Jump to content
IGNORED

Pat Robertson: transgender not a sin


Black Aliss

Recommended Posts

Just when you think that there is nothing Pat Robertson could say that would shock you, he comes out with this.

I think there are men who are in a woman's body," he said. "It's very rare. But it's true -- or women that are in men's bodies -- and that they want a sex change. That is a very permanent thing, believe me, when you have certain body parts amputated and when you have shot up with various kinds of hormones. It's a radical procedure. I don't think there's any sin associated with that. I don't condemn somebody for doing that."

He went on to say he would "question the validity" of someone who just says, "Well I'm really a woman" because you "don't count somebody as female unless they really are, or male unless they really are."

When his co-host said the viewer doesn't know the intentions or medical history of his co-workers, Robertson rebutted, "It's not for you to decide or to judge.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 ... 72244.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...I'm really pretty surprised! But then again, he's Pat Robertson, so I'm not too shocked about being shocked by what he says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is rotten in Denmark...

He's not sounding racist/sexist/biased/making me want to vomit blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat Robertson is just so weird and off the wall half the time. I'm suprised he hasn't been kicked to the curb by the nextwork he is on. They would have to spin it some way, but not exactly a hard thing to figure out how to spin. They could have him retire and save themselves from his unpredictablity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat Robertson is just so weird and off the wall half the time. I'm suprised he hasn't been kicked to the curb by the nextwork he is on. They would have to spin it some way, but not exactly a hard thing to figure out how to spin. They could have him retire and save themselves from his unpredictablity.

He's on ABC Family, and I've recorded some shows that are aired right before his. His show is always preceded by an announcement something like, "The views expressed on the following program are not those of ABC Family."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's on ABC Family, and I've recorded some shows that are aired right before his. His show is always preceded by an announcement something like, "The views expressed on the following program are not those of ABC Family."

And he used to own ABC Family, or whatever that network was before it became ABC Family. I'd guess that part of the deal when he sold it was that they had to give him several hours every week to air his 700 Club. In other words, he's there til he dies, or until someone in his own family or company gets up enough nerve to tell him his day is done. :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And he used to own ABC Family, or whatever that network was before it became ABC Family. I'd guess that part of the deal when he sold it was that they had to give him several hours every week to air his 700 Club. In other words, he's there til he dies, or until someone in his own family or company gets up enough nerve to tell him his day is done. :?

Yes--can't remember what ABC Family used to be called, offhand. OT: Reminds me of Don Imus's contract on WNBC--when WNBC went under and its spot on the "dial" was replaced with WFAN, the contract stipulated that his show would remain at 6.60 AM (or whatever it was), no matter what station existed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes--can't remember what ABC Family used to be called, offhand. OT: Reminds me of Don Imus's contract on WNBC--when WNBC went under and its spot on the "dial" was replaced with WFAN, the contract stipulated that his show would remain at 6.60 AM (or whatever it was), no matter what station existed there.

Now that I'm thinking about it, "The Family Channel" rings a bell. :think:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what to think about this! :shock:

Btw, it was The Family Channel, Fox Family, now its under Disney's empire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what to think about this! :shock:

Btw, it was The Family Channel, Fox Family, now its under Disney's empire.

That's it! Thanks for clarifying it all. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha! I'm thrilled because my mom worships him. She watches him on tv all the time and quotes him when we argue about religion and issues like abortion and gay marriage. I love it when some idiotic, homophobic, anti woman piece of shit that she loves does/says something she can't approve of.

Although I know he's only saying it because he's senile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the... first the pope said that stuff about gays, and now Pat says this? What is going on? This is getting weird. :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the... first the pope said that stuff about gays, and now Pat says this? What is going on? This is getting weird. :shock:

I know!, yet the fundy bloggers I read are pretty silent. I thought there'd at least be some ebbil catholic bashing over the Pope's announcement, but no... Very weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is definitely a trend of people being really homophobic but okay with transgender people (it's okay to be trans in the LDS church, though transgender men still can't have the priesthood), but this did surprise me still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is definitely a trend of people being really homophobic but okay with transgender people (it's okay to be trans in the LDS church, though transgender men still can't have the priesthood), but this did surprise me still.

As a gay guy, I have to admit of getting pissed off with gay people being pushed together with transgender people. Firstly I have zero problems with transgender people, but in the UK the (what some would call community) community is called LGBT - and trans is so very much different to being gay.

On the subject of Pat Robertson, he did give us Tammy Faye who as an evangelical Christian in the 80's was pro gay and her son Jay, who continues her work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think the transgender wasn't such a hot button issue until recently so the fundies never took a firm stance against it during Robertson's prime and he's just not keeping up with the current outrage. If you look at evangelical stances and conservative political stances from even just a couple decades ago, they are surprisingly progressive on many issues. It wasn't always the same and took a shift to the hard right about a decade ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still skeptical that he's having an enlightened moment. My first thought when reading this was that it reminded me of numerous articles like the following one I've read over the years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7259057.stm

Homosexual relationships are banned in Iran, but the country allows sex change operations and hundreds of men have elected for surgery to change their lives.

Ali Askar - renamed as Negar

Ali Askar had a sex change operation and is now called Negar

"He wants to kill me. He keeps telling me to come home so he can kill me. He had put rat poison in my tea."

For Ali Askar, at age 24, the decision to become a woman came at a heavy cost. His father threatened to kill him if he went ahead with surgery.

Now renamed Negar, she says she would not have had the operation if she did not live in Iran.

"If I didn't have to operate, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't touch God's work."

But as Ali, he felt he had no identity.

Islam has a cure for people suffering from this problem. If they want to change their gender, the path is open

Hojatol Kariminia, Iranian cleric

He could not work with men because they sexually harassed him and made fun of him. But he could not work with women because he was not officially a woman.

....

Documentary film maker Tanaz Eshaghian spent weeks filming Anoosh, Ali and other transsexuals in Iran. She thinks that part of what is driving many of the boys to operate is the desire to avoid shame.

"If you are a male with female tendencies, they don't see that as something natural or genetic. They see it as someone who is consciously acting dirty."

Being diagnosed as a transsexual makes it a medical condition, not a moral one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what to think of Robertson. I suspect that he really might have a touch of senility. Last year he basically said Young Earth Creationism was wrong, which totally boggled me: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/27/r ... noahs-ark/ (not breaking because I really don't think they will care).

Lately his views have been all over the place. I have to wonder if the more "progressive" (honest) things he says are coming out when he's not quite lucid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wuuuhh??? This was the God Hates You Because ____________ (insert liberal/feminist/non-Evangelical/etc. cause here) Pat Robertson? Did he drink too deeply of the sacramental wine grape juice or something?

I suspect there will be frantic back-pedaling and obfuscation coming from his spokespeople in 3, 2, 1...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is definitely a trend of people being really homophobic but okay with transgender people (it's okay to be trans in the LDS church, though transgender men still can't have the priesthood), but this did surprise me still.

Well, if you "change sex," then you can still love the one you're in love with but it's no longer gay!

...I think that's the rationalization behind some of the people who are extremely homophobic but still okay with the idea of transgenderism. If one partner was "really a woman all the time" then the "problem" is neatly solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still skeptical that he's having an enlightened moment. My first thought when reading this was that it reminded me of numerous articles like the following one I've read over the years.

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what to think of Robertson. I suspect that he really might have a touch of senility. Last year he basically said Young Earth Creationism was wrong, which totally boggled me: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/27/r ... noahs-ark/ (not breaking because I really don't think they will care).

Lately his views have been all over the place. I have to wonder if the more "progressive" (honest) things he says are coming out when he's not quite lucid?

He may or may not be lucid, but I suspect whomever picks the questions for him to answer/topics for them to discuss selects them based on what is most likely to bring in the most donations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I think that's the rationalization behind some of the people who are extremely homophobic but still okay with the idea of transgenderism. If one partner was "really a woman all the time" then the "problem" is neatly solved.

Wouldn't that mean that their perfect omnipotent God made a mistake?

:doh:

As for Pat Robertson, that rich, mean, amoral old coot is just making shit up as he goes along. Fuck him.

:violence-hammer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.