With a rich history of giving unprecedented coverage to alternative sexualities and gender identities, it’s no surprise that ABCnews.com features 1,100 + word article about a small town transgendered mayor.
Stu Rasmussen is the mayor of Silverton, Oregon. He made national headlines as the first transgendered mayor in the nation after he won his November 2008 election. Rasmussen, who is sixty, has spent “50 years to get comfortable in [his] body” and in 2000 “adopted the twins,” as he called it, and got breast implants.
But Rasmussen may be making more headlines as RDF USA, the production company that shot hit ABC shows such as “Wife Swap” and “Don’t Forget the Lyrics” confirmed that they were shooting Rasmussen in Silverton the week of April 6, according to the abcnews.com article by Sarah Netter.
“While he has some trepidation about the maelstrom a hit television show could bring to his small town -- concerns shared by his fellow town officials -- Rasmussen told ABCNews.com that he agreed to put his life on display in the hopes of helping others who are struggling with their own gender identity but don't believe they can live outside the closet,” Netter wrote. “It's almost my responsibility to the rest of the transgender community to help others understand that we are not freaks and weirdos,” Rasmussen said.
While Netter did note Rasmussen’s genuine concern for the impact on his small town, she gave him and his supporters plenty of room to discuss the value of a reality show based on a transgendered mayor. “People aren’t that familiar with us … most of us are pretty average people,” said Denise Leclair executive director of the International Foundation for Gender Education in Waltham, Mass. Netter thought it important to follow up with the statistics proving just how “normal” transgenderism is. “But with about 3 million transgendered people in the United States, or about 1 percent of the population, the community isn't accordingly represented in most places, including politics and Hollywood. A reality show would help portray transgendered people as they are … even if it doesn't help Rasmussen's career,” Netter declared.
Netter doesn’t say much about what the 9,500 residents of Silverton think of their mayor, opting to just quote Rasmussen saying, “Silverton is so over this.”
Had Netter been interested, she might have found some that aren’t quite “over it.” One Silvertonian of this author’s acquaintance named “Joanna” is among those who disagree with Rasmussen’s lifestyle. “He is the one freakish thing in the town,” said the mother of four.
Nor are local religious groups over it. “The churches in town have pretty much said ‘We think it's wrong, but Jesus loves him’ in articles I've read,” Joanna said. And she is at least one Silverton resident who isn’t happy the town is getting attention for Rasmussen. “He doesn't deserve so much attention,” she said. “ABC is wrong if it televises anything to do with him.”
Netter was more interested in Rasmussen’s particular oddities. “Unlike many transgendered people, Rasmussen has not made a full commitment to either gender,” she wrote. “Instead, his commitment is to what makes him comfortable. He wears women's clothing and has grown his hair long, but he is not considering further surgery and has kept his male name.”
CMI has noted that ABC News has a penchant for publicizing alternative sexualities and those with gender confusion. Last week, Good Morning America ran a five minute report on “objectum sexuals” – people whose “intimate life revolves around objects, not people,” ABC correspondent Kate Snow said. ABC’s Barbara Walters interviewed Thomas Beatie the “pregnant man” and touted her domestic situation as a “family.” Beatie was born a woman and has kept her female reproductive organs in order to carry her baby, but takes hormones to retain the appearance of a man. There are “related” articles on the ABC web page that include articles about “transgendered children” and one titled, “My Mommy Is a Boy.”
Photo via abcnews.com
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Normal... ok... anyone here at NB's want to date this fool?
April 14, 2009 - 11:09 ET by pahuberMale or female.... ???
Boycotts work. Boycotts scare liberals because they work.
Exalting another paraphelia.
April 14, 2009 - 11:19 ET by sevenThe gender confused are apparently spreading confusion. It is part of the wussification
of America.
Getting comfortable with
April 14, 2009 - 11:55 ET by kgGetting comfortable with it's body??? 99.999% of humans accept their body and they call gender confusion normal?
"DumbAssity of Dope"
99.999% of humans accept
April 14, 2009 - 13:57 ET by JasonC99.999% of humans accept their body and they call gender confusion normal?
Is that some sort of joke? If only .001% of people do not "accept" their body, explain to me the fortunes spent on gym memberships, weight-loss schemes, cosmetics, and plastic surgery. The only difference with this man, and other transgendered people, is that that lack of acceptance happens to be concentrated on an aspect of himself that we use to define gender. I just don't understand the uproar about this. Who is he hurting? Is it ABC's moral duty to report this as abberant?
Not a joke
April 14, 2009 - 14:45 ET by general companyIt's true. Also comparing weight-loss to sex confusion is ridiculous.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
That's called sensationalism
April 14, 2009 - 19:10 ET by CobraMan"explain to me the fortunes spent on gym memberships, weight-loss schemes, cosmetics, and plastic surgery."
That's called advertising sensationalism. Have you heard? The same people who think that transgendered people are normal are telling us that obesity, which is FAR more common, is an aberration, and is a chronic aberration at that. Why the incongruity between the two situations? I mean, really, if a man acting like a woman is not only normal, but should be fully accepted by society, then why isn't being overweight treated with the same consideration?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Obesity is a legitimate
April 14, 2009 - 20:11 ET by JasonCObesity is a legitimate health problem and, for roughly 95% of the population, the product of failing to do things that are inarguably good for you and indulging in those that are not. Dressing in clothes and adopting a hairstyle that are typical of the other gender hurts no one. And if the person really decided that he/she no longer wanted to do so, it's a very simple matter of simply re-orthodoxizing one's wardrobe. Not being obese, at least for people who don't have a high-speed metabolism, takes actual work and dedication. People who are overweight generally want to do something about it - blame the media, or culture, or what-have-you - if you know of any cases in which a person truly wants to stop being transgendered but just can't control the impulse, it would be a first to me.
No one's saying you have to accept homosexuality or transgendered people as fitting your criteria of 'normal'. You do have to accept, however, that you co-exist with them and that they have as much right to present themselves to the world in the way they wish as you do. This mayor has as much right to wear the clothes he feels comfortable in as you do to wear whatever you put on, probably without thinking about the ideological ramifications of it, every day before you leave the house.
Obesity myths debunked at
April 15, 2009 - 00:07 ET by Anniee451Obesity myths debunked at www.junkfoodscience.blogspot.com . 99% of "obesity hysteria" is just an epi-panic and pure BS. And for the few for whom it really is a health problem, there isn't much that can be done about it - there is no known safe way to make a thin person fat or a fat person thin permanently. None.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html That one'll knock your socks off. The starvation experiments.
I wasn't commenting on
April 15, 2009 - 06:35 ET by JasonCI wasn't commenting on whether obesity is an 'epidemic.' Or about rates of obesity vs. non-obesity at all. I meant that of those who are overweight, the general reason is lack of exercise and/or improper diet. My 95% 'figure' referred to 95% of overweight people, not the entire population (I realize now that it looks like it says otherwise).
And no, no one has to starve him or herself to lose weight. But if you think that heart disease and diabetes aren't real issues for people who don't eat well and exercise just because of one blog, then you are in error and have obviously selectively ignored mountains of research (and common sense) conducted in the fields of nutrition and exercise science.
Yep. Citations below.
April 15, 2009 - 00:08 ET by Anniee451Yep. Citations below - er, above. There's nothing inherently wrong with adipose tissue or with people who have more of it than others. The problem is one of perception.
It's worse than that,
April 15, 2009 - 00:04 ET by Anniee451It's worse than that, actually. There is no "normal" anymore - there's even a movie called Normal telling us why.
Now brace yourself for this - there's now a name for the 99 percent of people who are comfortable with their born genders - it's called "cisgender." Now the 99% have to be named specifically so that the 1% don't feel singled out. It's a strange new world.
I don't have anything against this guy - though from what I recall he still has his plumbing, which says something - I don't envy anyone feeling that trapped year after year. It's his business, though if he's going to make it everyone's business...who knows.
"Rasmussen has not made a
April 14, 2009 - 11:28 ET by SickofLibs"Rasmussen has not made a full commitment to either gender.”
WELL, THAT'S PRETTY EFFING OBVIOUS, ISN'T IT?!
PS: Stu also dresses like a $5 whore, as a quick google search will reveal.
And be sure not to miss the
April 14, 2009 - 11:31 ET by SickofLibsAnd be sure not to miss the poignant ABC web article "My Mommy is Grant's Tomb."
LOL... I love it!
April 14, 2009 - 17:08 ET by pahuberI laugh every time I have read this one! N1 :)
major abomination
April 14, 2009 - 11:36 ET by 1611LilacLadyCalling abnormal and unGodly normal . .
Isaiah 5:20a Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil. . . KJV
Amen to that Lilac..
April 14, 2009 - 11:38 ET by rimskyAmen to that Lilac..
Carnival
April 14, 2009 - 11:41 ET by cvgbuckeyeWhen I was a kid, carnivals used to come to town and give us an opportunity to see things like this. It turned my stomach then and nothing has changed now.
Amen, Lilac.
April 14, 2009 - 20:55 ET by pahuberPS it is the season for that flower too! : ) Love the smell!!!
Do the people of Silverton
April 14, 2009 - 11:52 ET by moonjohnDo the people of Silverton realize that their children see this?
So what if they do? Does
April 14, 2009 - 14:03 ET by JasonCSo what if they do? Does that mean they'll decide to run out and become transgendered themselves? Forget athletes and singers, small-town mayors are the real cool people to emulate.
If anything, parents have a remarkable opportunity to talk to their kids about a kind of person who they may (or may not) encounter in real life. That doesn't mean they have to say it's right or wrong. Just that it's out there. What's so wrong about that?
What's wrong?
April 14, 2009 - 14:28 ET by bradbenj5952Because there is evil in the world. Intolerance towards evil is not evil as you seem to think. I'm sure you don't believe the scripture judging by your reply above or other of your posts, but effeminate men shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Corinthians 6:9.
Though you do not believe now, you will in time, probably when it is too late.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Oh right, Corinthians. My
April 14, 2009 - 20:18 ET by JasonCOh right, Corinthians. My mind is changed.
I suppose you make sure all potential candidates in your community abstain from shellfish too, right?
That was OT and pertained only to Israel. What is your point J?
April 14, 2009 - 20:57 ET by pahuberIt is an immoral life.
That is the shellfish...
April 14, 2009 - 20:59 ET by pahuberWaiting J.....
The shellfish argument is
April 15, 2009 - 00:40 ET by Anniee451The shellfish argument is completely irrelevant scripturally. Just like that "open letter" to Dr. Laura about slavery and so forth was. It's all a red herring. The New Testament abolishes the ceremonial law, and you know that as well as I do, I am willing to bet.
And you are correct.
April 15, 2009 - 21:16 ET by pahuber:)
Waiting? You waited 2
April 15, 2009 - 06:30 ET by JasonCWaiting? You waited 2 minutes between posts. I had gone to bed. Looks like you need to read Romans 8:25 for a lesson in patience.
Right, so I forgot how Jesus came an annulled the Old Testament. Of course, the whole shellfish red herring is part of Leviticus. Which is also what the vast majority of conservative Christians cite to condemn homosexuality. So can I just assume that you're cool with gay folks so long as they're not "effeminate"? It's the OT after all...
~Just to clarify
April 15, 2009 - 10:08 ET by choselife3xJesus did not "annul" the Old Testament, he fulfilled it.
I do need patience, but you are not correct about the OT.
April 15, 2009 - 21:22 ET by pahuberLOL. You are in my house now ; )
OT was fullfilled by Christ and NOT annulled (Sorry, this isn't the West Wing TV show ; )) Not eliminated. The shellfish was a provision for Israel. Effeminate see Hebrew word for that word in the OT : ) that has not changed.
Salivating...
Use of "annulled" was
April 15, 2009 - 21:34 ET by JasonCUse of "annulled" was facetious.
Never seen West Wing, whatever that is, so the reference is lost on me. I'm sure it was clever though.
Am I incorrect that Leviticus is both the source of Christian opposition to homosexuality and OT? If shellfish doesn't apply to modern Christian doctrine for that reason then neither should homosexuality, right?
Hi Jason,
April 16, 2009 - 15:01 ET by pahuber"Am I incorrect that Leviticus is both the source of Christian
opposition to homosexuality and OT?" If shellfish doesn't apply to
modern Christian doctrine for that reason then neither should
homosexuality, right"
A very good question.
The answer to your question distinctly hinges on the identification & worship aspects between the OT & NT.
Shellfish pertained to Israel, as a nation before Christ came. They were given a list of precepts to follow that would allow them to distinguish themselves from other nations. Many of these rituals were to symbolize the Messiah that was to come and deliver Israel, etc.
However, when Christ came involving the new order (as far as worship) which entered into the "the time of the gentiles" then those distinguishing marks were dropped because Christ fulfilled the law and he was now our "distinguishing mark" courtesy of the Holy Spirit that lives within His children: those who believe whether Jew or Gentile.
By Christ coming in obedience to the Father He fulfilled the law and the prophets. Not replace them... however, the biggest outward change came as far as how one is to worship. Instead of temples & sacrifices we worship God through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus. Instead of being identified by the foods we eat we are identified by our actions & love for others.
According to the NT when Christ died the temple curtain shielding the most H of H's was rent from top to bottom... this was to show that God no longer dwelt inside that special area of the temple, but in our hearts.
So Christ came to fulfill the scripture (this means the OT which He is known to quote as authority throughout His life on earth (never to negate it..in fact, he uses it to make many of his points to those who listened... which made some to comment "who was this man's teacher" ~ from Genesis to Isaiah, etc).
In the NT we are now to worship Christ in Spirit & in Truth ~ the old wine skins could not contain the New Wine; as the sacrifices of sheep, goats, birds, etc. were, but a pale representation of The Sacrifice that was to come.
The OT & NT are inseparably linked together and cannot be broken.
OT ==> Looking forward (sacrifices in temples, no shellfish, etc)
NT==> Looking back in faith (no sacrifices, Shellfish... can do ; )
Please Read - Relationship of Law and Faith
April 15, 2009 - 10:04 ET by bradbenj5952You'll not hear many sermons, if any in this Laodicean age, like the one linked below:
http://books.google....
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
I have wondered about this -
April 15, 2009 - 00:38 ET by Anniee451I have wondered about this - when the story first came out, actually. I don't have anything against the guy being what and who he feels he is; I just didn't know if it was such a great idea to reward it with a mayorship for a variety of reasons. Whatever, I had no plans to move there; I guess they can do it how they want to.
If
April 14, 2009 - 12:21 ET by RowaneIf that's the face of the "chopadicoffame" (ty Rush) crowd, all I can say is YECH!
Why must we accept this kind of trash as normal?
The standard socialist
April 15, 2009 - 00:42 ET by Anniee451The standard socialist reply to this is that you are just showing your patriarchal, able-bodied, cisgendered, heteronormative, white male privilege again.
No, I'm not kidding. They flagellate themselves for the same reasons while granting privileged status to those who don't meet those criteria, and the more "intersections" you have of oppression, the higher your status among them. I do wish I were kidding.
I don't care what the
April 14, 2009 - 12:29 ET by ForeverOnTheRightI don't care what the current PC is, this guy 50 or less years ago would have been locked up in an assylum for the insane. This "gender confusion" or as I like to think of it as a failure to identify with ones own sexes sexuality.
this guy 50 or less years
April 14, 2009 - 14:08 ET by JasonCthis guy 50 or less years ago would have been locked up in an assylum for the insane.
Ah, the good ol' days, huh?
Yes the good old days when
April 14, 2009 - 15:34 ET by ForeverOnTheRightYes the good old days when right was right and immoral was immoral and the insane where locked up in an institution.
So you think transgendered
April 14, 2009 - 20:17 ET by JasonCSo you think transgendered individuals should be labeled "Wrong" and institutionalized? I just want to be sure I fully grasp your position, nuanced as it is...
Wrong is the argument
April 14, 2009 - 20:33 ET by general companyJust like compairing him/her to fat folks. Unless you think getting fat is the equivilent to changing your sex. Edit out incorrect question.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I didn't compare him to fat
April 14, 2009 - 21:00 ET by JasonCI didn't compare him to fat folks. Someone else suggested that the vast majority of people are accepting of their bodies, which is ludicrous on its face. I pointed this out, and it was someone else yet again who then convolutedly suggested that if one is accepting of transgendered people, one should also be accepting of overweight people.
Why should one be
April 15, 2009 - 00:46 ET by Anniee451Why should one be unaccepting of fat people? There really isn't anything they can do about it - many are fit and eat "right", or at the very least do not stuff themselves inordinately. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/08fat.html (Citation, one of thousands.)
I agree that most people aren't accepting of their bodies but the vast majority of people do accept their sex. Not that that makes it inherently wrong not to accept your sex or to hate it...though it's an aberration to do so. I am not an advocate of forcing people to live moral lives, but there is of course a moral argument to be made against transgenderedness, while there isn't one against being fat. (Gluttony and fatness do not go hand in hand in any inherent fashion.)
I'm absolutely in favor of
April 15, 2009 - 06:40 ET by JasonCI'm absolutely in favor of being accepting of overweight people. I'm sorry, I still do NOT accept your position that most of them can't do anything about it. Our national obsession with fitliness and thinness is tiresome, but so is the laziness of the idea that changing one's lifestyle won't help. A few selectively chosen articles doesn't change this.
And, while I don't really see it as a moral issue (though I don't see transgenderism as one either), there is a very basic cause-and-effect between gluttony and 'fatness', even if it doesn't apply to every single person.
Hhmm explain this Jason
April 15, 2009 - 08:46 ET by general companyI didn't compare him to fat folks.
Jason above: Is that some sort of joke? If only .001% of people do not "accept"
their body, explain to me the fortunes spent on gym memberships,
weight-loss schemes, cosmetics, and plastic surgery.
Changing your sex, or even the perception of it, is far further out there then trying to loose weight. Liberals love to equivocate the ridiculous into the normal using these kinds of parodies.
This guy/girl is a self centered jerk, not normal, not even close. It is all about him, and the way he hopes to influence others. It is an easy ploy to see, he has an important job representing some folks in OR, but not a word about how he is doing representing the folks. No, he is far more concerned about sharing his personal feelings on his sexual preferences. I doubt very much they elected him to share that with us.
Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
My comment which you quote
April 15, 2009 - 09:41 ET by JasonCMy comment which you quote above was made solely for the purpose of rebutting the sloppily-worded argument that 99.999% of people are 'accepting of their own body.' That statement is absurd and I wanted to point out that there are different versions of dissatisfaction with one's own body. Had the poster said 'accepting of their own gender,' I might have left it alone, though I think the figure would still be high since there are likely a lot of people who are uncomfortable with their gender who choose not to do anything about it.
So then, I take it
April 15, 2009 - 09:52 ET by general companyYou agree with the rest of my assesment? Although I noticed you just could not help yourself to insert another hypothetical.
likely a lot of people who are uncomfortable with their gender
Good grief? Just no end to it, there is always another faux parody
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I don't see how he's being
April 15, 2009 - 09:58 ET by JasonCI don't see how he's being self-centered, no. He happens not to be conforming to an arbitrary social construction about what kind of clothes a person with a particular form of genitalia should wear. Why should it matter to anyone else.
And yes, I can accept that being dissatisfied with one's body in the realm of weight-loss and fitness is more normative than in the realm of transgenderism, but that doesn't make the two incomparable, and doesn't do anything to make me believe transgenderism is inherently wrong.
I thought the creed of social conservatism (or perhaps libertarianism) was that so long as you're not hurting someone, what you do with your life is your own. Apparently that goes out the window when vague moralisms are thrown into the mix.
Unbeleivable
April 15, 2009 - 10:57 ET by general companyWhat a joke, there is no comparison here. Not hurting anyone? This jerk is front and center of our children, with nary a word about his lifstyle that 99.999% of us dissagree with. Get a grip.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
First of all, I highly
April 15, 2009 - 18:51 ET by JasonCFirst of all, I highly doubt that 99.999% of Americans have any real problem with transgenderism.
Second, do you really believe that parents have some inalienable right to raise their children without even the potential presence of things to which they (the parents) object? Sure, they have the right to teach their children whatever they wish. They do not have the right to tell people who don't conform to it to keep themselves out of sight. Again, so long as the person isn't breaking laws. Kids can deal with these things, it's not going to break their brains.
One last time
April 15, 2009 - 19:27 ET by general companyFirst of all, I highly doubt that 99.999% of Americans have any real problem with transgenderism.
BS!! How many transgendered are there? Those who arnt have an obvious problem with it, get a grip, seriously.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Newsflash: There are
April 15, 2009 - 19:44 ET by JasonCNewsflash: There are non-transgendered people who don't have any beef with those who are.
Drat
April 15, 2009 - 08:58 ET by general companydouble
How much difference is there
April 14, 2009 - 20:37 ET by cocodrieHow much difference is there between a man who thinks he is Napoleon and a man who thinks he is a woman?
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Transfat
April 14, 2009 - 12:34 ET by CobraManJust like transfat, Transgenderism will, inevitably, prove to be, ahh, less than desirable to society as a whole. Remember when transfat (butter substitutes like I Can't Believe It's Not Butter, which I now refer to as: I Can't Believe It's Going to Kill Me!) were all the rage and were considered "healthy" alternatives? Well, we all know what happened there, don't we?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Good evening Cobra
April 14, 2009 - 13:16 ET by cocodrieThat picture looks like Transgerder had too many transfats.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Now let me get this right, since I'm a little dense
April 14, 2009 - 12:34 ET by The Smokin FrogNow let me get this right, since I'm a little dense, being a Christian and Conservative you know, I don't have a lot going for me.
If I am born with the real strong compulsion to steal whatever isn't nailed down, it's okay, since I was born that way. If I was born without the ability to tell the truth and one day the IRS comes after me, and I say "I can't help it, I was born that way, so it must be good." If I was born with the urge to kill anyone that annoys me, it's okay, because I was born that way.
Am I getting this right?
Christians know we are all born in sin. That doesn't make the gross behavior acceptable because we were born that way. And yes, thankfully Christ forgives sinners. But it is still sin and not to be accepted as good or normal and certainly not to be applauded. It is aberrant behavior, and to be pitied. The approval of things alternative sexualities, such as this, is not helping the culture at all.
TSF Protests!
It sure would!
April 14, 2009 - 12:50 ET by CobraMan"A reality show would help portray transgendered people as they are"
It sure would! It would show everyone that if a person is confused about their own gender, something that is obvious every time you look down while taking a shower, then it's going to be impossible those same people to not be confused over a complex subject like morality, or even personal identity.
If I am able to convince myself that I am a woman despite the fact that even a cursory examination shows me that I'm not, it wouldn't take much for me to convince myself that I am Napoleon, or Jesus, or even the Devil.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
ABC News and idiot parents
April 14, 2009 - 12:45 ET by jaywlI read the "transgendered children" link above. It is amazing. A boy with a twin sister knows before age two he shouldn't go topless in the kiddie pool, age two insists he is a girl, age four (in a private school?) cross-dresses, has an understanding principal and psycho doctor! Give me a break. What kind of parents are these? I think every one of my daughters and grand-daughters went topless in the pool. I don't think any are trans-idiotic-gendered-identity-challenged. Of course if we had said "Holly wants to go topless in the pool, quick, get some testosterone in her, we'll call her Harry and dress her as a boy. Then he will feel NORMAL!"
As for ABC, the story is another attempt to change the traditional mores this country has had for centuries. The MSM and psycho-liberals, hand-in-hand, their chisel chipping away one stroke at a time. Say anything and they reply you are the crazy, its only a little flake off a huge block of granite.
It is amazing
April 14, 2009 - 13:00 ET by CobraMan"It is amazing. A boy with a twin sister knows before age two he shouldn't go topless in the kiddie pool"
That truly IS amazing. As a father of both boys and girls , I was embarrassed (SHOCKED!) to see my two year old son gleefully fondling himself in public, at the beach, with dozens of people around! That is, until, I learned that this behavior is normal for boys as young as one and two, and can even continue until they are three and four. Yet, despite this self absorption (what else can you call it?) of a young boy with his "private" parts, even when in public, a boy of the same age is, somehow, aware that going topless is a bad idea? Yea, right!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
I want my country
April 14, 2009 - 12:52 ET by bigtimerI want my country back!
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Does one elected official
April 14, 2009 - 14:06 ET by JasonCDoes one elected official (the operative word being 'elected' - that's pretty all-American, no?) in one small town really so severely threaten your preferred version of what the country should be?
JasonC... Oh
April 14, 2009 - 14:17 ET by bigtimerJasonC...
Oh puleeeze...it's not just one small town...it's the whole damned nation regarding the filthy leftists agenda...and the direction I see it going...which through my view-finder in life is going to hell in a hand-basket...swiftly.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Hey Jason
April 14, 2009 - 14:54 ET by general companyWhy are we disscussing this putz, are we talking about his accomplishments, his idea's, what he has done for those that elected him? No, it's all about him, a minority with a rediculous view of himself. And we are supposed to think he has courage, or he is normal. Well he isnt, and I would bet anything he is also a lousy Rep as well.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
One racist
April 14, 2009 - 19:18 ET by CobraManLet's reword that a little bit, shall we? "Does one elected racist (the operative word being 'elected' - that's pretty all-American, no?) in one small town really so severely threaten your preferred version of what the country should be?"
Now, Jason, would you gleefully allow a racists to hold public office without feeling just a little bit threatened? How about if that "elected official' was a child molester? A serial rapist? A mass-murder?
Wouldn't you fell just a little bit uncomfortable if someone YOU considered immoral held public office? You KNOW that you would, so stop being a hypocrite when someone else voices their objection to someone they believe is immoral holding public office.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Disingenuous comparisons.
April 14, 2009 - 20:16 ET by JasonCDisingenuous comparisons. Every example you cited directly affects other people, and 3 out of 4 involve felonies. Ludicrous, specious reasoning on your part.
This is not an issue of morality. It's of some people feeling uncomfortable about someone else's lifestyle. I wouldn't vote for a known racist, but if one was elected and his/her racism didn't seem to affect his/her governance, I certainly wouldn't hysterically claim that America as I know it is crumbling. That was BT's point, and it is reactionary in the extreme.
The reaction here would be like me saying my dislike for Sarah Palin and her political style comes from the fact that I don't like hockey and I find moosemeat a bit too gamey.
Disingenuous how?
April 14, 2009 - 21:06 ET by CobraManThe one being disingenuous here is YOU! Remember, bigtimer stated that is is about "filthy leftists agenda." That's a MORAL consideration, is it not?
So, what difference would it be if that person is transgendered or some other type of immoral person? It doesn't make any difference to the person who feels that the official is acting in an immoral fashion.
So, hypocrite, answer the question! Would it bother you if a sexual molester was elected to public office?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Well you got me. I would
April 15, 2009 - 08:08 ET by JasonCWell you got me. I would not want a sexual molester elected to public office.
Which proves....nothing. Except for your outrageous and unproductive belief that morality has to come in a one-size-fits-all package. To suggest that a fairly-elected public official openly dresses in women's clothes and a bad wig is on moral par with sexual abuse and murder is beyond absurd. If you and Bigtimer want to bemoan the moral ramifications of this, you're free to. Since you're doing so on a public forum, I'm equally free to point out that:
1. The man has broken no laws
2. His so-called aberrant behavior hurts no one directly. If you choose to be victimized by this, or to believe that your children are being corrupted by it, that's entirely your choice.
Finally, imposing your own preferred version of morality on others, especially implying that people who violate same should not be allowed to hold office, is a very slippery slope. Imagine that I frame vegetarianism as a moral issue. Those who eat meat are thusly "immoral." Would you not find it laughable and pathetic if I started blogging about how politicians who eat meat are not morally fit to lead? That's what you and BT sound like to me.
"This is not an issue of morality." WTF???
April 14, 2009 - 21:12 ET by pahuber???
"They don't give a damn 'bout any trumpet playin' band" Dire Straits
Make sense now?
I guess...
April 14, 2009 - 21:24 ET by CobraManI guess Jason doesn't think it's immoral for someone to lie. That's just what the 'transgendered" people are doing, lying to everyone about their gender, especially to themselves.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Paradox: How is he lying?
April 15, 2009 - 08:03 ET by JasonCParadox: How is he lying? The very fact that he is categorized as transgender suggests that people know he was born a man. It's not like he's trying to "pass."
→ Good point
April 15, 2009 - 08:11 ET by Cool ArrowBut doesn't the word "testify" also carry a similar paradox?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
~Question
April 15, 2009 - 08:30 ET by choselife3xIf he dressed like a dog and trotted on all fours would he be 'normal'?
Ah yes, the old
April 15, 2009 - 09:45 ET by JasonCAh yes, the old "non-normative sexual preference will somehow lead to something involving animals" argument. I don't see why imitating a different species is necessarily comparable to imitating the opposite gender. And the crystal-clear rebuttal here is that a dog can't hold a public office, so a person dedicated to acting like one probably can't either. Women, however, can and do hold public office, so a man dedicated to acting like a woman would not have any inherent obstacles to such a position based solely on his gender-preference.
As for the issue of normalcy, I think it's a tricky concept to introduce. I'm more than willing to agree that transgenderism is not normal in the sense that it's not the norm, that those who do it are a tiny minority. I'm quite unwilling to say that because its not the norm, it must be scorned and demonized.
~Wow Jason
April 15, 2009 - 17:05 ET by choselife3xYou took that in a direction that never crossed my mind. That's funny.
The way I was looking at it is that publicly fantasizing that one is a dog would be viewed as an indication of psychological illness. Any adult who publicly and habitually acts out a fantasy has a mental problem. By dressing like a woman he is pretending to be something he is not, just as he would be if he trotted on all fours and barked.
It's hilarious that you went straight to bestiality with it, though. *laughing*
CL3x, it's not that
April 15, 2009 - 18:56 ET by JasonCCL3x, it's not that hilarious, it's a perfectly reasonable observation. The gay marriage (or gay rights in general) issue can only be discussed for so long before some conservative hysteric (usually Truthmonger, on this forum at least) suggests that homosexuality is analogous to bestiality. Here, you are similarly suggesting that a man identifying as a woman is comparable to a human identifying as an animal. I don't see why gender preference - whether that refers to what one wishes to be or who one wishes to be with sexually - is necessarily comparable to wishing to be an entirely different species, or why conservatives always insist that if I defend the former I ought to be obligated to defend the latter. There's no logical basis for this.
~"A man identifying as a woman"
April 15, 2009 - 19:19 ET by choselife3xPoint is, it's a fantasy. Just like pretending to be or "identifying as" a dog is a fantasy. There is no "logical basis" for an adult to pretend to be anything other than what he/she biologically is.
Immoral actions breed immoral actions.
April 14, 2009 - 21:18 ET by CobraMan"That was BT's point, and it is reactionary in the extreme."
I understand BT's point, and I share the concern. Immoral actions, when allowed to flourish, breed other immoral actions, just like criminal actions, when allowed to flourish, breed other criminal actions. This has been true throughout history. Look to the Romans for a perfect example.
Being concerned about the spread of immorality in America is NOT an extreme reaction, although you'll never agree to that as it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas about the importance of morality in a society. But let history be your teacher and tell me, what immoral society has EVER lasted more than a few generations?
The answer is NONE! They always end up self-destructing. It's the MORAL societies that have lasted. Just like the Jewish society that has lasted for thousands of years, and show no sign of collapsing even though other immoral societies have tried to destroy them time and time again.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
America has survived
April 15, 2009 - 19:03 ET by JasonCAmerica has survived flappers and Clark Gable and Elvis and Marilyn Manson. I assure you, with some confidence, that we will survive Family Guy (MRC's current whipping boy) and gay marriage (4 down, 46 to go). We have survived dozens of other phenomena over which sanctimonious self-appointed arbiters of cultural morality have histrionically wrung their hands. You're not giving our country much credit if you think an elected official dressing in drag is going to be the proverbial last straw.
Personally, when I think of the U.S. and morality, I'm much more interested in certain aspects of foreign policy, the drug war, state-sanctioned executions...you know...real issues.
Put that FACE
April 14, 2009 - 13:02 ET by Delsaon a billboard Ad for "normal?"
God save us all
Whoa
April 14, 2009 - 13:02 ET by NorthCoasterDude looks like a lady -----sort of. Actually looks like an old teacher of mine, in his long hair days.
Let's be fair though...
April 14, 2009 - 13:39 ET by krendlerI think there's a bit of not-so-subtle manipulation going on in this article with NewsBusters including that particular photo of the mayor. Not a very flattering shot and I'm sure the intent is to cast the mayor in a bad light, making him out to be some sort of freak. It would have been a lot more professional - and a lot fairer - to have included a more reasonable pic, like this one from Mayor Rasmussen's official website:
http://www.sturasmus...
Anyway, my 2 cents. I respect different viewpoints on this.
So, is it that you find the
April 14, 2009 - 14:45 ET by bradbenj5952So, is it that you find the flaunting of his fake breasts more "professional" in the photo you posted? This is what you call a more "reasonable pic"? And how is it the picture posted by NB above is supposed to make "him out to be some sort of a freak"?
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Like I said.
April 14, 2009 - 14:54 ET by NorthCoasterWHOA!
OK. That was supposed to be
April 14, 2009 - 15:39 ET by krendlerOK. That was supposed to be a joke.
BTW, re: the original photo feature in this article...He's a dead-ringer for the dad on Different Strokes (if the dad wearing a big red wig):
http://a.abcnews.com...
Apologies then...
April 14, 2009 - 15:47 ET by bradbenj5952...for a moment there, I thought you had gone over to the dark side.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
I don't know...
April 14, 2009 - 14:07 ET by sherylsimsI don't think he looks that much better in that photo. Just more "made-up"
Differently Normal
April 14, 2009 - 14:37 ET by rammingspeedBill Schultz said druing a bit on Redeye that the new PC term for anyone like this is "differently normal." A hilarious oxymoron. A perfect description of the flaky liberals in America.
Who was that?
April 14, 2009 - 16:51 ET by slickwillie2001I saw the picture and assumed it was Susan Sarandon in one of those 'stars caught without makeup' shots that TMZ does.
Freaks. Not "normal."
April 14, 2009 - 17:01 ET by RogerCfromSDFreaks. Not "normal." Freaks.
A nation cannot be free without a free, unbiased media. We are not free.
OMG!!! It's General Hammond from SG1!!!
April 14, 2009 - 17:15 ET by pahuberI know you were all thinking it . . . I just said it ; )
Probably from going through the stargate so much confused him...
Fat, Gay, Scarecrow
April 14, 2009 - 21:31 ET by CobraManI think he looks more like a Fat, Gay Scarecrow from a new Hollywood production of the Wizard of Oz.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Look at that picture and
April 14, 2009 - 17:21 ET by Antisocial-ismLet's see if anyone knows what I am talking about.
"I'm Rockso the Clowwn. I do cocaine!!"
Well theres one chick that won't be featured on any EHarmony ads
April 14, 2009 - 18:02 ET by krendler.
That's a man,
April 14, 2009 - 19:20 ET by CT PatriotThat's a man, baby!
Don't be so scared of the word Militia. One day, it just might save your life.
That has got to be Austin Powers, baaaby!!!! Yeah!
April 14, 2009 - 21:19 ET by pahuber: )
Dayuum.......
April 14, 2009 - 20:18 ET by pantrymanIf its a guy, its ugly......
If its a gal, its so stinking ugly that she has to sneak up on a glass of water...
Man...talk about tying a pork chop around its neck so the dog will play with it....
Um...
April 15, 2009 - 12:48 ET by TheDeuceYou're thinking of Leviticus 11...
9 " 'Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.
So, a book of the Bible has dietary and cleanliness rules concerning potential foodstuffs...what does this have to do with sin of homosexuality?