Caitlyn Jenner: The Reveal & The Reactions

[Des-Bal]

No, you're working off of obsolete information. Both conditions have been declassified by the APA and are not disorders according to the highest reference authority in American mental health practice, the DSM-IV.

Yep, because the APA is not above politics.

[Calimera II]

I am not a religious leader ot theologist, are you?

No, just a guy who can read. The entire reason that the bible isn't in latin is that you don't have to be a biblical scholar to read it. I'm also concerned that you're following a book you just admitted you don't understand.

OK, have fun thinking that, Sherlock.

[Thalasus]

Ah, Caitlyn Jenner. The King... er... "Queen" of overhyping what really is a small societal issue. The media loves to pretend that being transgender is the same sort of deal as being, say, LBG.

I think transgendered people are... I apologize to use such an offensive term, but they're a little deranged, to be honest. If you are born with a penis, you are a man, regardless of what you want to be. If you are born with a vagina, you are a woman, regardless of how you "view yourself". I simply can not see what the problem is with this.

But that's my opinion, and I recognize I'm losing that battle societally. So, yes, I'll call Caitlyn Jenner a "she", and I'll support those who are oppressed for their gender identification with the rest of the LGBT community. But I will never understand it, and that way of thinking simply shouldn't expect my support.

This, so much this.

I honestly thought I was the only one who thought this way. Halfway between stereotypical ultra-conservative rejection and stereotypical Hollywood liberal blind acceptance. I accept Caitlyn in society, but I don't think we should be making special accommodations or acknowledgements of the transgendered.

[Geilinor]

That doesn't change the fact of the quote's existence.

The way people judge a religion by only using a selected number of quotes is laughable.

You can't judge a religion based only on positive quotes either.

[Steamtopia]

... or people who signed up to be slaves (which is an idiotic proposition in the first place).

Why not? They were fed and sheltered, right?

If you can't afford food and shelter otherwise, I'd rather become a slave than kill myself.

Ever heard of charity? I'd kill myself before giving my freedom to someone who can beat me to the verge of death without punishment.

[Grand Calvert]

If Jesus says something, it's God's Word. You know, because He is God.

Yeah, and? Jesus never spoke against LGBT people.

Jesus never specifically singled it out because it was already widely known a the time He walked the Earth. And anyways, the Bible still refers to homosexuality as a sin. Jesus also affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Funny how this got ignored.

Oh sorry, there's a lot going on. But anyways:

Exodus 21:26

"An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye."

And let's not forget that slaves back in these times are either criminals or people who willingly signed up for it.

Nope. As a roman Catholic, I detest this sort of thing to make the bible all rainbows and butterflies. It's practically more bloody than Homer's Iliad.

Slaves never signed up. They were purchased through the Oriental slave trade.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Sex slaves were also a thing too.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

And Yes, Jesus himself justified this

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

[Gauthier]

Oh sorry, there's a lot going on. But anyways:

Exodus 21:26

"An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye."

And let's not forget that slaves back in these times are either criminals or people who willingly signed up for it.

You say that like Exodus 21:26 somehow excuses the fact that as long as you don't kill or destroy an eye, it's okay to beat your slaves. And there's no passage stating that slaves were only criminals or people who signed up to be slaves (which is an idiotic proposition in the first place).

Not so idiotic if you signed up as a slave to erase some huge-ass debt and you were dirt poor.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

No, we mean Caitlyn Jenner. Trans people aren't degenerates.

That's up for debate. In fact, we're debating that issue right now, aren't we? No definite result yet.

It's really not up for debate. Being trans does not by extension mean they are degenerate.

[Grenartia]

The two commandments don't contradict the other ones, they sum them up.

Your signature says you're pro biblical christianity, but that must be a lie because you've clearly never read it....

Indeed.

[Thalasus]

This, so much this.

I honestly thought I was the only one who thought this way. Halfway between stereotypical ultra-conservative rejection and stereotypical Hollywood liberal blind acceptance. I accept Caitlyn in society, but I don't think we should be making special accommodations or acknowledgements of the transgendered.

Okay that came out more nazi then I thought it would but you all get my point

[Boineburg]

People also debate whether vaccines cause Autism, but whatever.
Technically, by definition, transsexuals and homosexuals do have a mental disorder. Now, if you would please, find me the definition of "mental disorder".

I should also note that I am not against the idea of transsexuals and homosexuals, but I'm working off of technicalities.

Source this bullshit.

I'm waiting for someone to do it for me. Now, the definition, please? Pick annny dictionary you want, as long as it's a popular and respectable one.

[Boineburg]

That's up for debate. In fact, we're debating that issue right now, aren't we? No definite result yet.

It's really not up for debate. Being trans does not by extension mean they are degenerate.

I'm getting to my argument. Wait for it.

[Steamtopia]

You say that like Exodus 21:26 somehow excuses the fact that as long as you don't kill or destroy an eye, it's okay to beat your slaves. And there's no passage stating that slaves were only criminals or people who signed up to be slaves (which is an idiotic proposition in the first place).

Not so idiotic if you signed up as a slave to erase some huge-ass debt and you were dirt poor.

Too bad, you're now property for life, prepare to be beaten.

[Grenartia]

Well, she still has a dick. Even though she identifies as a woman; she technically is still a man because she has a dick. Now; I don't give a shit about what Bruce/Caitlin does; but until he gets his "little thing" as he calls it cut off, he is still technically a man.

Also, I thought he would name himself Brucita, Brucia, Bree, Karly, etc, and not Caitlin. I don't like the name Caitlin; Brucita would have been much better.

Sex is not gender. Women can have penises. Fucking deal with it.

[Calimera II]

... or people who signed up to be slaves (which is an idiotic proposition in the first place).

Why not? They were fed and sheltered, right?

If you can't afford food and shelter otherwise, I'd rather become a slave than kill myself.

And we musn't forget that a large number of slaves were Christian.

[Geilinor]

No, you're working off of obsolete information. Both conditions have been declassified by the APA and are not disorders according to the highest reference authority in American mental health practice, the DSM-IV.

Yep, because the APA is not above politics.

Prove their political motivations.

[Grand Calvert]

Oh sorry, there's a lot going on. But anyways:

Exodus 21:26

"An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye."

And let's not forget that slaves back in these times are either criminals or people who willingly signed up for it.

You say that like Exodus 21:26 somehow excuses the fact that as long as you don't kill or destroy an eye, it's okay to beat your slaves. And there's no passage stating that slaves were only criminals or people who signed up to be slaves (which is an idiotic proposition in the first place).

If you understood the historical context instead of cherry picking random quotes, you'd have known that.

[Steamtopia]

Why not? They were fed and sheltered, right?

If you can't afford food and shelter otherwise, I'd rather become a slave than kill myself.

And we musn't forget that a large number of slaves were Christian.

And? How is this in any way relevant?

[Boineburg]

Well, she still has a dick. Even though she identifies as a woman; she technically is still a man because she has a dick. Now; I don't give a shit about what Bruce/Caitlin does; but until he gets his "little thing" as he calls it cut off, he is still technically a man.

Also, I thought he would name himself Brucita, Brucia, Bree, Karly, etc, and not Caitlin. I don't like the name Caitlin; Brucita would have been much better.

Sex is not gender. Women can have penises. Fucking deal with it.

By definition, they cannot.

Fucking deal with it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's really not open for debate any more than the shape of the Earth is open for debate. People can try to argue the point, but it's fruitless to do so.

People also debate whether vaccines cause Autism, but whatever.
Technically, by definition, transsexuals and homosexuals do have a mental disorder. Now, if you would please, find me the definition of "mental disorder".

I should also note that I am not against the idea of transsexuals and homosexuals, but I'm working off of technicalities.

Actually, no, by definition homosexuals do not have a mental disorder any more than people who are left-handed have a physical disorder. Transgendered individuals are a slightly different story, but part of the treatment is to transition to a gender identity that the patient is more comfortable with, at which point there's no real disorder.

[Steamtopia]

You say that like Exodus 21:26 somehow excuses the fact that as long as you don't kill or destroy an eye, it's okay to beat your slaves. And there's no passage stating that slaves were only criminals or people who signed up to be slaves (which is an idiotic proposition in the first place).

If you understood the historical context instead of cherry picking random quotes, you'd have known that.

There's no historical context in which slavery is moral. Do you support slavery as described in the Bible or not?

[Grenartia]

Your signature says you're pro biblical christianity, but that must be a lie because you've clearly never read it....

Um...I have. That was the point that Jesus was making. If you loved God (1st commandment), you shouldn't worship other things or blatantly ignore Him. If you love your neighbor, (2nd commandment) you wouldn't be stealing from them to killing them.

And this translates into refusing to affirm LGBT people...how?

[Grand Calvert]

Not so idiotic if you signed up as a slave to erase some huge-ass debt and you were dirt poor.

Too bad, you're now property for life, prepare to be beaten.

You weren't allowed to just randomly beat them at whim, you could only do it as punishment. 19th century slavery is different from Biblical slavery.

[Counter Culture]

The way people judge a religion by only using a selected number of quotes is laughable.

How else can you interpret the fucking quote?