Savage blames sexual reassignment surgery for Columbine massacre
On the March 23 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage continued to discuss a March 20 report in the San Francisco Chronicle detailing the murder of a transgender woman whose body was found naked near a freeway outside San Francisco: "The wages of sin are death. You're gonna cut off your willy, you're gonna walk around in women's clothes, you're gonna hook -- you're gonna wind up dead under a freeway, Johnson. It's not gonna be an HBO special about your travails, and how surgery made you a happy woman." Later, Savage asserted that "the capital of [sexual reassignment surgery] is somewhere in Colorado, near Columbine," adding, "You wonder why the kids shoot each other there with black raincoats." According to MapQuest.com, Trinidad, Colorado, known as "the sex-change capital of the world," is about 194 miles from Littleton, Colorado, where the Columbine High School massacre occurred.
As Media Matters for America has noted, on the March 20 broadcast of his show, Savage called the murder victim -- who according to the Chronicle report "had been in the process of becoming a woman" -- a "psychopath" and a "freak," and said, "[She] should have been in a back ward in a straitjacket for years, howling on major medication."
As Media Matters has also documented (here, here, and here), Savage has a history of hateful attacks on gays and lesbians. He has repeatedly referred to "the homosexual mafia," claimed that "the homosexual dance of death" is the "seminal issue of our time," and compared gays to "drug addicts." As Media Matters has also noted, Savage was signed by Hollywood's Creative Artists Agency (CAA) for "representation in all areas" -- including television and film -- but was reportedly dropped after Media Matters documented his comments attacking singer and CAA client Melissa Etheridge for thanking her wife during her Academy Awards acceptance speech.
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third-most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the March 23 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: The wages of sin are death. You're gonna cut off your willy, you're gonna walk around in women's clothes, you're gonna hook -- you're gonna wind up dead under a freeway, Johnson. It's not gonna be an HBO special about your travails, and how surgery made you a happy woman.
I never understand these people. Guy is 55 years old, he had three children, he discovers there was a woman within, and he goes -- shots and hormones, three years of hormones, and live like a woman. And then you gotta dress like a woman for two years. And then they go to a psychopathic, sadistic doctor who does the thing for them. No more in Denmark -- I mean, the capital of it is somewhere in Colorado, of course, near Columbine. You wonder why the kids shoot each other there with black raincoats. But that's the sex change capital of the world -- in America, rather -- is somewhere in Colorado; they cut off the willies and they put on the willies, depending on whether you're a Johnny or a Jane.
And apparently it costs more to put a willy on than it does to take a willy off. I've always said if a city's gonna pay for this kind of insane self-mutilation, the least they could do is put a willy on ice. I mean, if they're taking a perfectly good willy off a guy, why throw it in the garbage? Put it on ice, save it for the next time one of these psycho women in the city wants to be willied, I mean wants to be a John when she's a Jane. Because it costs like 40 grand to put one on and 20 grand to take one off. I would say you can do a mean price of 30 grand if they could start saving the willies from these psychos. But that's a separate story. I'm into cost saving at all costs.
don't forget he rocks. or maybe he's off his rocker. something like that.
It's pretty obvious to me that Savage was joking here. The Columbine massacre had nothing to do with sexual reassignment surgery. Media Matters has an annoying habit of taking every single thing that Dr. Savage says seriously.
Jokes are supposed to be funny. He shouldn't be making sick comments if he doesn't want them being taken seriously (and who wants to bet he'll say he stands behind everything he says AGAIN?)
I am constantly amazed at the amazing mind reading powers of Weinerdog worshipers. Its all about what he MEANT which for some reason is never what he SAYS. Somehow its a joke. I know I hear people joking about the Columbine tradgedy all the time. Its big on the stand-up circuit. And it was soooo funny. I mean that IS the point of jokes right? They are supposed to be funny? Did YOU think that was funny? Its time to admit the obvious reality, the man is simply insane
" The wages of sin are death. "
Mindreading powers? I've always thought that this statement was true? Perhaps I'm reading wrong. Savage is only attacked because the left doesn't agree with his message. But, you keep him in the headlines because you hate him so much. The left preaches HATE, then denegrates the hater. That's very typical from the left. IMHO, the left hates the hater then demonstrates that hate by being more of a hater than the original hater. On any given thread about Savage, you can read worse statements ABOUT him than he says ABOUT whatever you are complaining about.
So what if he hates gays? Is hating so important to the left that they've got to rehash every little statement by this guy just to express more hate? How is his opinion hurting you? What does his stating his opinion do to your freedoms? I suspect no one will answer either question, but all will show great hate towards this opinion.
I would like to pick apart your reasoning, but its so circular, I don't know where to start.
Yes, better to resist jumping in to that one. It's like a Kerr black hole.
His opinion hurts me in this way. He denigrates everyone who does not agree with him. He rants everyday that some of us are less than human. He feels no compassion for those who are murdered because they're different.
He proposes we fight a wider war which can not be fought with our current military. To fight the war that Weiner proposes would require we reinstate the draft. I don't want my children and my grandchildren fighting his war.
I'm sick to f__king death of war, and cowards who push us into war. If all of these cowards were to step up to the plate, our military might not be stretched as thin as it is today.
We need to destroy the Islamofascists.
You first pal, you first.
What about the Christofacists?
If "Christofascists" flew airplanes into buildings, chanted "Death to America," and said that everyone who's not a Christian should be executed, I would agree.
If you were as committed as you seem you'd be in Iraq as we type.
No one has the right to insist that someone fight a war which he has not been willing to fight himself.
They kill innocent people, they are against the values our nation stands on, and they want the laws to reflect their bigotry towards those of different religious beliefs. Not that different, really.
I totally disagree with that. The Christian right is for killing innocent people? You mean in war? Well, innocent people die in war. That's how it goes. I also disagree that the Christian right is against our nation's values.
I didn't use the term Christofacists as an epithet for the Christian right, but in a satirical way to point out how there are harmful zealots on every issue.
Or do you believe that there's no such thing as too conservative?
"Well, innocent people die in war."
The "Islamofascists" believe they're at war with us. I suppose the thousands that died in the attacks in 2001 and those who died in the aftermath are just tides of war, and perfectly acceptable? Why are you siding with the terrorists and condemning the innocent to death?
I'm not siding with the terrorists. I'm siding with America. Sept. 11, 2001 was an unprovoked, unacceptable, evil terrorist attack. The Islamofascists must be destroyed for that.
Let me add that Tony Blair better do something about what Iran just did. The Iranian Hitler can't get away with kidnapping innocent British soldiers who were in Iraqi waters.
Obviously you are hearing what you "want to hear" because your interpretation of his comments is skewed.
As for fighting a wider war, Savage does not propose throwing more troops at what he calls the "mismanagemnt of Irag" , and going into Iran. He says to use the heavy weapons, devastate the area, clean it up, and get the heck out of there.
He has compassion for the individuals involved in morbid deaths but dislikes the way the media presnts these stories as "mainstream", like when that tranny was killed while living a dangerous lifestyle.
So Weinerdog says basically that transgendered people deserve to be horribly murdered but WE are the haters. Since we DARE to POINT OUT, the psychotic rantings of this insane weasel without a shred of decency WE are the haters, we are actually WORSE than Weinerdog though I havent seen anyone here say he deserves to be horribly murdered. In the simple minds of Weinerdog worshippers its never the psychotic rantings that are the problem, no its us POINTING OUT they are psychotic that are the REAL problem. Why is it we lock up bank robbers anyway, its obvious that the REAL problem is those haters who REPORT bank robberies. I dont hate Weinerdogman. I pity him and hope he gets the massive doses of antipsychotics he so desperatly needs. As for you. I think it beyond hope you ever actually comprehend reality. Pulling these completely logic bereft tautologies direcly from your ASS might amuse you but they sure show you arent within miles of having a clue. I guess you really think that because an insane person who has a radio show just makes baseless assertions about people and YOU, in your foolishness and stupidity, accept them as indicitive of reality that YOU ought to just do the same thing. Just baselessly repeat like the demented Myna bird you so resemble the latest baseless assertion and propaganda parrot talking point and WE are supposed to take it seriously no matter how abjectly stupid it is. You are pretty sad too. YOU guys have Weinerdog, Coulter, Limbaugh, and a whole SLEW of professional haters that spew their hostility daily but when we point it out somehow WE are supposed to be haters. I am shocked anyone is dumb enough to take such obvious projection seriously.
I am amused by your rant, but, unless you hold conservative views you will never understand the views of those you mentioned. I am baffled as to why you would include Limbaugh as a "hater". Can you point out one instance in particular? My real reason for checking this out is a question I have had for quite some time. Are those who seek sex change operations gay? If a man goes through the whole process of changing his sex, what happens when he is a woman? Doesn't he lose his appeal to the homosexual men who found him attractive as a man? Does he now have to limit himself to a life of straight men? Same with women. I do not understand the psychology.
"Are those who seek sex change operations gay?"
Complicated question, obviously, and the answer is typically "No."
Gay men like other men, and wish to have relationships with them as a man would to another man. Gay women like other women, and wish to have relationships with them as a woman would to another woman.
When a transgender person desires a member of the sex that they were born into (a person born female who desires other females, but believes they are male in being) desires to have relationships with their preferred gender as the gender they feel they are. In other words, a female who is transgender and desires other females does so as a man desires a woman - not as a woman desires another woman.
Perhaps this is why Weiner is so filled with vitriol on issues like this. The answers are complicated require thought and comprehension on difficult issues, and he's simply too lazy to string enough thoughts together to reach anything approaching understanding of the situation.
" The wages of sin are death. " Mindreading powers? I've always thought that this statement was true? - Well, you know how us libs are so big on the Bible being a matter of interpretation and all, especially considering that, according to the Bible, original sin was the cause of death and that no human is sin-free.
Savage is only attacked because the left doesn't agree with his message. - If you can't find someone on the right who thinks he's a jerk, then you couldn't find sand in the Sahara. Try hanging around here for a few right wingers with some common sense (hey Tommy).
What does his stating his opinion do to your freedoms? - How many times do we have to point out that this guy HAS A SYNDICATED RADIO SHOW for his hateful opinions? He doesn't have freedom, he has privilege. And other human beings have a right to be respected, you know. For someone who quotes the Bible, you sure don't seem to love your enemies much.
You should stick to your pathetic and absurd claims that you can "cure cancer", you only look marginally stupid that way.
" pathetic and absurd claims "
I was able to back up MY claims with scientific evidence. With NONE of them able to be proven incorrect! Unlike you, who made claims that you refused to back up with evidence. You ran away, like a little girl, when confronted.
Maybe that's why our military is so depleted, because all the liberals in it keep running away like little girls. It's tough being part of the only political aspect in America who actually supports the military. Unlike the liberals who yell "hell no, we won't go" then claim that others should go defend the country FOR them.
I responded to your posts in the threads concerning cancer. I was respectful of your opinion and offered my opinions.
But in this case, I feel you're being quite disrespectful. You're making the same mistake that many on the right make, that we haven't served in the military.
Many of us have served, many of us are combat veterans. I am, are you?
If not, I'd suggest you keep the little girl comments to yourself.
Yes, you were rational during the cancer thread, (my comment was directed at harley). Probably the only one. However, you constantly rip EVERYONE for not being a combat vet. There has not been a war where I was old enough to fight in (nam) and where I have been too old to enter (Gulf, terrorist). I have relatives who are combat vets (brother, uncle and Dad). I served in the army during Carter. Did you hear that...I SERVED. It ain't my fault there wasn't a war going on. Carter tried his hardest but he wimped out when Iran took our hostages and it took a real president to get them freed. So I have as much right to post as anyone...even those who have combat experience.
Yes, you do have that right, everyone does.
You also have the right to call combat veterans little girls. No one is stopping you.
If all of these cowards were to step up to the plate, our military might not be stretched as thin as it is today.
Yes, just as you have the right to call everyone else "cowards". Tell me you not complaining because I said something bad about the left's military service record, while you are calling everyone who doesn't see combat a coward. That would seem a little hypocritical if you were to do that.
Worrierking (and millions like him) disproved your lame fantasy about liberals in the military. You could just admit you were wrong.
I don't have to admit anything. I state my opinion, you do a good enough job at judging what opinions are right and what ones are wrong. Thanks for being so very judgemental. Very "liberal" of you to require an opinion other than yours to be admonished.
I said "could," not "must." Please, do try to read more carefully.
It was a joke- not a funny one-but to take this out of context is typical of some , like you, in here. But go ahead and call him insane, 'cause that's all you have.
Tell that to Talkers Magazine.
OK - so if transsexuals are responsible for murder due to our temporary proximity to Columbine - Savage is of course responsible for many, many murders accross the country due to his comments broadcast eveywhere. The next transgender person who is murdered is on your withered excuse for a soul.
Do you ever wonder what things will be said upon your passing? Will people pour some single malt on your grave - or let it pass through their kidneys first? Not that I wish you the same treatment these murder victims received. But I do hum the Elvis Costello lyrics:
Well I hope you live long now, I pray the Lordyour soul to keepI think I'll be going before we fold our armsand start to weepI never thought for a moment that human lifecould be so cheap'Cos when they finally put you in the groundThey'll stand there laughing and tramp thedirt down
oh - Do you still go around handing out those naked photos of you and Alan Ginsberg?
Will people pour some single malt on your grave - or let it pass through their kidneys first?
You are my new favorite poster. =D Thanks for joining us.
"I mean, if they're taking a perfectly good willy off a guy, why throw it in the garbage?"
Well, it is obviuos Savage knows little about the procedure. They do not cut the willie off, they split it down the middle and invert it. Plain disgusting IMHO, but there it is.
EEEEECH!!!
Well, at least you found the 'misinformation'.
Actually, it's more like he found the tip of the iceberg. Wait... not even that, it's more like he found the thin layer of snow on the tip of the iceberg.
turning an outie to an innie.
I saw pics of the procedure.... You can find them on the web. It is pretty gross. I also knew a a music buddy that had it done. He was never the same after that.
I would imagine that was his intention...
EL, is that you?
Yeah, where is old Evil?
I miss him. I'd gladly trade a Braid or a MichaelWeinerforDogcatcher for two or three Evils. At least Evil has a sense of humor.
Ha ha ha! Awesome!
Michael, Michael, Michael.
And you want to be my president?
Savage said on his show today that he's not running. Let me say this. If he doesn't run, I may never forgive him. I may stop listening to his show. It's obvious then that he's just a publicity whore. Mike, if you're reading this, you better put your money where your mouth is and run. Otherwise, I know that you're full of crap.Savage whines endlessly about how there's no hope for America with the current crop of candidates. What does that say about him if he doesn't run? It says that he doesn't care, in my opinion. I guess that he'd rather make money from his talk show than do something great for America. Michael better run, or he's just a lying loudmouth.
It's taken you this long to realize something we've known all along.
Michael better run, or he's just a lying loudmouth.
At least if he runs for office, he'll be just a lying loudmouth with a campaign fund. Just like countless other politicians.
Everyone realizes that it's a waste of time and money to attempt a run at president. If you aren't a mainstream suck-up you will never get the support or donations needed. It costs too much just to get considered (I've heard $250,000 entry fee). A person with real ideas would never succeed because the majority of America aren't real thinkers, they simply vote for who they are told to vote for. A good example is 92 when the last real independant got 19% of the popular vote and we ended up getting stuck with an extremist from the left, then an extremist from the right. American politics are strictly military--left, right, left, right. NO compromise is ever produced.
Wow. If you think Clinton was an "extremist from the left" it is clear that there is no hope for a common reality for discussion here. What color is the sky in your reality?
Dr. Autopsychic also believes that there is a cure for cancer, but liberals are suppressing it.
That's very intelligent! And what proof do you have that a Nobel prize winning scientist (2 time) is wrong in his discoveries? Like all others before you, there is NONE but you will attack those who bring a message of hope. Actually by doing that you only reinforce my ideas of what liberalism is all about; no personal accountability.
I was about to say you had a point about only "mainstream suck-ups" getting elected, but then you say the position alternates between extremists from both sides? I don't get it...
Bush is a right wing extremist? I wish.
He's pro-war, pro-military, cut taxes on the rich, increased spending, he's anti-environment, anti-education, anti-gay, anti-separation of church and state. Sounds pretty extreme to me.
I don't get how increased spending is right wing. A real right winger would have cut spending. Right wingers also oppose the Dept. of Education, whereas Bush supports it. Bush is pro-illegal alien. Bush is against gay marriage (I'll give you that), but most Americans are. I don't know how that makes him hard right. Finally, even though Bush is "pro war," he's fought the war in Iraq in such a wimpy manner that over three thousand of our troops have died. I'd hardly consider Bush to be a right wing ideologue. Savage is the right winger. He just needs to run.
A real right-winger would cut spending you say? Like who, the posthumous poster boy for the Repubs, Ronald Regan? The president whose record-breaking national debt was only surpassed by Georgie Boy himself? And Bush's No Child Left Behind was a joke. I can't remember anything else he's done for education. Supporting illegal aliens shows that he has more interest in corporate America and less on working-class America, which is pretty right wing (did I forget to mention pro-corporate?) Bush has a hard-right stance on same-sex marriage because he proposed an anti-gay amendment which was doomed from the start. As for the Iraq war, you can't say Bush doesn't have right-wing ideas just because he incompetently implements them.
Face it, Bush is a right winger, no matter how much you despise him (unless his 30% approval rating comes from Democrats...)
I disagree that Bush is a right winger. The 30% who support him are confused conservatives who think that because Bush has an "R" after his name, he must be a conservative.
Reagan increased spending, but it was on defense. Reagan actually wanted drastic cuts on domestic spending, but congress didn't agree with him.
I don't care why Bush supports illegal aliens. It's a liberal position to be for illegals. Conservatives are for strong borders. Illegal aliens are a drain on our economy. I don't know how any real conservative could support them.
If a guy like Savage or Buchanan were president, spending would be cut drastically. We'd have huge surpluses. Unfortunately, the liberals, instead of congratulating the conservative president, would bitch and moan about how children are "starving." In other words, no Republican can win with the left.
I disagree that Bush is a right winger. The 30% who support him are confused conservatives who think that because Bush has an "R" after his name, he must be a conservative. - If the only support he gets is from conservatives, confused or not, then how can he NOT be a right-winger? What other group feels he represents them?
Reagan increased spending, but it was on defense. Reagan actually wanted drastic cuts on domestic spending, but congress didn't agree with him. - Like I said, a pro-war spendthrift.
I don't care why Bush supports illegal aliens. It's a liberal position to be for illegals. Conservatives are for strong borders. Illegal aliens are a drain on our economy. I don't know how any real conservative could support them. - You're pretty much putting your own spin on this thing here. If that's how things are written in the Book of Presidential Weiner, so be it, but I doubt you'll find anyone besides those who share your delusions agreeing with you.
If a guy like Savage or Buchanan were president, spending would be cut drastically. We'd have huge surpluses. Unfortunately, the liberals, instead of congratulating the conservative president, would bitch and moan about how children are "starving." In other words, no Republican can win with the left. - I'll believe that when I see it. Heck, President Clinton managed a modest surplus, the first in a damn long while, and all the conservatives could do was, in your words, bitch and moan about whose mouth his manhood ended up in.
You may not be a mainstream conservative, but that doesn't make you a Real True Conservative (tm)
Like I said, conservatives who support Bush are confused.
Reagan's defense spending increases were part of the effort to win the Cold War.
I can see how a greedy neo-conservative would be for illegal aliens, but supporting illegal alien criminals goes against traditional conservative values.
I have to respond to a poster from another Savage forum that is now archived. He said that fire and the wheel were "liberal" discoveries. He seemed to be confusing conservatives with Luddites. Conservatives are against big government, not technological advances.
You don't know how conservatives could support illegal immigrants? Think about it. Who do you think owns all those businesses that hire and profit from illegals? Do you think they're all owned by liberals? All those restaurants, landscaping businesses, construction businesses, hotels? How many "liberal" construction contractors do you know?
So all businessmen are conservative?
I do see how greedy businesses would support illegal aliens, but true conservatism isn't all about greed. True conservatism is non-racist nationalism.
It would be a waste of time because as an audience beyond his sychophants listened to his unbridled insanity he would open himself up to the ridicule he so richly deserves.
MichaelWeinerforPresident
I do have to apologize for one thing. Back on another thread I miss read your post, I thought you said the 15th amendment was added in 1787 (that's why I jumped on you). But I re-read it and saw what you wrote, so I am sorry.
(I need less Physics and more sleep :)
my girlfriend says if i cheat on her she'll take my willy off, but it belongs to her anyway so i guess i can't complain much.
Hey Colonel!
That's something we have in common. My wife's always telling me the same thing.
According to Weiner, it sounds like your girlfriend wants you murdered, stripped naked and left by a freeway.
Hey Savage
I really do not think most of America cares what you think.
I think, wait...I know, that the majority of America does not care about transgender issues.
In which case, why do so many get bent out of shape whenever said issues are raised?
True, most people don't care about transgender issues...
...except for the leaders at the forefront of the gay civil rights movement. Hence, gay/lesbian civil rights issues are referred to as LGBT issues. I think this is a bad move on the part of the homosexual community. Transgender surgery should be kept separate from the mainstream gay community. It castes negative stereotypes on normal gay couples, and slows down the progress of homosexual civil rights.
Am I right or wrong here?
Add gays to the long list of people who stigmatize transsexuals. Do you really think that the gays are so desperate for approval that they are willing to sell out another community? Are you gay yourself? What makes you think you are qualified to make suggestions for the community?
Actually, antiseptic didnt say anything about gays stigmatizing transsexuals or selling out. The statement referred to how people outside these groups view the fact that the two seperate entities are considered to be together (LGBT). I posed a very similar question in the other thread about this, and the only answer I got was "they are both groups that have been shunned by society, so they came together." Well, if that is how you feel about it, lets toss illegal immigrants in with them, along with radical muslims, people who are into beastiality, and internet predators (I mean, they are just exercising their right to freely speak on the internet, right?)
All we are trying to say about this that when the normal straight American considers the gay rights issue, they would be a bit more likely to accept it if it just stopped with gays. When you throw in the she-hes, it makes a normal person think "ehh, thats a little too weird for me," effectively delaying the gay rights movement because it is coming packaged with the trannys. And it's not a matter of people needed to be exposed or educated about it...most people aren't and have no desire or reason to be. Believe me, I asked a VERY diverse crowd of people at work, mostly democrat voters, about this and that was the result I came up with. People of every race and a number of different religions. That is what makes me qualified to offer up suggestions on this.
Actually, antiseptic didnt say anything about gays stigmatizing transsexuals or selling out. - That's exactly what he said: that gays shouldn't associate too closely with the transgendered because of the social stigma of the latter.
I posed a very similar question in the other thread about this, and the only answer I got was "they are both groups that have been shunned by society, so they came together." - Maybe you or antiseptic don't want to catch teh transexugender [sic], so you can keep your distance. When gays and lesbians choose to support the transgendered, you can run from them, too. I doubt you'll be missed.
Well, if that is how you feel about it, lets toss illegal immigrants (shunned? then why are they offered so many jobs?) in with them, along with radical muslims, (too late, they've been tossed in with the radical Christians and Jews) people who are into beastiality, (because a man with a dog is the same as a man with another man, amirite?)
All we are trying to say about this that when the normal straight American considers the gay rights issue, they would be a bit more likely to accept it if it just stopped with gays. When you throw in the she-hes, it makes a normal person think "ehh, thats a little too weird for me," effectively delaying the gay rights movement because it is coming packaged with the trannys. Not only are you saying that the LBG community should appease their oppressors, but you're NAME-CALLING, too. It's like WeinerSavage crossed with Coultergiest. But why stop at dropping the 'T'? Maybe if all gays just stopped, oh i dunno, BEING GAY, then all their problems would go away. =D
And it's not a matter of people needed to be exposed or educated about it...most people aren't and have no desire or reason to be. - Judging by the ignorance I've encountered here and elsewhere, the public does need to be educated about this issue.
Believe me, I asked a VERY diverse crowd of people at work, mostly democrat voters, about this and that was the result I came up with. People of every race and a number of different religions. That is what makes me qualified to offer up suggestions on this. - All that makes you "qualified" for is to tell us what your co-workers think. Write a letter to your local queer activism organizations if you think it will help the gays so much.
Oh, and by "radical Christians and Jews", I meant of course the radicals of both religions. I don't want anyone to get offended that I was giving Jews special treatment.
"because a man with a dog is the same as a man with another man, amirite?" --It seems to be the next logical "civil right" that will be addressed on the menu of sexual perversions, along with polygamy. I mean, if there is mutual love and respect, and neither of the participants are being harmed, and it happens behind closed doors...who are you to say that beastiality isn't a civil right, everything else apparently is. Cutting off your "willy" to change your sex seems just as much of a mental disorder as the desire to have sex with animals.
"Not only are you saying that the LBG community should appease their oppressors, but you're NAME-CALLING, too." --Let me be clear, I'm not saying anybody should appease anybody. Can you list 2 or 3 rights that I have as someone who is secure in his sexual identity that a tranny doesn't have here in America? Respect and recognition are not rights either, they are the product of polite behavior. It's not like their after marraige rights like the gays....what lawful, constitutional, civil right are these people after? And for the record name calling is fun...every single person in here does it, it shows emotion over the computer.
You guys are really sick and perverted. Why in the world would cons go to beastiality because they hear about homosexualilty. A DOG cannot consent to a sexual encounter. The fact two PEOPLE, consensually want to have sex in a way that doesnt interest YOU turns your sick and perverted mind to beastiality? You really need the help of a mental health professional. What RIGHT do you have that transgender PEOPLE do not? Well you most likely wont meet the fate that Weinerdog says transgender people DESERVE because of the choices you make about YOUR sexual identity. I think that is a fairly big one. Most likely Weinerdog wont rant insanely about YOUR choices and thats good since THEY ARE NONE OF HIS BUSINESS NOR ANYONE ELSES. Most likely bigots wont come in here and tell you that what YOU do sexually is pretty much the same as beastiality. The RIGHT to live life as you CHOSE to without being called a freak and told you should die a horrible death for your choices is something I think MOST transgendered PEOPLE would lie to have. Not to be descriminated against and treated like human debris.
" The RIGHT to live life as you CHOSE to without being called a freak and told you should die a horrible death for your choices is something I think MOST transgendered PEOPLE would lie to have. "
They have a RIGHT to choose? Well, that shoots all the claims of being 'born that way' all to heck, doesn't it? So, after being asked for a RIGHT that the transgender doesn't have, none could be listed. Well put, indeed.
Look, my original post was not meant to conjure up tired arguments of transgenderism leading to beasiality and polygamy. I'm simply making a judgement on where the civil rights movement is in its current state.
The transgender civil rights movement is something that will not ever be acceptable to the average person. Transgenders want to do away with the concept of gender, so as to make it a freely interchangable. They want this concept to become the norm, be taught in schools as the norm, and thus do away with any stigmas that they encounter in the world outside of their communities.
This, however, is nothing like past civil rights movements. The concept of racial boundaries is something we've done away with. I don't know of anyone outside of Savage's listeners that would disagree with this being an extrodinary achievement. However, most people would not agree with the transgender movement on their principles. We could never do away with gender identification. Gender has meaning. And any group that is intent on breaking down that meaning will not be well-recieved, even by open-minded people.
Gay rights will be accomplished sooner, and more completely, if the transgender movement is not included in the issue of gay rights. It is not cause for discrimination or name-calling to transgenders. I'm only arguing for common sense here. That's all.
Transgenders want to do away with the concept of gender, so as to make it a freely interchangable. They want this concept to become the norm, be taught in schools as the norm, and thus do away with any stigmas that they encounter in the world outside of their communities. - Now you're putting words in others' mouths. Only in your paranoid delusions do those crazy transsexuals want to remake the world into a gender-free zone (which might not be so bad - marriage for everyone!). Transsexuals LOVE the idea of gender. There's really not much point in getting your gender changed if you want the world to be gender-free now, is there?
However, most people would not agree with the transgender movement on their principles. I've said it elsewhere on this thread, and I'll say it here: the transgendered are not a popular group, but that doesn't mean they deserve their stigma.
We could never do away with gender identification. Gender has meaning. And any group that is intent on breaking down that meaning will not be well-recieved, even by open-minded people. - I'm open minded, and I really don't see why you write as if you're losing sleep over the idea that gender might be done away with. Why should the shape of my genitals determine who I can relieve myself next to, or marry?
Gay rights will be accomplished sooner, and more completely, if the transgender movement is not included in the issue of gay rights. - Just like I told Kool-Braid, you tell that to the gay activists. My response is that it's called making concessions to your oppressors. (I'm wondering why you don't suggest that gays just give up on the marriage issue, too - they'd get accepted a lot quicker that way, too.)
"Gay rights will be accomplished sooner, and more completely, if the transgender movement is not included in the issue of gay rights."
While it may be true that throwing the less popular portions of your community to the wolves may make for good politics, it's morally reprehensible. I thank those in the GLBT community who understand that there are a myriad of consensual adult sexuality types that all need equal protection as equal citizens under the eyes of the government and courts. To eat your own just for better ratings in the polls may be quid pro quo for normal politics, but some groups still do push forward with an ethical political goal.
I would think that the right to live without the fear of being killed, stripped, and left by the highway would be fairly high up on my list of "wants". But then again, getting a sex-change is a sick, demented, and freakish choice, while finding a transsexual, killing them, stripping them, and dropping the bloody carcass off on the side of a highway is not. What choice does one have after discovering a transsexual in the vicinity, OTHER than murdering them, stripping them, and hauling their dead body in your car out to a lone stretch of highway and dumping them there?
Next, we need to go after all those freaks that wear lipstick and mascara. Those painted ladies, those demented women who aren't happy with their bodies the way God intended them to be, are practically asking to be sexually assaulted...
I would think that the right to live without the fear of being killed, stripped, and left by the highway would be fairly high up on my list of "wants".
Perhaps we work on saving our children a little bit, too. How about we start by getting rid of the fake "disease" ADHD. That is just a 'made up' complaint the left devised so they could feed their children more drugs. The left is more dangerous to our kids than michael savage is to gays. More children are killed each year from drugs given to treat artificial maladies made up by liberal parents.
" That is just a 'made up' complaint the left devised so they could feed their children more drugs."
We have a scientologist in the hisouse. Is that you Tom Cruise?
Yeah, that darned piece of paper that talks about "Life, Liberty, and the Pusuit of Happiness" is a big target of numbskull-cons like you.
The Declaration of Independence?
No, the McDonald's Dollar Menu.
What I meant is that many people mistakenly confuse the Constitution with the Declaration of Indpendence. Perhaps that poster did. I'm not sure. However, our nation's laws are built on the former, not the latter. I doubt that "pursuit of happiness" actually meant that you should be able to do whatever you want that makes you happy anyway.
If it doesn't violate someone else's rights, or involve harm to any living creature, why shouldn't people be able to do what makes them happy? People are supposed to curb their behavior based on what you think is icky or not?
It shoots down nothing your lack of basic comprehension is astonishing. However they were BORN, it takes SURGERY to be transgendered. THAT is obviously a choice. What day did you say you CHOSE to be a heterosexual? I only ask because I am sure the women of the world would love to make it a day of mourning.
It seems as though most of us here would not include transgender civil rights in the larger issue of gay/lesbian civil rights. For those of us that support full gay/lesbian civil rights (marriage, adoption, etc); Why do we include our support under the full banner of LGBT?
Is it not time that we politely dropped the B and the T from the title of the groups representing our beliefs? It wouldn't be out of discrimination, but simply put, most T issues are not the same as L and G issues. Issues such as ending 'Don't ask, Don't tell' are L and G issues. Transgenders could never be included in that issue, because they will never be allowed in the military. The military doesn't allow people in who have a history of mental issues.
When you continue to look into the other leading civil rights issues, it suffices to say that most of them are L and G issues. Transgender issues revolve around redefining the concept of gender. That is not an L or G issue, and it is up to supporters of lesbian/gay rights to make that clear.
Yes? No?
You make a reasonable point about the tactics, the gay rights community uses, I will leave it up to them. You make sense but perhaps they see it as a moral imperative and consider the principle more important than the tactics. I dont know. I support the rights of people to do those things they want to do when it doesnt hurt others. IF the gay rights community decided to seperate the issues I would understand if they DON'T think they should I understand. Either way they go its THEIR decision. I have no dog in the fight, I will support them seperatly or under the same umbrella. People ought to have the right to be different. Weiners hatespewing bigotry ought to be opposed, we ought to stand up to him and tell him he is dispicable for spewing such hate about a human being.
People ought to have the right to be different. Weiners hatespewing bigotry ought to be opposed,
You only prove that you have no inkling as to what logic is. On one hand you say people should have a right to be different, then condemn Savage because he is different. Make up your small mind, do you want the freedom to be different or is everyone supposed to conform to your tweeked ideals of normalcy?
The obvious difference is that being different in a harmful manner (hate speech, for instance), is not acceptable. By your logic, serial killers should be accepted for their "diversity".
By your logic, serial killers should be accepted for their "diversity".
Trust me on this one...I am definately NOT liberal, so I would never accept a killer under any circumstance. Liberals on the other hand have no problem trying to reduce punishment for killers. So, the "logic" you are confused about is liberal logic and their diversity agenda.
First off, you're not disputing the obvious difference I cited. Second of all, your accusations are without meaningful support. But thank you for your typical ill-thought response.
I'm not sure I understand you, Antiseptic. What civil rights are the transgendered seeking?
It seems as though most of us here would not include transgender civil rights in the larger issue of gay/lesbian civil rights. - Only if by "most of us", you mean yourself and Kool-Braid.
Is it not time that we politely dropped the B and the T from the title of the groups representing our beliefs? - Ugh, now you're attacking the bisexuals? If it helps, think of them as being part-time gays (forgive me, but I'm trying to get my point across).
Issues such as ending 'Don't ask, Don't tell' are L and G issues. Transgenders could never be included in that issue, because they will never be allowed in the military. The military doesn't allow people in who have a history of mental issues. - ... What? Is the military's recruitment standards somehow the golden rule for what constitutes queer rights? Why not have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy for someone's gender? And maybe someday being transgendered won't be classified as a mental disorder (it might not even be now, I'd have to check).
IFlurry, I’m not looking to start a flame-war here. Don’t put words in my mouth or question my motivations; I respect any individual’s right to do what they want. I can’t address your response point by point, I can only suggest that you re-read what I’ve said without jumping to conclusions.
As for transgender issues, consider this article about an elementary school allowing students to be admitted to the school as the opposite of their gender.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/27/MNGL2KQ8H41.DTL&hw=transgender+broward+county&sn=001&sc=1000
This school of thought would teach children that questions they have about their gender could mean that they are in fact of the opposite sex, but weren’t born with the correct body.
Now, some of the most open-minds would say that teaching that to kids is confusing, and shouldn’t be a policy at any elementary school. And when this is seen as an LG issue, it gives those against LG rights a reasonable argument against the groups leading the way for civil rights. I feel I do have a right to question those in charge of the movement, because I want more than anything to see gay couples achieve the same rights as straight couples. In order to do so, there must be an alliance between straights and gays, and everyone’s voice must be heard. But straights will not ally themselves to fight for transgender causes such as the one I’ve linked to. LG works in the real world. LGBT does not.
But straights will not ally themselves to fight for transgender causes such as the one I’ve linked to.
Did you have a bowl of stupid for breakfast? I was born physically male, plan to stay that way my whole life, living as a man, and I am straight. And I am an ally to the LBGT community, and I think that this school is onto a really great idea. It's pretty clear to me that this school is just letting kids do their own thing, which always leads to someone finding what's "right" for themselves. What's "confusing" is being told that you are one thing when you feel another. Being told you have options has never confused anybody (or, if it did, then it just ended up strengthening their final choice).
Again, if you think having a "T" in LBGT is harmful to the gay rights movement, that's your opinion. You can say it (you've done that in spades), but don't parade it around like it's the only thing keeping us from having our first lesbian president.
IFlurry, have you ever considered a career in talk radio? You are really good at half-listening to others, and then screaming at them after they've done nothing but offered a differing opinion. You might want to work on your insults, they're not that creative (Bowl of stupid? I would expect that from a gender confused 4th grader, maybe). But with a little work you could be a loud-mouthed liberal Weiner.
Practice moderation, trust me, it's makes life much more pleasant.
Attempting to support your lame anti transgendered message by telling me what straight people will think when I myself am a hetero is pretty stupid. But that aside, what am I "half listening" to? I get your message, I just think it's insipid and that because we disagree you feel the need to emphasize it more.
Also, don't you think it's a tad hypocritical to say I need to practice moderation, right after you imply that children with gender issues are more juvenile?
Throughout this discussion you've been misinterpreting what I've been saying. For instance, I'm not anti-transgender. I'm pro gay rights, and I think that the way the gay community represents itself is somewhat inefficient and could be a reason that progress is being held back.
I'm simply trying to say that maybe we should clearly define the goals of the gay civil rights movement as the core issues (marriage, adoption, job discrimination, etc). But if one of our goals is getting transgender philosophy to be taught in every public elementary school, then it makes our efforts just that much more hopeless. You are one of very few people who thinks that is a good idea. Accept it, and don't scream at others when they tell you that.
BTW, when I talk about straight people, I'm talking about the majority here, not just you.
I'm done with this, you keep going on the attack like you've got something to prove. Relax.
" But if one of our goals is getting transgender philosophy to be taught in every public elementary school, then it makes our efforts just that much more hopeless."
It isn't. It's a figment of your imagination.
Ok I'm back, just to respond to your post because I admit I mis-spoke.
The sex ed curriculums being proposed to elementary schools (high school it is being proposed) by and large do not include transgender philosophy (to the best of my knowledge, feel free to check this). I was wrong on that. It was only correct for the one particular article I referred to earlier.It doesn't change my original assertion, however. Many of the goals are unacceptable to the majority of people, both open-minded and close-minded.I'll be replying to my own comment so the formatting doesn't make my post illegible.
Throughout this discussion you've been misinterpreting what I've been saying. For instance, I'm not anti-transgender. I'm pro gay rights, and I think that the way the gay community represents itself is somewhat inefficient and could be a reason that progress is being held back. - "Inefficient"? Please tell me you're kidding. Since when is it "inefficient" for communities to band together and help each other? Your only two arguments are 1) that the LBGT umbrella is arbitrary, but it's up to the LBGT community to decide how to organize themselves, and 2) that gays will gain some of the anti-transgender stigma by association, in which case that's again something for the LBGT community to decide for themselves. Do you think that the whole community is so inept that they need a straight thinker (pun intended) like yourself to tell them what to do? Why aren't you discussing this with one of your many gay and lesbian friends who might see your point, instead of an anonymous hetero who thinks you're being arrogant?
Oh, and here's a couple of nice chestnuts from your earlier posts: It castes negative stereotypes on normal gay couples, and slows down the progress of homosexual civil rights... The transgender civil rights movement is something that will not ever be acceptable to the average person. Transgenders want to do away with the concept of gender, so as to make it a freely interchangable. They want this concept to become the norm, be taught in schools as the norm, and thus do away with any stigmas that they encounter in the world outside of their communities... We could never do away with gender identification. Gender has meaning. And any group that is intent on breaking down that meaning will not be well-recieved, even by open-minded people. Gay rights will be accomplished sooner, and more completely, if the transgender movement is not included in the issue of gay rights. It is not cause for discrimination or name-calling to transgenders. I'm only arguing for common sense here. That's all. - Great job talking out of your butt there, you should be a ventriloquist. First you say gays need to avoid "negative stereotypes" (sounds like your advocating turning transsexuals into pariahs), then you use a collection of paranoid delusions to describe the transgendered community's "agenda", and finally you whip our your "the mainstream won't accept it so give up" defeatism. Sounds pretty anti-transgender to me.
BTW, when I talk about straight people, I'm talking about the majority here, not just you. - You should write what you mean.
I'm glad you're done here. All you've done is try to make decisions for others, and only the bigots around here seem to agree with you.
"However they were BORN, it takes SURGERY to be transgendered."
Technically untrue. That's like saying that a guy isn't gay until the day he kisses his first guy. To be transgendered is to be convinced that your true gender is not reflected in your physiological makeup - you do not need surgery to be transgendered, but most transgendered people feel the need to undergo some medical treatments of various types to lessen the psychological trauma of being transgendered.
To be transgendered is to be convinced that your true gender is not reflected in your physiological makeup
So, you're not 'born' that way? Does that mean you have to be convinced that you are nuts?
I don't know if you're picking a fight, or if your reading comprehension is really just THAT bad.
To be transgendered is to believe that you were born with the physiology of the wrong gender. Do you need this stated with smaller words?
I know you meant DemocratIC voters. So did you ask the ReNAMBLAcans too?
" Do you really think that the gays are so desperate for approval that they are willing to sell out another community? "
Absolutely! What would make you think they would not? It's in their genes to do whatever it takes to get approval from someone of importance. That's why they hate savage so much, because he is popular and gives an anti-gay message. That's why gays hate the Bible so much, because it's popular and gives an anti-gay message. That's why gays love liberals, because they give support to their ideas. Since transgenders have their own agenda they are in competition with the gays and the gays will do what they need to do to win the support they need for whatever it is they seek.
It's in [homosexuals'] genes to do whatever it takes to get approval from someone of importance.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! *sniff* Oh, that's just too good...
Hey, tell us again about the cure for cancer that has been known since the 1930s, Dr. Autopsychic.
You did a good job getting it removed from the site. If it isn't the cure then why do doctors say nutrition is a key to better health? Very open minded of you liberals to suppress factual scientific data when it disagrees with your ideology...moneygrubbing hypocrits
Very open minded of you liberals to suppress factual scientific data when it disagrees with your ideology...moneygrubbing hypocrits
You keep getting funnier and funnier, Dr. Autopsychic. It is liberal ideology that there is no cure for cancer? And we're somehow making money off the fact that there's no cure? As our old friend Evillib would say, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
And I didn't flag your quack-linking posts. I enjoy watching cons prove their gullibility.
It's the liberal ideology to support every pharmacutical that comes out to keep you brain-dead. Yeah you liberals are heavy into drugs! The more the better.
Oh, yes I think you did flag them. It's obvious, you virtually admitted it in your first post, now like a true liberal, you are backtracking trying to cover you but in front of your peers. You know nothing of science, only what your liberal friends tell you to know. At least conservatives can THINK for themselves. Whether it's right or wrong we think for ourselves. You're just a puppet for the liberal machine.
My undergraduate and graduate degrees in a hard science (requiring enough math and chemistry to earn minors in both those disciplines) would disagree with your assessment. And if I flagged your posts I'd cop to it - I did on the Gore thread.
Please - tell us more about how liberals are suppressing the cure for cancer. I'm begging you.
My undergraduate and graduate degrees in a hard science ... would disagree with your assessment.
Well, then you failed to attend class regularily. Apparantly, you having a minor in math and science far outweighs scientists and doctors who make it their major. Are you a liberal? Are you saying that Otto Warberg is a quack? There is your proof that liberals are suppressing a known cure to cancer. You are the blind leading the blind. Thanks for being so agreeable to proving my point!
You misread, as usual. I have a B.S. and M.S. in science, with minors in math and chemistry.
And yes, I'm calling your doctor a quack. There is no known cure for cancer.
It's the liberal ideology to support every pharmacutical that comes out to keep you brain-dead.
I didn't get the notice. Is there an update to the handbook that didn't get mailed to me? I don't recall anybody mentioning it at the meeting last Thursday, though I was in the bathroom during the period between the announcement of next month's climate crisis and the ceremonial signing of the media payoff check.
It's infuriating when I have to use last month's talking points. If someone could fax me the latest manifesto, I'd appreciate it. (303) 555-MARX
Shhhh, don't tell him that Eli Lilly, the people that bring us Prozac, were major contributors to Bush's campaigns and that real liberals consider the new "anti-depressant" craze a corporate poisoning of the American population. It might ruin his misconceptions.
I guess, to be fair, that there are liberals and conservatives on both sides of the mind altering drug issue.
autopsychic is, without a doubt, my new fave commenter. if he/she turns out to be a parody i am gonna go into depression and enjoy more perscription drugs 'cause i am a liberal.
Don't forget the communist plot to corrupt our precious bodily fluids!
Come now, No Fighting in the War Room!
" If it isn't the cure then why do doctors say nutrition is a key to better health?"
You sure do spend a lot time speaking for others. It's so typical of the anti-intellectual right-wing freak show.
Come on Harly! What happened to your claims of knowing the truth? You mysteriously disappeared when I asked you for proof, then you mysteriously re-appear when you try to knock my position. You are the worst of the worst, claim knowledge but have nothing to back it up. Admit to everyone that you are only a 5 year old who sneaks onto his/hers parents computer. Your posts surely show your intelligence. Of which you have none. If you have the b*lls to back your claims with fact then do it. If not then continue your hide and seek act. Which I guess you'll continue to do. You and oxydized have no proof to back up your wild claims, but I've repeatedly provided mine and NO ONE has been able to debunk them. So your only recourse is to attack the messenger. What losers you both are!
Did it take a lot of leverage to shoehorn so many hateful, ignorant, completely without merit propaganda parrot talking points into one post? Didnt the Anglican Church just elect a gay Bishop? Ever hear of Ted Haggard, think he hates the bible? Does it take much effort to assure that NO REALITY WHATSOEVER enter the cramped confines of Planet Wingnut?
You don't seem to realize that it's natural to dislike people and materials that portray you in a negative light. And then you trot out the ol' right-wing chestnut about being in competition for rights, as if there's a big barrel of freedom somewhere, and only so much of it to go around.
True, most people don't care about transgender issues...
...except for the leaders at the forefront of the gay civil rights movement. Hence, gay/lesbian civil rights issues are referred to as LGBT issues. I think this is a bad move on the part of the homosexual community.
============================
Dear Anti:
70% of people support transgender issues in poling done in both North Carolina and Pennsylvanis. The number was almost exactly the same as the number for gays - actually - it was higher for transgender people in NC.
When PA was passing its hate crimes legislation that covers both transgender & gay people - an offer was made to us to leave gay people out and just pass it for transgender people. We of course declined.
I think we can all agree - many, man more people support LGBT people than support Michale Savage. He'd never break single digits in any poll - unless it's who's the biggest As##h#le.
Sorry Braid. I have a problem with those first two words, "I THINK".
Your performance so far shows that you don't think, you respond.
There's a big difference.
Oh, don't be too hard on ol' Braid. He offers the homos and trannies his valuable advice because he cares so much about them.
There's a term for that, the first word is "concern," can't remember the second word, starts with a "t"...
Gee, isn't the number one suicide capital Plano, TX? Conservative stronghold USA. Why are conservative children making death pacts and killing themselves? They must deserve it, right savage?
Suicide is for losers.
Just culling the conservative heard, right?
I guess so!
at least ya got a sense of humor. good for you! ;)
You can't imagine how angry it makes me when morons talk about things they know NOTHING about. My late wife was a schitzophrenic. A brilliant and beautiful woman. A member of MENSA with a stratospheric IQ. She suffered from an illness that effected her brain and decision making. She took her life. She is as far from being a loser as any human being I have ever met. You should ASPIRE to have half her gifts. This is the problem with generalities, they are basically for the simpleminded.
My appologies Solon for the offending comment.
I do know quit a bit about it however. 2 of my best freinds commited suicide, within two years apart. One of them I found, and cleaned out his place for three weeks after to help his mother who lived in another state. It just left a bitter taste in my mouth.
I understand what you mean. It is something very personal. I appreciate your sensativity to my feelings, thank you for that.
This reminds me of good old Ted Haggard. The more they condemn a behavior the more they are fighting the urge to act that way. Does this jerk having nothing better to talk about than this?
Hey, wasn't Ted in Colorado... James Dobson is in Colorado... coincidence?
Fundamentalist Christianity caused Columbine! I think that conclusion satisfies the Weiner Criteria.
nope. it was bowling. and mountains. and coors light. and Hit Movie "Dumb and Dumber".
Actually, they found a link between teen use of anti-depressants, now known to cause suicidal tendencies in youth, and the rash of school shootings. But they don't talk about that much...might hurt Prozac sales to minors.
But they don't talk about that much...might hurt Prozac sales to minors.
I wonder who the "they" is.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/DDIL/prozac.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-09-13-prozac_x.htm
We of the gay homosexual mafia will allow people to keep their willies in case they want them back, *Mr. Savage*...do not fear the revolution...
And why is mediamatters providing a forum for this idiots bigotted speech?
Tommy will answer that for you;"Pointing out worthless drivel is a productive instrument in an attempt to eradicate it."
creeeeeeepy
I wonder where Savagerocks went. I wonder if he got banned after all his posts got scrubbed...
Probably... but I'm hoping he realized he just couldn't keep defending this insane dribble with his repetition of "Weiner is not a Bushbot, he supports language, borders, and culture, he just goes too far sometimes".
Some of Weinerrocks posts were thoughtful and progressive compared to the drooling Savage sycophant BRAID1626097 the College Rethuglican..
Agreed. Weinerrocks had a sense of humor and an apparent understanding of the world outside of Ayn Rand "novels."
I agree, once we got him past the condescending, let me educate you dumb liberals stage he showed insight and an ability to be thoughtful. I hope he isnt gone.
It seems I'm alone on this, but I think Kool-Braid has better debating skills. Not that either of them are all that good...
I thought he was Savage himself. With an ego like Weiner's, he couldn't just complain about this site on air, he'd have to get involved.
Yeah well...
Michael Moore posited that the Columbine kids did it because of exposure to weapons culture (a major WMD manufacturer has facilities there).
So now we've got two butt-plugs with crackpot theories.
And in other news . . . Wiener blames high gas prices on gangsta rap . . .
I hate the way he describes this murder as if it was the natural consequence of being a transsexual. Unwanted pregnancy? Well, that's what you get for being straight and fertile.
Rape? Your fault for having a vagina.
It's kind of scary how he gives a free pass to the murderer by blaming the victim for their own murder. It's almost like he is trying to inflame some of his not so tightly wound listeners to go out and murder some more. I have often thought that he is trying to incite some of his whacko listeners to violence. Who knows how many acts of violence have been perpetrated by someone who has listened to this sicko screaming and yelling and egging them on?
in fairness, harris, dr. savage has as much right to say what he wants as we do.
And in fairness no one said he didnt, also WE have as much right to point out the inherent insanity, bigotry and hatemongering IN what he says as he does to say it.
hey, if we agree why are we arguing? i don't think i've agreed with a single thing that savage has said. that, along with massive doses of liberal anti-depressents, allows me to sleep at night.
What's the big deal? Let's follow Weiner's logic:
A. The "sex-change capital of the world" is in Colorado.
B. Columbine High School is in Colorado.
ergo
C. Sex-change is responsible for the Columbine tragedy.
Makes perfect logical sense to me. Mr. Weiner is just connecting the dots. I would not be surprised to hear that Jonesboro, Arkansas has a thriving transexual population.
Actually, by Weiner's "proximity" logic, sex-change operations also killed JonBenet Ramsey and Darrent Williams, and raped Kobe's crazy white girl. So we can close the book on those cases.
Savage gets more and more insane every day... Makes you wonder how his story is going to turn out, doesn't it?
I am not sure how it will turn out but I assume a rubber room and massive doses of Haldol will be involved.
This dude has a severe castration phobia, along with misogyny. I Chalk it up to difficult potty training for this poor bastard... Mommy was tough on the poor kid, huh?
8 MILLION PEOPLE LISTEN TO THIS GUY??
Seriously?
I guess if the amount of people that voted for Dumby could exist, anything is possible.
8 MILLION PEOPLE?
No wonder this country is in such striaghts.
i would love it, LOVE IT, if savage ran for president. it would be SO. FUNNY.
please, dr. michael. please run. if possible, it would be even funnier than this priceless riff on transgender issues, and also your comedy bronx accent when talking about jewish people. love that, by the way. keep up the good work, you ol' dog.
Wiener should seriously consider species reassignment.
He is commenting on rampant immorality. Sex change operation is a hot button example of our societies immorality. Sex change operations equal immorality, immorality is a slippery slope, which leads us to the Columbine Massacre.
Especially the guy he was talking about that tore apart his family to pursue this. He had a wife and kids he didn't care enough about, to me that is a psychopath and freak. This guy lost his ability to make this selfish decision the day he said, "I do".
You're absolutely correct. We all know how important marriage vows are to conservatives. Thank God they've set such a good example for the rest of us.
Especially the guy he was talking about that tore apart his family to pursue this. He had a wife and kids he didn't care enough about, to me that is a psychopath and freak. This guy lost his ability to make this selfish decision the day he said, "I do".
Thus he deserved to be brutally murdered. Got it. Thanks, Loki.
NO one deserves to be murdered. But we don't have to treat our dead with kid gloves. The guy was sexually immoral and hurt everyone around him that cared for him.
Can you provide links to back up your contention that this person "hurt everyone around him that cared for him"?
I'm not saying that it's not true. I'd just like you to back up your statement with something other than opinion.
No actual evidence other than the fact he had a family and lived as a man. He then selfishly chose to forgo those responsibilities and live as a woman.
Maybe his family selfishly chose to shun him rather than accept something that would've made him happy. Heck, other kids grow up just fine having two mommies...
His wife married a man who she loved. He chose his own needs above hers, something he vowed not to do. The second he said, "I do" he gave up the choice to change his gender. He entered a commitment with his wife that he broke.
Fine then, maybe he shouldn't have gotten married. People make mistakes, that's what divorce is for.
Marry a woman and having children is and then deciding that your actually a woman in a man's body is not just a mistake. It is selfish, stupid, and I would say borders on the criminal.
Okay, either this woman didn't love her family, in which case they are better off without her, or she did love her family, in which case it just goes to prove how far people are willing to go to change their gender.
But what, exactly, makes a failed marriage with kids "criminal" in your eyes? My father is twice divorced with two kids from each marriage, and I think he's a fine, upstanding person. I don't see how his changing his gender would suddenly make him a bad person in this context.
First of all he is a man. No matter what he preferred to be called and no matter what operation he had to change his appearance, he is a man. If he stopped taking hormone therapy he would revert. He was a born a man and he died a man.
I view the marriage vows as a verbal contract. I do not think divorce should be tolerated. People are too flippant about marriage these days. Marriage is forever, if you have problems you work through them. The only reason to get divorced is spousal abuse and/or adultery. We as Americans need to stick to our commitments.
Thanks for sharing your rigid definitions of gender, I'm sure if you repeat that rhetoric enough it'll convince me.
As for the victim's marriage, you still haven't explained how changing one's gender automatically makes a divorce worse.
As for divorce, my father grew up the product of a very unhappy marriage between two people who didn't believe in divorce, so he should know. Plus, why make exceptions for adultery? Plenty of couples work through that problem and come out fine. And plenty of couples just plain can't stand each other after awhile. If divorce makes two people happier than being married, what's the point of "working it out"?
How is it rigid? He was born with a penis. Last time I checked that makes you a man. The only reason he looks like a woman is because of surgery and hormone therapy. His psychological illness that makes him believe he is a woman sh9ould be treated not encouraged. He didn't just cheat on his wife, he put his well being before hers and his children's. That is what makes it worse. He was the protector and provider for that family and he selfishly chose himself and his wants above theirs. That is what makes it worse.
People should more thought into marriage. And they would if divorce wasn't so easy now a days. Marriage sounds like a lovely thing at first thought. Thats problem nobody ever thinks beyond the lovely. They don't realize you have to work at it everyday because it is so easy to fall apart from each other. They don't have to worry about that because they are in love, well love isn't always enough. To make the commitment of marriage is something sacred. Something that should not be entered into lightly. You have a duty to yourself, to your partner, and to any children you may have to get up everyday and work at it.
I make the exception for adultery because it is like spousal abuse. Once a cheater always a cheater, it is only a matter of time. Some may choose to work through it, but can they ever trust their partner again? Can they ever really know what their partner is doing?
I agree with you about marriage/divorce, Loki. Not so Insane after all.
Does it occur to you that he might have never wanted to get married in the first place, but he was pressured to conform to other people's beliefs? It's sort of a rash assumption to conclude that this person was irresponsible for getting married and divorced when it's entirely possible (if not probable) that those in his family pressured him into it to be "normal" and perhaps "cure" himself of his "problem".
It still becomes his fault. He chose to get married, he did not have to. His actions are his responsibility. I could be pressured to shoot someone but if I do it then it is my fault.
That may be the most absurd comparison ever. The pressure I'm talking about is to conform to other's views of society, Christian moralist views of what is right, not a criminal act. Your framing of the issue was that he irresponsibly decided to get married, as if it was absent of any other influences.
Not everyone is able to resist pressure like that, especially if people think they're immoral for doing so. Sure, it's still their responsibility, but it makes it more understandable to change their life and accept who they really are if they were pressured into marriage instead of doing it of their own free will on a lark. It makes a difference to those who make some effort to understand others and who don't see the world in black-and-white.
So if got married under pressure than the same pressure existed when he decided to become a woman and divorce his wife. With that your argument does not hold up. He either is or is not strong enought ot stand up to societal pressure.
This is not just a Christian thing there are plenty of Atheist who would agree with me.
More nonsense. You assume that things do not change over time. If a gay person succumbs to that pressure and tries to make a heterosexual life for themselves, it may not work! How many years would you try something before the futility of it overwhelmed you and made the outside pressure irrelevant?
A more apt analogy would be if you wanted to be a chef, but your parents really really really wanted you to be a lawyer. You have absolutely no aptitude for the profession, but you do your best for years, and even if you barely squeak through law school, even if you pass the Bar on your 12th try, you find you hate the work. Now someone can say you shouldn't have listened to your parents, but in the end you know that it wasn't going to work, and you had to do what was right for you and not what other people wanted, otherwise you'd be miserable forever.
So no, your assertion that circumstances at one point in time must be equal to circumstances at another point of time is, as your name suggests, insane.
You are failing to see the difference. A marriage is a lifetime commitment, it isn't a career choice. Feeling pressure is one thing but making this commitment to another person because of it is your fault no one else's. There is tons of help avail;able out there for people who feel this pressure if they chose not to get it that again is their own fault.
Sorry, but if you spend that much time preparing for a career you expect that career to last you quite some time, probably until retirement. It's not like you spend nine years prepping for a summer job. That's an extraordinary piece of nitpicking on your part there.
Again, it would be your responsibility, but it would make it more understandable if you make an effort to understand other people. If your parents threatened to disown you if you didn't do what they said, for example, and later on someone told you it was entirely your fault for caving, it might occur to you to bring up that outside influence. I find any suggestion otherwise to be disingenuous at best.
I am not saying the outside influences do not get to you. But the final decision is still and yours alone. The buck stops with you.
Well, that mitigates your suggestions that what he did was wantonly irresponsible, and that's the point. You can see that if you were in his shoes, you might easily do the same thing. Whether or not the buck stops with him, it makes it much harder to blame him for his actions, which has obviously been your goal all along.
To succumb to that pressure is irresponsible. I blame him for his actions because he is the one who ultimately did them. As i have said he chose not to get the help offered to anyone in his position. He chose the easy way out.
Alright, so let's reverse it. I'm assuming you're heterosexual. If you found yourself in an environment where you were in the minority, where most people were gay or bisexual, would you stay married to someone of the same sex for the sake of being "responsible"? Or would you take the "easy way out" and be true to your own nature? Sure, the buck stops with you for succumbing to outside pressure, but would you really stick with it for the rest of your life as a result?
The exercise would not be futile. You try it until you die.
Dying without succeeding is an excellent definition of futility. Are you familiar with the word?
People grow and change over time. Perhaps she was young and naive at one point and, as Brabantio put it so well, was pressured into conformity under the belief that it would help things, and then (much later) realized "Hey, doing what other people want for me makes me miserable!" It happens all the time.
HE was young and naive you mean. There is no "she" other than his wife. Again people should think long and hard before getting married. I believe if divorce wasn't so easy people would think about it more. I was young naive once, I did some stupid things. One of them wasn't committing myself to another person.
If you mean that society as a whole shouldn't pressure people to conform, then I'd agree with you. If you mean that a failed marriage is some kind of unpardonable sin, then I think you're being a tad unreasonable.
What I am saying it still should stigmatized and not as easy as it is now.
"HE was young and naive you mean. There is no "she" other than his wife."
Nope, the correct pronoun was used, as the pronoun should match the gender the transgendered person identifies with. If you choose to intentionally use the wrong pronoun just to prove how bigoted you are on the issue, please feel free.
So yes, SHE was young and naive, and there's a very good chance that at the time of the marriage, sexual reassignment was completely unknown to her. Many transgendered men and women try to live their lives as straight or even as gay in order to have a "normal" straightforward life, and it just doesn't work. When they become aware of other options, it's likely going to be a compelling drive for them to look into reassignment.
Liberals throw around the word "bigoted" too much. Secondly, I don't that Insane ever said that what the man did was "unforgivable," only that it was wrong.
First of all, that's ONE definition of gender, but some people have a more flexible definition, making yours relatively rigid.
Second, if you think that changing one's gender isn't a good treatment for being transgendered, then get a PhD in Psychiatry and do some research into alternative treatments. Forgive me if I'm skeptical about your theories that fly in the face of mainstream psychiatry.
Third, a woman can be the protector and provider of the family. How does changing one's gender inhibit one's ability to be a good parent?
Lastly, you have a pretty warped view of adultery if you think it's spousal abuse. I could lie to my partner about any number of things to abuse their trust, but sex is somehow the ultimate taboo? An abusive partner could do any number of horrible things to physically hurt their partner, but infidelity is somehow comparable to that?
First, yes infidelity is comparable to abuse in that people more like habitual offenders.
Second, if this man/woman stopped taking hormone therapy what would there body look like? They would look like a man, why, because they are man. You are born with a penis you are man. No matter what surgical alterations you have.
Third, I am not saying a woman could not be a good parent. I am saying a man or woman who puts their own selfish wants before that of their families are bad spouses and parents.
"I am saying a man or woman who puts their own selfish wants before that of their families are bad spouses and parents."
See, here's your dishonest framing again. It's not about a want, or a whim, it's about being true to who you really are. That rises far above the level of need that you suggest, and undermines your assertion of wanton irresponsibility rather severely.
He did not need to be a woman. He needed to live up to his commitments and provide for his family.
Oh, are you a mindreader now? How do you know what he needed or not? You seem to be assuming that this is just a preference on his part, not an orientation. If he was going to be miserable for the rest of his life, then he had to deal with that however possible. To stay with someone when it's not working, for the sake of them or for children or anyone is an exercise in futility. Be honest to yourself and give everyone a chance to make a happy life for themselves.
The way I know it wasn't a need is because he was born a man and not a woman. He had perfectly functioning body. You cannot turn someone into a woman it is all cosmetic. His needs became secondary the moment he said, "I do". He agreed to put her needs and wants first.
That's ludicrous. Just because he was born as a man doesn't mean he didn't feel the need to be a woman. You can't separate the body and the mind, in your view?
Plus he vowed for better or worse. IF that means having to suppress his want to be a woman than so be it. He made the commitment. Just because he believed he should be a woman does not give him the right to act on it once he chose to say, "I do".
You have no basis for calling it a "want". You keep using this dishonest framing. To be miserable for the sake of someone else does no service to either person, or any children, in a relationship. It's unfortunate that it happened, but condeming yourself and others to it forever is so obviously emotionally unhealthy that any reasonable person should understand why it's wrong.
There is no saying he couldn't be happy. Changing your gender appearance is a choice. He could have found a way to be happy. He gave up.
How long would you stick with it, trying to be happy? Again with your mind-reading. How do you know the situation was workable? Because he had a man's body? That's truly bizarre reasoning. As long as you have compatible body parts, it's all good, huh? There's no mental or psychological components to a marital relationship? Someone call Dr. Phil and tell him that you're replacing him on the show immediately.
Scratch that, "emotional or psychological".
Of course there are mental things that go into a marriage. But marriage is hard work. Since he made the commitment he had an obligation to ride it out.
For the rest of his life, or what? Ye Gods, man. Eternal misery for the sake of adhering to a religious ceremony? You can have it, but don't expect too many others to buy into it.
It is more than a religious ceremony.
What more can it be, where it justifies eternal misery for the sake of it? As a religious ceremony it's a commitment to God, right? If that doesn't justify it, where do you go from there?
It is a commitment to God, your spouse, and yourself. You are tying yourself to that person for the rest of your days on this Earth.
It's not even JUST a religious ceremony. It's a legal contract, and one that can legally be dissolved under a number of circumstances.
You know nothing about their marriage or their ceremony, but you continue to use this woman's murder as a way to pontificate on the evils of... ah, whatever you'd like to blather on about, apparently.
Marriage is not a contract between Man and God unless Man (not God, interestingly enough) chooses to make it so. Otherwise, it's a legal contract with legal ramifications that can be changed and dissolved with the appropriate motions and decisions.
If you seriously think "giving up" means changing your gender, then you are quite ignorant of what a person must go through to make that change. Being transgendered is like being gay: if it WERE a choice, then who in their right mind would make it? The transition is a choice, just like having homosexual relationships. But the desire is a strong one, and resisting can cause a lot of personal pain for a person.
Of course, in your mind a marriage is the only thing that matters, amirite?
Homosexuality is a choice. It would not cause you any ill will to deny your urgings for the same sex.
And yes once someone says, "I do" their marriage is more important. Their spouse is more important.
Homosexuality is a choice. - Kiss whatever shred of credibility you had goodbye. Why would anyone choose to be gay?
And what if both parties want a divorce? Why should two people suffer the rest of their lives just because they made a promise they couldn't keep?
Why does anyone chose to do anything? To be different, to act on their urges,to rebel.
Right, people engage in behavior where they get mocked mercilessly, beat up, disowned and murdered because they're rebels. That's genius. "Yes, I could just as easily be with a girl, I've lost close friends and any connection with my dad because of it, and I get shoved into lockers in the locker room at least twice a week, but I'm going to stick with it just to be different".
That sound about right?
It gets them attention doesn't it? Someone who might otherwise be ignored, fade into the background. They are suddenly the center of some people's attention.
A person spouse and marriage is more important once they chose to say, "I do".
Homosexuality is a choice. You can chose to resist those urges and live a perfectly normal and happy life. Thousands have done it.
Like Ted Haggard?
Let's not forget that the vow is "for better or worse" too.
In fact, Insane touched on that. I missed it.
Don't worry, it wasn't compelling when he said it either.
I touched IFlurry's statement about in response to my 'Y' chromosome comment.
According to the APA, what makes it a "good" treatment? Is it just the fact that it makes the person feel better?
Ronald Reagan divorced his first wife. That's immoral. I think we should have no sympathy for him for being killed by Alzheimer's. In fact, we should joke about it. Maybe something about how he was a vegetable, or something like that. "Once that sick freak said ketchup was a vegetable, now he's a vegetable!" Yeah, that's the ticket.
I am not saying we should not have sympathy for the way he passed. I am saying that just because he is dead it does not excuse him from criticism. Just like Reagan, he still gets criticized, his death does not change what he did or our right to disagree with it.
A thoughtful criticism of how her "gender reassignment" affected her family wouldn't show up on this site. Weiner had no such thoughtful criticism, he equated this murder with "the wages of sin are death". I wonder why she was not smote alongside the highway by a bolt of lightning. So whoever murdered this woman was on a mission from God, I guess.
I wouldn't comment on the mental health of someone who desires gender reassignment, I don't have the credentials to do so. Weiner has no such qualms. Next time you listen to weiner, notice the rarity of data, facts, and study he cites to back up his opinions.
He was a man not a woman.
Somebody unplug this broken record player.
Check his chromosomes I bet there is 'Y' in there.
Not the same as being transgendered, but...
CAIS. Nearly completely physically female with a Y chromosome.
Now please stop spamming.
Touche IFlurry, touche. But this man was a man. He had his testes on the outside.
Okay, but transsexualism is a real condition.
Here's a section of the American Psychological Association's website about it.
Because it is a recognized condition and I support the transgendered, I will continue to refer to the victim and others by their preferred gender. You can refer to them by their birth sex because you think its right.
Just about anything is a recognized disorder. We label things too much. Transevualism might be a real disorder. That does not mean allowing people to mutilate themselves is right or moral.
It doesn't make the mutilation wrong or immoral either. What it does is it makes it none of your damn business, because they do what they feel they need to and it shouldn't affect you in the least little bit.
It does affect me, it affects all of us. The messages that we send to the next generation aren't always through lectures. They happen subtly through our actions. We allow people to mutilate themselves in this manner and that could be used as justification in the future for genetically altering you child before birth. It is a slippery slope we have started to ride.
You just said that it might be a real disorder! Are you telling me that recognizing that is going to give parents license to alter their children before birth? Why? They psychically know that child is going have that disorder, or what?
Recognizing that people can do something to themselves will never lead to the idea that they can do it to others.
That what they said in Germany pre-Holocaust. Let the elderly and infirm have assisted suicide, then it snowballed into "assisting" mentally handicapped with suicide. Then we all know what happened.
Yes, because obviously transexuals have the political agenda of the Nazis. Yikes...
No, but it is a slippery slope.
Which is a fallacy.
We have this sort of thing play out all throughout history. It isn't a fallacy it is a sad fact.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
You provide a textbook example, honestly. "If you let men who believe they are women become women, then the next thing you know parents will be genetically altering their children before birth". One's got nothing to do with the other.
They have everything to do with one another. They are both cosmetically altering someone to look like they want. Whether it is what they want or their parents want it is essentially the same thing. I already provided an example, Nazi Germany.
No, again, doing something for oneself is not the same as doing it to someone else. You have nothing here.
Like I said it is a slippery slope. We start allowing people to do it to themselves and pretty soon the line could get meshed with forcing other people to have it done.
So you oppose people getting tattoos because otherwise you are allowing the "slippery slope" of people branding their babies with hot irons. Good to get you on record on that.
An argument could be made but a tattoo is hardly on the same level as self mutilation.
The level has nothing to do with it. Would you oppose tattoos based on that argument or not?
Transsexualism is a mental disease. It making people believe they are something they are not. Allowing them to mutilate their bodies to show on the outside what their sickness is making them believe only exacerbates the problem it doe not cure it.
As opposed to making them spend their entire lives in a body which they don't feel comfortable in? That's going to cure something?
They need to helped into feeling comfortable.
But if it's a mental disease, as you're arguing, you don't "get over it" just like that. You don't "adjust". That's why it's a mental disease! You've completely destroyed all your own rationales.
No, people get treatment all the time for various mental illnesses and lead perfectly normal lives.
Terrific, but I see no hints from you as to what happens if someone tries treatment and it doesn't work. Are those people then "moral" or "immoral"?
You keep working at it. Sometimes treatment has to be constant. IT is not immoral to have the condition it is immoral to give into it.
So you're saying that there's a psychological treatment that's guaranteed to work, as long as the patient wants it to? Have you contacted the APA about this groundbreaking news?
And still not being able to be cured does not then justify giving into that illness and mutilating yourself.
Wait a minute. Not being able to be cured does not justify giving in to it? So it's come down to this:it's a real mental disease, it may not be curable, but even in that case it's immoral to accept it instead of living in denial for the rest of one's life. Is that where you're at now?
We all have crosses to bear.
Meaning that a condition with an organic origin makes one immoral. You don't deny it.
The actions people take in dealing with that condition can make them immoral.
If they can't be cured, they should suffer, otherwise they're immoral. I got it.
Can I also note that if you're going to argue that this is a mental disease, that severely undercuts your argument that someone with it who got married is acting immorally, or that they should be stuck in that marriage forever. That is obviously an extenuating circumstance.
Not if they chose not to seek help. It is not a mental disease that impairs judgment of right and wrong. It impairs your perception of yourself.
But that brings us back to people like you who claim it's immoral. See, if you're being influenced by people who think that you're being immoral, then that's not going to lead you to believe that you need psychological help. It's going to lead you to believe that you're immoral. Do you understand the distinction? The very pressure I was talking about earlier does not conform with "helping" people, just trying to force them to be "moral" and live a normal life.
I am not saying it isn't complicated at times.
Then don't make simplistic conclusions about morality when you don't know anything about the subject at hand. Is that fair?
I do know about the subject at hand. Just because it isn't always simple does not give you an excuse for not making the right decisions. People need to take responsibility for their actions.
But you don't know anything about anyone else's life, period. If it's complex, then you can't so easily say what's "right" and what's not. Your personal set of prejudices have no bearing on the rest of the world, where they allow any such determinations on the morality of complex personal situations. You couldn't answer the question about what you would do in this person's shoes, and that speaks volumes to me. If it doesn't alert you to the self-centered and simplistic nature of your thinking, you need to wake the hell up. I mean that as sincere, well-meaning advice.
The real world is not a place for black-and-white reasoning, and your grudging admission that the situation is not necessarily simple is the first step to grasping that vital concept.
No one could answer the questions as to what they would do in someone else's shoes. That is an impossible question to answer.
The only reason the World is not black and white is because people complicate it with their own narcissistic wants. The World is black and white. The sooner people realize that the sooner we vcan get common sense back into the World and things can improve.
If the world is black-and-white, then how can anything be "complicated"? Doesn't the binary view of either always right or always wrong make that concept impossible?
The question was not impossible to answer. It was very simple. The only thing that makes it difficult for you is that it makes you either say you would stay in a gay relationship for life, or say that you would get out, which is inconsistent with your position. It exposed perfectly the weakness of your position.
What? I never saw a question about gay relationships? What the heck are you talking about?
But if you are talking about being in gay relationship the answer is simple, get out. The relationship in itself is not moral so getting out of it would not be an issue, in fact it would be the moral thing to do.
You have to read the question, obviously.
It's currently on the 181-200 page. As many times as you've been over this thread, you never once saw it? I find that hard to believe.
Nope never saw it.
Now you have, why not answer?
Further, you are not grasping the opposite side of the issue here. If the relationship is just not working, if it's a situation where he shouldn't have given into the pressure to be normal but he did, then isn't it irresponsible to spend the rest of one's life pretending that everyone's happy? I would think it would take a lot of personal courage to admit who you really were inside. Even if it was his idea and his alone to get married, isn't owning up to that mistake and trying to move past it an effort of responsibility? Isn't it possible that not wasting all of their lives in such a futile arrangement was the "right" thing to do anyway?
It's certainly arguable, and makes your attempts at cornering the market on the concepts of morality and responsibility highly questionable.
The responsible thing to do is make it work, not cut and run. He made a mistake he has to live with it. Marriage isn't something you should be able to throw away whenever the mood strikes.
That assumes that all relationships are workable. Do you really think that assumption is fair or even vaguely realistic?
I think that Jane Wyman divorced him actually. I don't think that Reagan wanted a divorce.
Well that makes sense. I mean back in that day who would want to divorce Jayne Wyman?
I think you use the term "immoral" a little too recklessly.
You really don't understand why people get sexual reassignment surgery. These people are not perverts or sex fetishists. They are, for the most part, suffering from gender identity disorder. They are people who are deeply troubled psychologically by their conflicting internal and external sexual identities. Surgery is usually a last resort in the struggle to rid these people of very deep and troubling emotional anguish, anguish you or I could never truly understand. I think these people are most certainly mentally disturbed, but so are those suffering from depression, bipolar disorder, affective disorder, or schizophrenia. You would hardly call a schizophrenic "immoral" because of his/her condition, would you? Would you chastise someone with a mental disorder for taking medication or seeking therapy?
So, essentially, you are too ill-informed to be engaging in an arguement of this nature. Like most conservatives, you feel compelled to break every issue down into "moral" and "immoral," ignoring the fact that your definitions of morality are at best outdated, and more likely, completely backward.
Now I know what you're thinking. My argument supports your idea that sexual identity disorder and homosexuality are somehow the same thing, essentially mental disorders that can be cured. But understand this: Homosexuality is not a disorder because it does not cause impaired social functioning. Any anxiety homosexuals experience is due mostly to external factors (i.e., social norms, impaired relationships, anxiety about leading a double life and coming out). Homosexuals identify with their given gender, they simply prefer their own to the opposite sex. Also, I am unfamiliar with any successful "treatment" that exists for homosexuality, nor is it at all common for a homosexual to seek treatment. So let's just stop that line of reasoning before it starts.
Examples of actual sexual immorality (admittedly by my own definition) include adultry, rape, child molestation and bestiality. These are chosen behaviors, not inborn preferences. In fact, sexual reassignment has nothing to do with sex as an act, and everything to do with gender. The fact that you would deem a mental disorder (and/or, a common treatment for this disorder) as "immoral" simply illustrates a lack of understanding all too common among the throngs of reactionary know-it-alls trying to "save" America from immorality.
I see our comments becoming narrower and narrower I think it is MM way of telling us we need to agree to disagree.
But as I said, sticking with someone when it doesn't work, just for the sake of sticking together, does no service to either person. If it doesn't do either person any good, who gives a damn about the commitment? The best you have is that it's a commitment to God, to which my reply is that any higher power that creates you in such a way where you end up having to choose between hell on earth or hell itself doesn't deserve any consideration.
A choice you can't explain no matter which way you turn. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.
There could be amultitide of reasons but it still boils down to a choice.
At the expense of family and friends? Right.
So they're doing it to rebel, to be different...but also, at the same time, to be accepted by those like them. Hmmm.
There are also those who yearn to be accepted by a group of people. Affiliating yourself with a minority of the population is one way to get that.
I've known plenty of gay people who didn't want to be the center of attention, who just wanted to live their lives in peace. Where does that fit in your warped view? They must be liars, I bet.
"God made you that way, deal with it". I know, I got it.
We are all given trials and tribulations to deal with in our lives. It is how we deal with those problems that define who we are. Giving yourself over to the problems is immoral.
Hey Weiner. The only person who cares about transgendered "freaks" is you. Get over it. The people who still consider transgendered people human beings don't care.
And watch out around elephants. They may want to eat that circus peanut between your legs.
I actually had to laugh at that last joke.
"Conservatives want to get rid of free speech" - interesting statement seeing that the liberals here just tried to get rid of mine.
Ahh, it feels good to be back after a good ole' banning.
I'm sure it was Solon because I pointed out that marijuana use is proven to lead to schizophrenia. Or maybe it was Iflurry because he started calling me "Kool-Aid" so I said that I was going to call him "cornholer." Who knows. I was actually so distraught over the hatered spewn at me here, and the attempt to squash my free speech, I almost was "scared" to come back. Then I realized that buckling to liberals is about as shameful as losing on "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"
I'll probably get banned again after this post.
No, you were deleted because you made an infantile, unfeeling, moronic response to Solon's heart break.
You really need to work on your social skills and try not to be such a bully and a coward.
Oh boo hoo. I've had lots of posts deleted. Suck it up, junior.
"I'm sure it was Solon because I pointed out that marijuana use is proven to lead to schizophrenia. Or maybe it was Iflurry because he started calling me "Kool-Aid" so I said that I was going to call him "cornholer." Who knows." - braid162617909 / Tuesday March 27, 2007 10:46:59 AM EST
Wow, from dead certainty to "who knows" in three sentences. Are you usually so "sure" of your facts?
Computers aren't that good at delivering the full punch of sarcasm and vocal fluctuations in speech. I'm sorry. Perhaps you can start a special interest group for voice technology in internet comment threads. You are being denied the right to fully understand sarcasm on the internet, and that's a civil right you are entitled to.
I love how you call bullying "the full punch of sarcasm".
You made the most immature and hateful response that I've ever read anywhere.
You need to learn the difference between sarcasm and bullying someone who's life has been changed by tragedy.
You are a coward. You are a disgrace. You are a boy who needs to learn to be a man.
That's why authors over the centuries have compensated for the differences between the spoken and the printed word with solid writing skills. Computers have nothing to do with it. Your post sounded more like you were throwing around accusations pell-mell and contradicting yourself in the process but, if you say you were instead trying to write facetiously, I will take you at your word.
You proved no such thing. A statistical correlation is NOT the same a proving causation. Is it that those with the predisposition to schitzophrenia are more likely to use cannibus? That is not addressed to PROVE what you claim you would need to show the MECHANISM by which the brain is damaged and schitzophrenia is induced. I can see why it might BRING ON more episodes. No you didnt prove causation. You are an incredible jerk without decency nor a shred of humanity. I didnt even flag your heartless post. I just let your lack of humanity, your soullessness hang in the air like the smell of bad cheese. Stop blaming OTHER people for what you bring on yourself.
You also have NO free speech rights to post on someone ELSES website anymore than I have a freespeech right to put up a billboard in YOUR front yard. You probably ought to avoid are you dumber than a fifth grader based on your posts I would say you were. If they come up with are you dumber than a pre schooler you MIGHT have a shot.
I'm glad to hear that the "hatered spewn" towards you here didn't traumatize you. But then aren't you the person who was arguing that hate speech does not exist?
Maybe you should follow your own advice to "suck it up and move on".
And to all of the other posters here, don't think you're going to make young Braid cry, he feels that this is unmanly and would never stoop to crying.
But that's only my opinion and as Braid said "Thats because your brain and your emotions are on the same level as an 8 year old girl. You are a disgrace to the MEN who built this country."
I think I'll go cry now.
Deputy WH Press Secretary Dana Perino broke into tears while announcing that Tony Snow's cancer has returned. I supposed in Braid's John Wayne worldview that makes Perino a big pussy too.
I wish all the best for Tony Snow, as well as Mrs. Edwards. I don't like former Senator Edwards, but I don't want his wife to die. My dad died from lung cancer, so I have a soft spot on this issue.
I have a soft spot...
Is it on your skull? Ha ha.
Just kidding. Sorry about your dad.
Thanks, Rusty.
If that is a liberal's idea of acceptance of everyone, I don't think it was the schizophrenia that drove your wife to suicide, Solon, it was probably you. If I had to live with or around anyone like you, I might have to kill myself.
==============
Ah - compassionate conservatives. It's edifying to see the moral values you claim being acted upon. I'm sure Christ used those very words.
And of course - he woud have supported Savage attacking murder victims.
I suggest you both schedule confession soon - we could all go at any time.
The ancient Savage sooner than most. Here he is with pants pulled up to his chest yelling at those transsexuals to stay off his lawn again.
Is he still handing out those naked photos he had taken of himself and Alan Ginsberg?
You're right, Kathy. I remember the passage in the Bible where Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall be murdered by bigots, and wingnut ignoramuses will support the bigots' right to do so."
Ah, no you dont. YOu do realize that besides being a jerk you are very stupid dont you? MMFA OWNS this site, they can delete any of your speech they feel like. YOU have no freespeech issue to DEMAND they allow you to post here.
As for my wife who I shared 11 love filled years with, nothing you say can detract from what we had. If you are contemplating suicide it OUGHT to be because of the fact your soul departed so early in your life, most likely saying I am so outta here about the time you tortured your first small animal to death. Do you miss it or does the fact you dont even resemble an actual human make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
Solon, I thought we were having a good time exhanging our thoughts. I'm certainly glad that we have at least some right to speak to each other here. Apparently, you don't like when someone says things that make you mad. Lets agree to disagree because we will never be on the same page -- or in the same book for that matter. Now, when you accuse me of not being a human and torturing animals...I chuckle and enjoy it, i'm not offended or put off by it at all. However, I do feel the need to shoot an equally degrading comment back at you though. See how it works? Fair treatment for all.
Me = Inhumane, souless, hateful, bigot, animal abuser. All false labels that I have been defined with by other people in here.
You = a crybaby liberal with a mental disorder who drove his wife to commit suicide. Again, false labels that I have defined you with.
Can we set the personal attacks on the side and take them as they come, while discussing very opinionated topics?
I understand the point. It is the one I constantly try to make. For instance I abrade people like Savage 4 Pres as a moron when it is clear he is a fairly bright person, why do I do that? Is it because I am not good at insulting people, no quite the opposite. When HE is using the trite stereotypes about liberals I respond with the same ones about conservatives. The point ISNT to hurt his feelings, I avoid calling people morons who actually arent that bright for that reason, do you think it would hurt Callista Flockhearts feelings if someone called her fatty? I am specifically using imagry that has no validity BECAUSE I am not trying to hurt their feelings but rather point out how easy and worthless it is to USE the dumb constantly tossed out stereotypes. Your attack on my dead wife did NOT fall into that category. You will be lucky if you ever MEET anyone of her quality. Your attacks on me dont mean much either, I have a healthy ego. It IS worthless THAT IS THE POINT. It has in the past gotten brighter cons to STOP limiting their discussion to how liberals are weak, liberals hate America and the like. The bottom line is I will decide how I post, I dont snivel when the posts get deleted and rarely flag posts except mine when I make a dupe or misread a comment and make a personal attack that was uncalled for I actually hate it when I do that. Perhaps you dont GET how often you just repeat the trite propaganda. Or how meaningless your baseless assertions that are attacks on liberals are. As for what you said about me, and my wife, I think it fair to say only someone without a shred of humanity or a functional soul would post something like that. I still think so.
Your automatic response is to hate us because we have a christian, moral stance on issues.
I've never heard a con state a christian, moral stance. I have heard a lot of liberals state them, however.
Gays should not be married or celebrated because the christian religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong -- theres the christian stance on that.
It is a moral abomination to have the traditional family compromised by appeasing the homosexuals -- there is the moral stance.
Oh puh-leez. Jesus said looking after a woman with lust is the same as adultery, so why don't you go troll a porn site? Encourage some of the horny guys over there to pluck out their eyes.
I'm tired of X-ians (no, not Christians, X-ians) who think there's a passage in the Bible that says "Don't be gay". Show me where Jesus said it, then I'll believe being homophobic is a Christian value. Until then, it's stirctly X-ian.
Here we go again. The old "family values compromised by gay marriage" meme. I have yet to have a single conservative explain how gay marriage compromises traditional marriage or "family values". If you give all topics the thought you gave before spewing that drivel, I can understand your position on the topic of this article. What I can't understand is why you choose to publicize your ignorance by commenting here. Do you have the rare condition of striving for stupidity, but needing the confirmation of others more objective than yourself that you've reached your goal? Consider yourself confirmed.
Gays should not be married or celebrated because the christian religion teaches that homosexuality is wrong -- theres the christian stance on that.
That's your stance. Many Christians feel otherwise. But of course they have it all wrong, right? Because you are the arbiter of what is Christian and what isn't. Right?
It is a moral abomination to have the traditional family compromised by appeasing the homosexuals -- there is the moral stance.
That is, at best, an opinion, and a vacuous one at that.
It's a moral abomination to say you'd like to rip the guts out of your enemies, then watch them die and then go home and brag about your bravery to the folks in your town. And that's the line you were pushing last week.
It's also a moral abomination to ridicule the death of someone else's loved ones which you've done on several occasions.
That is not what any Christian would ever dream of doing.
You are despicable. You are beneath our contempt.
YOU ARE THE ABOMINATION!
You've heard Christians states what you think are Christian values.
You've heard Christians states what you think are Christian values. - WeinerForPrez
Exactly. And Braid thinks he and other cons state Christian, moral stances. The cons smugly think they own Christianity and morality - just one of the many, many things they are wrong about.
Sorry. I meant "liberals state." My deepest apologies.
We need more people like Savage. Escpecially in positions of authority. He would put a stop to the insanity of the illegal immigration!
We need LESS of the kind of psychosis Weinerdog spews on a daily basis. He has as much chance of getting a position of authority in this country as YOU do of starring in Steven Spielbergs next film about the dairy industry.
Just put Weiner somewhere on the US-Mexico border, I'm sure it'll send the illegals running back the other direction.
Actually, I have a friend who lives in San Diego... for her sake, please put him a bit closer to Arizona. Thanks.
Of course, the "Sex Change Capital of the World" is also in the U.S. That explains Savage's behavior.
Actually, the label is one that has been applied to Trinidad, CO., a town near the southern border of Colorado. For the purpose of locating Columbine High School on a map, it's near Littleton, CO, a suburb in the southwest part of the Denver metro area. In other words, CHS is closer to James Dobson than to Trinidad. ;)
What is it about CO anyway? Dobson, Trancredo, Columbine, why all here in our lovely state? Must be to balance out the stunning natural beauty, everything balances out eventuually. Unless we let the extraction industries muck about without supervision. I do notice that as more and more drillpads pop up, ridglines cluttered with Mcmansions and meadows spawn new houses , the more progressive poloticians are gaining sway.
You have my sympathy. I live in Virginia where we're home to both Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, so I'm always happy to share the misery. It reminds me a bit of Montana during the 90s when both the Unabomber and the Montana Militia surfaced in their state. Someone suggested the motto: "Montana. At least our cows are sane."
You guys both have high-class worries. I live in Mississippi. Nuff said.
You win.
You have my deepest sympathy, Risty. After all, the state motto of Alabama is "Thank God for Mississippi..."
That should be "Rusty," of course. I'm in Maryland, where we just voted the wingnut governor out.
I agree with you, robertson alone balances out all the natural beauty and fantastic golf courses you enjoy in VA. Falwell has pretty much margianlized himself, as robertson would be if he did have that no cancel contract with the Disney corp.
I think it's the fact that some of those among that myriad of transplants from other states just don't handle the lower oxygen concentration very well.
Just for contrast, Colorado was much more beautiful back when the biggest event in the state was the National Western Stock Show. The state was more conservative then, but far more agreeable to live in. Even as a native, I couldn't be paid enough to move back there nowadays. Something about the memories of it before Ft. Collins became linked with Co. Spgs and Evergreen wasn't a suburb makes it painful now to see what's developed.
Tancredo would make a good president. His views on immigration mirror Savage's.
And that's all it takes?
Which view is that? The "I'm already here so keep the others out" view?
Savage can rest easy in the campaign, now that he's locked up the all important demographic that will only vote for those who support murderers.
"Tancredo would make a good president. His views on immigration mirror Savage's."
Would these two sentences constitute an oxymoron?
Its a wonder that a hate-mongering psychopath like Weiner Savage is still on the air. What is really a sad commentary is that there is a station that will broadcast his show in the first place. Savage doesn't seem to really bother himself with the facts. Nor does he really take the time to research something like geography.
Why would any radio station broadcast a show by a hate-mongering psychopath like Weiner Savage? It is truly a sad commentary that some people will listen to anything these days.
Last night I read on another forum that O'Reilly was asking who was the worst far left radical. He then said to be fair and balanced he was going to ask who was the farthest right. Now, he could not bring it upon himself to say radical right, the reason? According to Bill there is none. Although the chryon said radical right.
So with that O'Reilly approves of Savage, Coulter, Beck,Limbaugh and wthe one I can't stand to read,watch or hear Malkin. These are the people that are just your average run-of-the-mill right wing or conservative people.
The far left that O'Reilly was talking about; Rosie O'Donnell, Bill Maher and Michael Moore.
Now, I ask you. Has anyone ever heard of these people saying or writing the vitriolic hate akin to what Savage uses so often , Coulter on a regular basis and Limbaugh, the man that could not even summon the decency to wish a woman and her family wellwishes as they face an uncertain future. If anyone can please show me.
It will never happen, there simply is no left wing equivelent of Weiners hatered and insanity or Coulters lack of basic decency. They dont exist
That's good to hear, although we mMFA fans are most likely biased. But, it will be interesting to hear some of the more right wing posters on this subject. I would guess that they are out there, some one that would self label as a left wing radical, that compares in hate intensity to the subject of this thread. But, they must not have much of an audience or surely the right wing cabal would be after them quite often.
Oh I am sure there are some out there but the left doesnt give them the audience that would justify a nationally syndicated radio show or Coulters media presence. Therefore the EQUIVILENT of them doesnt exist
I am always trying to understand the other side, and looking for common ground. (Somehow in my warped upbringing that was what I gleaned as what it meant to be an American) so I went looking for some left wing hate speech and found this fairly unbiased summary:
http://patterico.com/2007/03/05/5901/leftist-hate-speech/
I can see how the right wing can legitimately raise the accusation of hypocisy, but in my short time here on this little planet, I have come to the conclusion that hypocrisy is a basic human trait that we all need to recognize in ourselves and try to keep under control, sort of like lust.
Not really showing that there is a leftist equivilent to Coulter or Weiner.
First take the comedians and entertainers out of the mix, they are private citizens not political pundits and the left isnt responsible for them nor their jokes. What Byrd, Coburn Carville, and Cohen said were pretty bad though really only Coburns comes anywhere near Weiner or Coulters insane violence fixation. The thing is there is what 1 post each from them when Coulter and Savage say these things ever day I read Coburn pretty much every week in the Nation magazine and have NEVER seen anything like this from him so something said ONCE or TWICE in a career still doesnt bring them into the league of the Coulters and Weiners that spew this violence and hatespeech with such regularity its like the tides. Farrakhan is not claimed by the left and is roundly criticised by them all the time The Hymietown comment was what 20 or 25 years ago and was also roundly criticised by the left. As for the rest who is Nina Totenberg I never heard of them and that alone means they are not Weiner or Coulter. I stand by my assertion there is NO leftwing equivelent of Coulter or Weiner.
I think you err in putting Savage and Coulter in the same category. While Coulter is revered by mainline conservative organizations like CPAC, Savage is not well-received at all. Yes Savage has a wide audience on a near daily basis but last I checked, he was not giving keynote speeches at major conservative conferences like Coulter is. I also think Savage does come up with some good ideas from time to time and these off-topic and embarassing rants that he does should not distract from the cogency of many things that he has to say--in fact many of you lefties would actually find his anti-NAFTA and CAFTA stances as well as his Bush-bashing in general to be quite appealing. He also suppports raising the minimum wage. So instead of constantly bashing the guy, why not mix some of your bashing with some commentary on the substantive issues that he raises? It only seems fair.
Also, he speaks out just as virulently on raising the minimum wage and opposing free trade agreements as he does opposing gay rights and "Islamofascists." But from the nature of this discussion board, you would never know that now would you?
So because he has some reasonable stances, then that balances out the unreasonable ones, or what? Are we really unfair for commenting on his insanity just because he might be right about other things?
To reverse it, if some random radio host went on some rant about how Bush and Cheney should be shot on the White House lawn, and Gonzales tortured, I would expect that to show up on the MRC, Powerline, etc. Can you imagine someone going on to their message boards and defending him with "well he supports school vouchers and a capital gains tax cut..."? Or, even worse, can you imagine someone implying that posters on that site and/or the site itself were acting unfairly because they criticized over-the-top comments without taking every single thing he ever said into account?
It should also be noted that you disprove your own point. Because people who listen (and like) those such as Savage are allowed to post here, the nature of this board is that we do find out about such things...you told us yourself. The same can't be said for as many right-wing sites, in my experience.
"So because he has some reasonable stances, then that balances out the unreasonable ones, or what? Are we really unfair for commenting on his insanity just because he might be right about other things?"You obviously need help understanding basic arguments. I never said that it's not ok to comment on his insanity, just as long as you also mention some of his reasonable stances. When did I say that anything "balances" anything else out? Respond to the argument that's presented, not the argument that you WISH were presented so as to make your job at responding less mentally taxing.
"So instead of constantly bashing the guy, why not mix some of your bashing with some commentary on the substantive issues that he raises? It only seems fair."
So everytime Savage says something psychotic, someone is supposed to note his off-topic positions, otherwise it would be unfair to comment on the subject at hand? How is that not asking for balance? I don't see the basis for your objection there.
Your position sounds ridiculous, and my comments are a fair representation of them. Obviously that strikes a nerve where you can't respond reasonably.
You're using a bastardized version of the Italian Fascist support for Mussolini.
I understand what you're trying to say, honest, I do.
But even the most repulsive characters have some redeeming qualities.
Although so far, Dick Cheney shoots holes in my theory.
Rosie O' DoOnnel does it all the time on 'The View'.
Got any examples?
This sounds like a story I would read on "The Onion"
Blah blah blah. I live in Trinidad. This debate has been raging for a long time here. It's sort of like a weed that you can't kill. Dr. Biber was an incredible man - a generous sort who was also a family doctor to generations here. His protege is also an OBGYN here - my gynecologist, to be specific, and probably the most understanding doctor I've ever had. Her name is Dr. Bowers, and she's an incredibly nice person as well as a gifted surgeon. The fact is is that most people here just accept that this is a service provided here that helps support the economy of a relatively small town, and don't even see it as a political issue. We've gotten over it - we know the facts. People like Mr. Savage do not even deserve your argument - he's just trying to push your buttons by being ignorant. Believe me, we have a few of him around here, and we just ignore them.
The fact is is that most people here just accept that this is a service provided here that helps support the economy of a relatively small town, and don't even see it as a political issue.
I love pragmatism. =D
This is a gig. It's this guy's act. His comedy routine. You might as well get upset about Andrew Dice Clay or Borat.
I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right.
This is probably beneficial to the gender community, in that anybody who believes this crap already hated us, but some of his listeners surely listen to him like I listen to Rush Limbaugh, for yucks. Among those people, some of them will now be aware of how much hatred and intolerance TSs face in society.
It's like a couple of weeks ago some NBA star made some outlandish anti-gay staements, and alot of people responded with "Wow, I had no idea that there still were a few nutjobs still out there in positions of influence. Perhaps gay-hatred is a bigger problem than I thought. This proves it's real.
For some crankcase to say Columbine resulted from the evil influence of Trinidad somehow polluting the entire state of Colorado, that's gonna show alot of people that the truth is that there is still at least one minority left, against home bigotry is considered by society to be acceptable.
Hey, what do you all think about Dr. Savage winning the Talkers Magazine Free Speech Award for being the first big name conservative to bash Bush?