churches aren't exactly known for welcoming gays in to the flock either.

    So, again, we're back to attitudes about homosexuality not translating into votes oppressing LGBTs -that "lacking the option" thing you mentioned. That's...pretty much what I just said. Whatever black Americans think about homosexuality, that's not translating into stampeding into the voting booth to support whatever NOM just pulled out of its ass.

    I'm not disagreeing that the black community tends to hold more conservative values - that goes along with less higher education (also correlative of attitudes about homosexuality) and religious belief. Just that those values are not so strongly-held as they are with white evangelicals.

    I think they are, they just hold more strongly to not getting screwed over. Something white people don't have to worry about as much.

    But yeah we don't really disagree in essence. My mistake.

    Which, as I posted above, it really seems the only time it becomes an issue is when line-item propositions supporting conservative legislation are put on the same ballot as major elections.

    As a voting bloc, the black community may be among the most conservative and bigoted, but it just doesn't translate into political action all that often. Generally, I'd wager, because the party looking for conservative voters also tends to be very anti-minority.

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Godfather wrote: »
    I must admit I am a little confused on the issue of Transgenders. I don't really have an issue against them, I just wonder if a lot of people get transgender "oppression" confused with "preference". Yes of course if a person is going to threaten hellfire and brimstone with physical violence that's obvious, but i'm discussing the fine line grey area here, not the extreme end of the spectrum so bear with me.

    To elaborate, say I go on a date with a girl where we hit things off pretty well, and then it turns out that she's actually a transgender. If it's the pre-stage, I wouldn't be interested in dating her because i'm straight; if it's the post-stage I wouldn't be interested in dating because I personally would like to have a wife that could physically conceive a family one day, and no amount of hormone treatment can make that a possibility for a trans.

    Would I be considered in the wrong for making this stance? Apparently to a few people I would be, but I don't really know why!

    The only issue I would take is that if a female can't conceive, she doesn't seem to be worth anything to you. That's pretty cro-magnon; what about adoption? And why are children so necessary anyway? The way you presented it makes it seem like if you did marry and your wife lost the ability to have children for whatever reason you'd dump her.

  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    My mom refuses to believe Christians have ever now or in the past done something bad. When I pull up stuff like the Inquisition she's like "Oh, I've never heard of that.."

    A lot of the religious people I know (which happen to be mainly middle aged white ladies) very much pick and choose what they want out of the Bible. I avoid them as much as I can. She also tells me I'm going to hell, but if it gets me away from these people, I'm ok with this.
    So that's why nobody expects it...

    steam_sig.png
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus Right here in River CityRegistered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    The only issue I would take is that if a female can't conceive, she doesn't seem to be worth anything to you. That's pretty cro-magnon; what about adoption? And why are children so necessary anyway? The way you presented it makes it seem like if you did marry and your wife lost the ability to have children for whatever reason you'd dump her.

    That's pretty cro-magnon, mannn.

    Many people want to have children. They want their own children. This is not a hard thing to understand, nor is it a bad thing like you are suggesting.

    Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock, and the Golden Rule!
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Thing is, transgenders CAN conceive children, just as long as they freeze their sperm or eggs before they get too far into their transition.

    The question then becomes how much the non-TG person in the relationship needs their children to be biologically theirs. Even then, there are a lot of people in TG relationships where they will use the same surrogate and eggs for separate sperm so their children are biologically related to each other as well as one parent.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Godfather wrote: »
    I must admit I am a little confused on the issue of Transgenders. I don't really have an issue against them, I just wonder if a lot of people get transgender "oppression" confused with "preference". Yes of course if a person is going to threaten hellfire and brimstone with physical violence that's obvious, but i'm discussing the fine line grey area here, not the extreme end of the spectrum so bear with me.

    To elaborate, say I go on a date with a girl where we hit things off pretty well, and then it turns out that she's actually a transgender. If it's the pre-stage, I wouldn't be interested in dating her because i'm straight; if it's the post-stage I wouldn't be interested in dating because I personally would like to have a wife that could physically conceive a family one day, and no amount of hormone treatment can make that a possibility for a trans.

    Would I be considered in the wrong for making this stance? Apparently to a few people I would be, but I don't really know why!

    The only issue I would take is that if a female can't conceive, she doesn't seem to be worth anything to you. That's pretty cro-magnon; what about adoption? And why are children so necessary anyway? The way you presented it makes it seem like if you did marry and your wife lost the ability to have children for whatever reason you'd dump her.

    But many heterosexual relationships do fail for precisely this reason. Heck, couples split up not just because one of the two can't have kids but simply because one doesn't want kids.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    Godfather wrote: »
    I must admit I am a little confused on the issue of Transgenders. I don't really have an issue against them, I just wonder if a lot of people get transgender "oppression" confused with "preference". Yes of course if a person is going to threaten hellfire and brimstone with physical violence that's obvious, but i'm discussing the fine line grey area here, not the extreme end of the spectrum so bear with me.

    To elaborate, say I go on a date with a girl where we hit things off pretty well, and then it turns out that she's actually a transgender. If it's the pre-stage, I wouldn't be interested in dating her because i'm straight; if it's the post-stage I wouldn't be interested in dating because I personally would like to have a wife that could physically conceive a family one day, and no amount of hormone treatment can make that a possibility for a trans.

    Would I be considered in the wrong for making this stance? Apparently to a few people I would be, but I don't really know why!

    The only issue I would take is that if a female can't conceive, she doesn't seem to be worth anything to you. That's pretty cro-magnon; what about adoption? And why are children so necessary anyway? The way you presented it makes it seem like if you did marry and your wife lost the ability to have children for whatever reason you'd dump her.

    But many heterosexual relationships do fail for precisely this reason. Heck, couples split up not just because one of the two can't have kids but simply because one doesn't want kids.

    Besides, since we're talking about the beginnings of relationships, if he knows he wants kids, why would he pursue someone who knows they don't want kids, or can't?

    It's not like he has to slam the door in their face and never speak to someone without children in their future, but people wanting different things from the relationship is a pretty good reason not to get romantically involved.

  • GodfatherGodfather Registered User regular
    Yeah I don't mean it in a bad way, it'd just be more about honesty. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't mind adopting, but if you wanted to have your own kids the natural way (or at least the possibility) then it's definitely something to bring up sooner then later.

    I think that's an understandable thing. It's not like i'd toss aside the person like a leper or whatever.

    0WBv0.png
  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Magic Pink wrote: »
    The only issue I would take is that if a female can't conceive, she doesn't seem to be worth anything to you. That's pretty cro-magnon; what about adoption? And why are children so necessary anyway? The way you presented it makes it seem like if you did marry and your wife lost the ability to have children for whatever reason you'd dump her.

    That's pretty cro-magnon, mannn.

    Many people want to have children. They want their own children. This is not a hard thing to understand, nor is it a bad thing like you are suggesting.

    I'm not suggesting it's bad at all.

  • Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    Godfather wrote: »
    Yeah I don't mean it in a bad way, it'd just be more about honesty. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't mind adopting, but if you wanted to have your own kids the natural way (or at least the possibility) then it's definitely something to bring up sooner then later.

    I think that's an understandable thing. It's not like i'd toss aside the person like a leper or whatever.

    Yeah, that's pefectly ok. Like I said, what I put was the ONLY thing I could take away from that as negative. I assume people would think you wouldn't date a transgendered person simply because they're transgendered.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Keep on fucking that chicken, churches. I'm sure history will view your bigotry favorably.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/us/methodists-wont-change-outlook-on-homosexuality.html

This discussion has been closed.