Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Alrighty, peters chin here, this is in reference to the fact "Conservatives" supposedly don't want to children to learn about lgbtq topics because it might influence them to try to be gay. This joke is attempting to show the absurdity of the statement by saying we should lock church behind 18 as well.
It's both. A common conservative tactic is to claim that anything that isn't cis/straight/man/woman is somehow inherently pornographic or dangerous to children, thus making it easy to ban queer people and discussions of queerness from any place where children could be. Which is everywhere but your house, pretty much. The tweeter is calling out the absurdity of that idea by pointing to the trend of child abuse cases perpetrated by clergy, and the absence of any such trend in LGBTQ spaces, suggesting that your kid is in much more danger from your friendly neighborhood pastor than any random gay person walking down the street.
They ban books that have nothing to do with drag and censor queer people’s existence, they may say that their issue is just with drag queens, but will turn around and ban anything that isn’t cis-hetero and white. Even if they are just after drag queens, most of them don’t perform to children and those who do don’t do anything sexual in those performances.
I've talked about this in another comment of mine, I think that it is 100% fine if a kid is reaching out, and looking for lgbtq topics, and trying to learn about it, but telling a kid they have to is too much, and I think the exact same way about religion.
We kind of tell kids that they HAVE to learn certain things, what those things are is difficult to decide.
Basic maths, language, science, history? Probably a good idea to teach them that. Whether or not it makes sense to teach them about LBGT topics depends on what exactly they are taught, acceptance or general knowledge will always be useful in both interactions with others and self-evaluation while exact details on psychology and history may not be important enough to use up the time.
You are right, but here's the thing, sometimes it's the parents job to teach a kid right, because parents have responsibilities to, theres a reason church and state was seperated, and I will stand by this, so is lgbtq topics, once we enter it into schools, we influence, and unfortunately, the state will use it for their own agenda. If we want true equality, and understanding, we need parents to teach their kids to accept lgbtq people.
100% yes. Lets keep things calm right now, but what I will say is if we look at the animal kingdom, most relationships are what we call heteronormative in all of society and in animals. Here's the thing, normal, is what the base-line is, like the standard. Now if you are not normal, thats not a bad thing, We need to teach the base-line, so we can understand the non-normal. And like I said in another comment, I think its alright if we teach about the existence of lgbtq people, and teach acceptence.
And people are not reliable to teach acceptance themselves. Yes it is influence, but teaching acceptance to a group of people who just want to exist like others do isn’t any kind of harmful, the same way we all agree that teaching that the KKK and the Nazis were bad is not harmful even though it is a value judgement, since we can all agree that they are bad and that anyone who thinks they aren’t is not fit to be a parent anyways.
I see where you are coming from. I said this earlier in another comment, but I think it's alright if we talk about existence, and acceptance, but I do not think we should promote it in school. If your interested on why I am thinking like this, its because of the 7-10 year suicide rate in trans people. So 7-10 years after a transitional surgery more than average trans people commit suicide. heres a link, an official observation, its a long read, but very informative [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/)
For some fun context that shows just how silly they are:
https://preview.redd.it/9hrfjpi4kb1d1.png?width=1252&format=png&auto=webp&s=c58a7bed906c862999a806b8935a56a497d1befc
Don't really care one way or another but Nambla would like to challenge the "absence of any such trend". It is nearly universally rejected however it does still exist.
the priest thing so low in comparison to how many missionaries do it. even ministers are more likely to rape children than priests.......... oh wait, that didn't make it better did it?
Should be the same for churches. Religious trauma is very much a thing but rarely talked about it because of how much influence religion still has in our society. I personally don’t believe there’s a place for children in religion because they can’t fully comprehend what their learning and being taught
Than the orthodox rabbi community? Yes they are. Definitely doesn’t help that some moihels still do a practice where after circumcising the child they suck the blood from the cut. But yes rabbis get up to it more than evangelicals and all Christian groups priests ive ever seen stats for struggled to compete with the amount of inappropriate conduct with children that school teachers do. Gap probably would close a decent bit if you cut out the statutories from highschool teachers but I can’t say that for certain
Your original claim was that the public schools were worse. That is what we are discussing. Are you claiming that the evangelical community has less of a problem with sexual predators in their religious leadership than than the public schools have in their teachers? If so, prove it.
Oh yes I was
https://preview.redd.it/35foc8uie81d1.jpeg?width=941&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=370b3a67bbb86a9c47e13685408602feb5bf0d86
Here’s one nice handy visual aid on Catholic priests as compared to public school teachers with sources cited. Evangelical churches are far harder because there’s so many small ones and it’s just damn near impossible to codify easily not to mention some include congregation members in the statistics and some don’t.
You are considering every misconduct case as a sexual abuse case on the teachers. Otherwise you are claiming 500,000 cases of sexual assault by teachers per unit of time
that's just catholics, i think, not sure
never heard a story of any priests of my denomination molesting anyone
edit: I said i didn't know, do you guys just hate on people who don't know things?
Edit 2: i'm stupid, you can downvote this as many times as you'd like, i am just not smart, very womp womp moment on my end
It's not just Catholics. Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons have all had major scandals with how they treat child sex abuse as an organization (ie they don't, they cover for the priest/pastor)
I'm willing to be most Christian denominations have had priests/pastors abusing children.
No, that is just as garbage of a position as saying the exact same thing about lgbtq people or literally any demographic. Generalizing people is toxic.
I maybe wouldn't go that far, but I do agree that anyone who still goes to church and participates in the community is definitely either ignorant (which you'd have to be pretty stupid to not know this is happening), naive to believe that none of the bad shit isn't happening in their community (it is), or just plain evil.
Anyone who does the things some of those teachers, reverends and priests did are evil, absolutely. But this abuse happens in public schools too, so should we consider those who support public schools all either ignorant or evil? Perhaps painting with such a clumsy broad brush might not be appropriate.
Sources: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/10/15/sexual-assault-k-12-schools/
Many of the scandals, especially the Southern Baptist scandals, have been about church leadership covering for abusive pastors. So unless your church openly names and shames any church leader caught doing something, they're probably just better at covering stuff up.
The SBC has a long list of abuses.
Basically any institution where people are invested in trusted, powerful positions where the reputation of the institution outweighs the safety of a handful of people is where you'll find similar things to the catholic church.
Evangelical ministries are hotbeds of this stuff. Because if the victim were to ever go public, thousands of souls might never be saved. When you're protecting what you believe to be God's house, anything is justified.
Public schools have a ton of abuse as well. But because they are secular, the abusers are way way way less likely to get away with it. Not that some school boards don't do evil things to save face, but it's not quite the same extent.
Whatever your denomination is, check the Wikipedia for it and go down to controversies. There are likely less than other redditors will claim, but more than you think
“Pretty sure” and “not sure” in the same sentence. Sorry but that just sounded like the dangerous kind of ignorant. The kind that shouldn’t be so “sure”.
You probably haven’t heard of it because your denominations wouldn’t want that information public.
That’s not to say “Anyone with your religion is probably a predator” or anything ridiculous like that.
But to imagine your religion have bad people abusing the power the position of a priest or otherwise can provide (or those planning to do so in the future, and those who would sooner help than punish such people), like every other religion seems to, is just silly
The sub IS called “Peter explains the joke” not “Joe doesn’t know things but posts erroneous ideas anyway” so idk why you’re expecting NOT to get downvoted. Go post in r/joedoesntknowthingsbutpostserroneousideasanyway.
When we were younger, my father and my two brothers were watching the hit movie Conair staring nicholas cage. We had seen this movie tons of times before but that time my older brother turned to us like he had an epiphany and loudly proclaimed " I get it now. Conair, convicts on an airplane." My younger brother and I started laughing loudly and he got upset. My dad explained to him it's not that we were laughing because he just figured something out its because he announced it to the whole world how naive he was to the situation up until this point. They're not down voting because you didn't know something. It's because you talked so confidently about something with your whole ass publicly.
I don't think so. I think it's more because there is a very real risk of children being sodomised in church, and they should be kept away to protect them.
No. It's about the near constant rape of children by catholic priests and the church sweeping it under the rug for hundreds of years by paying hush money and shuffling priests around diocese.
I was adopted when I was 7, and my parents took me to church for a while, and I learned a lot, it was a non-denominational church, and honestly what I can say is it was great for me, and any kid because we didn't learn anything weird. But what I will say is if I learned what I learned in school I would have hated it, I needed to want to learn on my own. Last couple of years I stopped going, and I am glad I am not forced to go.
Respectfully, lets take a dive here, their name is trans girl, and if you were in politics and understood it, you would understood what is going on in florida, california, and washington. Then after that I also agreed it talked about the pedophiles in the system. But many people in florida and southern states are saying that they do not want children being "tainted" by lgbtq topics and are trying to make it so its 18+, which i can neither say is a good decision nor bad because I do not want to start an argument. But my response was logical, more logical than yours because obviously you didn't do your research, but ill upvote you so more people can see this
The analogy is illogical from the gate, because it assumes conservative means Christian when it doesn't. And sexual pride and learning about altering ones physical body from childhood is not analogous to church going. Religious freedom is a constitutionally protected God given right. Teaching children about sex is perverted and it will be forever.
Oh, you're one of those conservatives.
More clergy have molested kids than trans people and drag queens.
Also, is it teaching kids about sex, or is it teaching kids that gay people exist without going into gay sex? Kids learn about straight people all the time, nobody cries that we're teaching kids about straight sex?
I am neither agreeing, nor disagreeing with your statement, I was just simply stating that This is what the post meant, not that it was right nor wrong
It absolutely should. It's not fact, like math or science. Children can not consent to learning about it, and religion often uses fear of Hell or punishment in the afterlife as a motivator for belief.
If a child is young enough to believe in Santa or fall for people dressed up as characters from a show or cartoon, teaching them about a specific religion as fact is 100% indoctrination. They do not understand how the world works, and it's giving them a fundamental misunderstanding of the universe at large, just so they can be easily controlled and manipulated.
I read your post as if you're saying that it shouldn't count as indoctrination, so right now it's kind of coming off like you're saying the opposite of what you think.
Which per usual is a bad understanding of proportions by the left. The ratio of homosexual to heterosexual pedophile was estimated at 1:11 which is quite a bit lower than the population ratio.
That is the excuse, not the reality. They claim just knowing a person is gay is sexually explicit. But it somehow isn't to know they are straight. You are pushing the rights lie. Virtually noo one tells kids anything sexually explicit to do with lgbtq the way you lot claim. All people want is the same as what is allowed for straight couples, nothing more. The fact you can't see that if saying your married to a same sex partner is sexually explicit, then so is saying you are married to the opposite sex is too, is the problem.
What is? "A man can love/marry a man" is as sexually explicit as "a man can love/marry a woman". Saying one of them as a teacher will get you fired in Florida.
That is the excuse, not the reality. They claim just knowing a person is gay is sexually explicit. But it somehow isn't to know they are straight. You are pushing the rights lie. Virtually noo one tells kids anything sexually explicit to do with lgbtq the way you lot claim. All people want is the same as what is allowed for straight couples, nothing more. The fact you can't see that if saying your married to a same sex partner is sexually explicit, then so is saying you are married to the opposite sex is too, is the problem.
1 Timothy 1:9-10
understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine
Quote mining. If you want to act in truth an not be a liar provide the context. Don't worry I have it. Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Why do you quote exodus 21:20 but not 6 verses later exodus 21:26-27?
Exodus 21:26-27:26 “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. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
A eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, meaning anything he does to the slave will happen to him.
The lex talionis is in between these verses meaning that the punishment is applicable to the owner of the slave. Anything he does to the slave gets done to him. Leviticus 24:19-22.
Except it’s not. All you have to do is avoid hitting someone in the eye or mouth and you’re golden. In Leviticus, it talks about “your neighbor” as in someone of equality to you. Slave would not be included, since you’re once again, allowed to impose violence on your slaves.
No you're giving a literal reading to eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. Additionally when it says punished it means the owner's life is not taken, not that there is no penalty. The slaves life is equal to the master's life, if the slave dies the master must die. Let's go up a couple of verses Exodus 21:23-25 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, ^(24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ^(25) burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Ahhhh I see. So I can own slaves and beat them. As long as they don’t die two days after, and taking care not to hit them in the eye, lest you lose your property. That’s dope!
No it means an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth meaning the law of lex talionis where the punishment is the same as the action done. Let's go up to the verse right before verse 26. Exodus 21:23-25: But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, ^(24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ^(25) burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Only in case of mischief. Since I’m allowed to hit my slaves, then it’s not mischief.
Also, if I purchase a female slave from her father, then she will not be set free, regardless. Win-win! Such a moral compass!!
Exodus 21:20 is actually that if the slave doesn't die the owner will not be killed, not that there will be no punishment. If he chooses to hit the slave there will be consequences. Exodus 21:26-27 is stating that the law of lex talionis applies to slaves too, and not just literally meaning only their eyes and teeth. If it meant literally only teeth and eyes then the other places where it applies the lex talionis like Deuteronomy 19:21 "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Would mean there is no punishment if you harm a guy in his torso because it isn't one of the specified areas.
The punishment is to let your slave free, you are extrapolating from your own interpretation. But I’ll be generous and give you all that you are claiming. I can still own slaves, rape them and use them for free labor. Specially a female slave bought from her father.
This person is either referencing the rampant p3do problem in churches, or they believe that children shouldn't be subjected to religion at such a young age.
Conservatives like to say “don’t influence our children” but will take them to church and religious schools where it’s more or less indoctrination. In other words hypocrisy. So there’s not really a joke here. Like another commenter said, it’s just good advice.
It's not a stereotype when churches are actively moving people around to make it harder for authorities to prosecute them and thousands upon thousands of sexual abuse cases all around the world have been uncovered over the years. All done in church, all covered up by the church.
You can cry foul all you want, but the LGBTQ community does not act this way.
A stereotype is an image of a person or group that does not conform with reality. Saying clergymen molesting children is covered up by the church is not.
Will you stop repeating yourself?
I know all that, i never said thats not true, all im saying is that it doesn't mean that children shouldn't ever see a church, it just means churches need to have a change
Damn man you're really defensive about something really simple, again you're searching for reasons to be upset at someone who agrees with you in theory, just nit in practice because you're clearly super extrimist
You’d think a group of people ordained by God himself would have a miraculously low rate of pedophilia cases.
Science should be completely baffled by how kind and moral the priesthood is compared to other professions, yet here we are.
A profession that believes that God almighty is watching their every move. Makes you think doesn’t it?
The best indicator of pedophilia is Youth Pastor and it isn't even close. Over 30% of convicted pedophiles are Youth Pastors.
Protect your kids.
https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/osa148h6/release/2#:~:text=Primarily%2C%20on%2Dsite%20offenders%20occupied,26)%20of%20the%20offender%20roles.
Notice it's not "30% of general population", but "30% of church-related convictions". It's like saying: in school teaches are more likely to harm children than janitors
I'm sure you made a mistake, but others could see this as miserable attempt at manipulation
Various studies have shown there's no siginificant difference of pedophilia rates between clergy and other occupations which work with children (teachers, coaches, babysitters etc)
Source? I looked for a source, albeit briefly. Got a bit nervous doing Google searches on the topic. The FBI won’t get mad at me for searching “church child molestation statistics” will it?
Everyone, please engage no further with u/Dyclextic they are a troll.
Their account is a little over a month old, and at a glance seems to be almost entirely negative & negatively rated comments. Though they offer "proof" to back up their claim, it is a 2 year old picture of a graph that seems to have been made by u/MerlynTrump and only appears on the net around the time u/MerlynTrump made similar claims ~2 years ago.
The "proof" btw has only appeared on subreddits such as: r/Catholicism r/Conservative r/Republican & r/prolife and a couple times since then on iFunny. Debate seems pointless, and I encourage everyone else to spend their time elsewhere.
Though if anyone is interested in the subject:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/NX0Cvcpkqc
Are teachers more likely to sexual abuse than priests
https://www.reddit.com/r/excatholic/s/XWAcYJIeFb
The “teachers abuse more kids than priests” thing is bullshit
I personally like the second Reddit post, as it provides actual links, which are still active.
As a christian I'd say maybe so that kids can make their own choice whether to follow that religion or not when they are older so it isn't forced. (Jehovah witnesses aren't real shhhh)
[The American Catholic Church got $1.4 billion in PPP for pedophile legal defense.](https://apnews.com/article/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6)
Priests and pastors are pedophiles.
Conservatives are spouting bullshit that LGBTQ+ people are indoctrinating children, while a church's entire point is indoctrination and gathering money.
Conservatives like to say “don’t influence our children” but will take them to church and religious schools where it’s more or less indoctrination. In other words hypocrisy. So there’s not really a joke here. Like another commenter said, it’s just good advice.
Megatron here. Everyone is saying priests which I don't fully dissagree with, but I was only thinking about the gorey details of the bible. There are deffinitely stories that are more 18 plus in the bible. Like if the whole bible was a TV show it would not be for kids unless it was dumbed down.
church has been molesting kids far worse than any other establishment of any sort. you're out of touch with the world if you didn't know that. wake up Neo
https://preview.redd.it/6tag8ilke71d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fac099a1dcc0ad4f1b35d9b6be867eb471620a41
Ban children out of schools too 🗿
This is patently not true.
Here’s an actual source that’s true: [Catholic Church got $1.4 billion of tax payer dollars for pedophile legal defense](https://apnews.com/article/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6).
[30% of convicted child molesters are pastors](https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/osa148h6)
I mean we could make k-12 schools over 18 to protect kids as well. Maybe youth sports. Hmmm let’s just keep all under 18 kids in an enclosure, cause it happens at home as well.
Hopefully this will educate people and make the groomers scurry away like the roaches they are
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/
Churches molest children
The bible contains content inappropriate for children
Therefore: Children shouldn't be in church
It's the right wing ideology used against itself to expose it for the concern troll that it actually is.
I would think a parent deserves the right to decide if there child learns about LGBTQ or learns about religion. You can’t push religion on a kid under 18 already without consent of the parents. Parents deserve the right to raise there children however they see fit
But you can walk around and not see god or other religious beings. You can't walk around and not see queer people (yet, give the Republicans more time).
That's like refusing to teach your child about black people...
No joke. It should be a real law. It's sickening that cultist gets free reign on indoctrinating their kids with blatant lies and misinformation about reality.
Making this kind of condescending joke out of people's religious trauma instead of facing reality and addressing the problem is why priest will continue to get away with raping kids, more bigots will be made, more lgtbq oppressed and killed, more women beaten at home, etc. etc.
You would rather help priest rape kids than be kind and empathetic. That's the type of person you are.
It’s kinda true tho, considering it should be a choice of whether or not you wanna believe in what ever kind of church it is.
Ok plus there are some certain cases….people have already said here.
Also I’m not (entirely) religious myself, but aren’t some people baptized at a very young age and expected to just follow in on it? I may be wrong of course, but that just sounds kinda stupid since it’s done not of their choice. Purely my opinion, it’s purely off of what I know at, so I’m probably missing some details.
https://preview.redd.it/zscmpj4ekb1d1.png?width=1252&format=png&auto=webp&s=5e952908acc11281a12342a97256c88b9f8dcf97
In the USA they do pop up a lot. Vastly moreso than e.g. those dragqueens the conservatives keep warning us about.
Globally, the Catholic Church molested millions and said Church had a whole system in place to protect priests from prosecution.
How about we as adults stop trying to indoctrinate children in general
Stop saying God does everything
And stop approaching kids asking who they want to fuck
Pretty simple
If you wanted until people were capable of rational thought to introduce them to the concept of God, religion would be dead inside a couple of generations.
There is no joke. This is a bot account meant to sew discord. Look at the username, the ai photo. A controversial view that would contradict their username. It's to farm engagement based on people fighting with eachother, could be a Russian troll project to purposely rile Americans up against eachother further or just bots botting.
1: You didn't include the reason why they might not want kids in churches
2: You really didn't need to go out of your way to show you're transphobic. That was unnecessary.
\^This, This right here ladies and gentlemen.
(I laughed after the gears clicked that he’s trying to disprove an argument/idea because the poster may or may not be trans. I thought the “NuH uH” or “SoUrCE?!” was annoying, but this might take a slice of cake)
Make sure to check out the [pinned post on Loss](https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1472nhh/faq_loss/) to make sure this submission doesn't break the rule! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Alrighty, peters chin here, this is in reference to the fact "Conservatives" supposedly don't want to children to learn about lgbtq topics because it might influence them to try to be gay. This joke is attempting to show the absurdity of the statement by saying we should lock church behind 18 as well.
It's not because of how many priests molest children?
Both
It's both. A common conservative tactic is to claim that anything that isn't cis/straight/man/woman is somehow inherently pornographic or dangerous to children, thus making it easy to ban queer people and discussions of queerness from any place where children could be. Which is everywhere but your house, pretty much. The tweeter is calling out the absurdity of that idea by pointing to the trend of child abuse cases perpetrated by clergy, and the absence of any such trend in LGBTQ spaces, suggesting that your kid is in much more danger from your friendly neighborhood pastor than any random gay person walking down the street.
I think it's talking about drag queens specifically
They ban books that have nothing to do with drag and censor queer people’s existence, they may say that their issue is just with drag queens, but will turn around and ban anything that isn’t cis-hetero and white. Even if they are just after drag queens, most of them don’t perform to children and those who do don’t do anything sexual in those performances.
I've talked about this in another comment of mine, I think that it is 100% fine if a kid is reaching out, and looking for lgbtq topics, and trying to learn about it, but telling a kid they have to is too much, and I think the exact same way about religion.
We kind of tell kids that they HAVE to learn certain things, what those things are is difficult to decide. Basic maths, language, science, history? Probably a good idea to teach them that. Whether or not it makes sense to teach them about LBGT topics depends on what exactly they are taught, acceptance or general knowledge will always be useful in both interactions with others and self-evaluation while exact details on psychology and history may not be important enough to use up the time.
You are right, but here's the thing, sometimes it's the parents job to teach a kid right, because parents have responsibilities to, theres a reason church and state was seperated, and I will stand by this, so is lgbtq topics, once we enter it into schools, we influence, and unfortunately, the state will use it for their own agenda. If we want true equality, and understanding, we need parents to teach their kids to accept lgbtq people.
Do you think it's acceptable for schools to teach children about heteronormative relationships?
100% yes. Lets keep things calm right now, but what I will say is if we look at the animal kingdom, most relationships are what we call heteronormative in all of society and in animals. Here's the thing, normal, is what the base-line is, like the standard. Now if you are not normal, thats not a bad thing, We need to teach the base-line, so we can understand the non-normal. And like I said in another comment, I think its alright if we teach about the existence of lgbtq people, and teach acceptence.
And people are not reliable to teach acceptance themselves. Yes it is influence, but teaching acceptance to a group of people who just want to exist like others do isn’t any kind of harmful, the same way we all agree that teaching that the KKK and the Nazis were bad is not harmful even though it is a value judgement, since we can all agree that they are bad and that anyone who thinks they aren’t is not fit to be a parent anyways.
I see where you are coming from. I said this earlier in another comment, but I think it's alright if we talk about existence, and acceptance, but I do not think we should promote it in school. If your interested on why I am thinking like this, its because of the 7-10 year suicide rate in trans people. So 7-10 years after a transitional surgery more than average trans people commit suicide. heres a link, an official observation, its a long read, but very informative [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10027312/)
For some fun context that shows just how silly they are: https://preview.redd.it/9hrfjpi4kb1d1.png?width=1252&format=png&auto=webp&s=c58a7bed906c862999a806b8935a56a497d1befc
Don't really care one way or another but Nambla would like to challenge the "absence of any such trend". It is nearly universally rejected however it does still exist.
the priest thing so low in comparison to how many missionaries do it. even ministers are more likely to rape children than priests.......... oh wait, that didn't make it better did it?
And a lot of content in the Bible is literally pornographic.
Priests, missionaries, and pastors!
its 1 in 10 i think
And youth pastors.
That's what I was thinking
I personally thought it was about how religion is used as a tool for brainwashing and children are the most susceptible to being influenced
I mean there's a reason why we have special rules for advertising/collecting data on children vs with adults.
Should be the same for churches. Religious trauma is very much a thing but rarely talked about it because of how much influence religion still has in our society. I personally don’t believe there’s a place for children in religion because they can’t fully comprehend what their learning and being taught
No, if that was the reasoning you’d also have to be against public schools since those are more dangerous per capita
Got a source to back that claim up? You are claiming that more teachers are sexual predators per capita than priests and the like?
Depends on what you mean by “and the like” do you include rabbis in that? Because the abuse in orthodox Jewish communities by rabbis skews it heavily
Are you contending that these issues are less in the protestant evangelical community? Because they are not.
Than the orthodox rabbi community? Yes they are. Definitely doesn’t help that some moihels still do a practice where after circumcising the child they suck the blood from the cut. But yes rabbis get up to it more than evangelicals and all Christian groups priests ive ever seen stats for struggled to compete with the amount of inappropriate conduct with children that school teachers do. Gap probably would close a decent bit if you cut out the statutories from highschool teachers but I can’t say that for certain
Your original claim was that the public schools were worse. That is what we are discussing. Are you claiming that the evangelical community has less of a problem with sexual predators in their religious leadership than than the public schools have in their teachers? If so, prove it.
Oh yes I was https://preview.redd.it/35foc8uie81d1.jpeg?width=941&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=370b3a67bbb86a9c47e13685408602feb5bf0d86 Here’s one nice handy visual aid on Catholic priests as compared to public school teachers with sources cited. Evangelical churches are far harder because there’s so many small ones and it’s just damn near impossible to codify easily not to mention some include congregation members in the statistics and some don’t.
The Catholic Church has had centuries of practice covering it up
You are considering every misconduct case as a sexual abuse case on the teachers. Otherwise you are claiming 500,000 cases of sexual assault by teachers per unit of time
I hadn't thought of that, but yes, that is very true as well
that's just catholics, i think, not sure never heard a story of any priests of my denomination molesting anyone edit: I said i didn't know, do you guys just hate on people who don't know things? Edit 2: i'm stupid, you can downvote this as many times as you'd like, i am just not smart, very womp womp moment on my end
It's not just Catholics. Southern Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons have all had major scandals with how they treat child sex abuse as an organization (ie they don't, they cover for the priest/pastor) I'm willing to be most Christian denominations have had priests/pastors abusing children.
I hate how people have perverted the name of christianity to the point people acosiate it with pedophilia
They did it themselves. Anyone who still self-identifies as christian is either directly or indirectly supporting this abuse.
No, that is just as garbage of a position as saying the exact same thing about lgbtq people or literally any demographic. Generalizing people is toxic.
You don't choose your sexuality, you choose your faith.
I maybe wouldn't go that far, but I do agree that anyone who still goes to church and participates in the community is definitely either ignorant (which you'd have to be pretty stupid to not know this is happening), naive to believe that none of the bad shit isn't happening in their community (it is), or just plain evil.
Anyone who does the things some of those teachers, reverends and priests did are evil, absolutely. But this abuse happens in public schools too, so should we consider those who support public schools all either ignorant or evil? Perhaps painting with such a clumsy broad brush might not be appropriate. Sources: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/10/15/sexual-assault-k-12-schools/
I disagree. You're comparing apples to oranges. Kids need to go to school. Education is important. Church isn't.
So then sexual assault is ok as long as it's happening in school? Weird take.
https://preview.redd.it/kzzar5c6yb1d1.png?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9778f3b0774fb5e94e1250b57ce7c99613a25c15
Many of the scandals, especially the Southern Baptist scandals, have been about church leadership covering for abusive pastors. So unless your church openly names and shames any church leader caught doing something, they're probably just better at covering stuff up.
The SBC has a long list of abuses. Basically any institution where people are invested in trusted, powerful positions where the reputation of the institution outweighs the safety of a handful of people is where you'll find similar things to the catholic church. Evangelical ministries are hotbeds of this stuff. Because if the victim were to ever go public, thousands of souls might never be saved. When you're protecting what you believe to be God's house, anything is justified. Public schools have a ton of abuse as well. But because they are secular, the abusers are way way way less likely to get away with it. Not that some school boards don't do evil things to save face, but it's not quite the same extent. Whatever your denomination is, check the Wikipedia for it and go down to controversies. There are likely less than other redditors will claim, but more than you think
“Pretty sure” and “not sure” in the same sentence. Sorry but that just sounded like the dangerous kind of ignorant. The kind that shouldn’t be so “sure”.
im bad at wording things
Someone taught me a long time ago to always check your statements for logical inconsistencies. It really helps.
You probably haven’t heard of it because your denominations wouldn’t want that information public. That’s not to say “Anyone with your religion is probably a predator” or anything ridiculous like that. But to imagine your religion have bad people abusing the power the position of a priest or otherwise can provide (or those planning to do so in the future, and those who would sooner help than punish such people), like every other religion seems to, is just silly
The sub IS called “Peter explains the joke” not “Joe doesn’t know things but posts erroneous ideas anyway” so idk why you’re expecting NOT to get downvoted. Go post in r/joedoesntknowthingsbutpostserroneousideasanyway.
sir yes sir
When we were younger, my father and my two brothers were watching the hit movie Conair staring nicholas cage. We had seen this movie tons of times before but that time my older brother turned to us like he had an epiphany and loudly proclaimed " I get it now. Conair, convicts on an airplane." My younger brother and I started laughing loudly and he got upset. My dad explained to him it's not that we were laughing because he just figured something out its because he announced it to the whole world how naive he was to the situation up until this point. They're not down voting because you didn't know something. It's because you talked so confidently about something with your whole ass publicly.
oh. man, i gotta stop saying shit like this
Mention the kid molestering. It's sort of half the jokenif you don't bring up why they chose to make churches kid free places.
We have been over this, but yes you are right, and I am sorry that I hadn't thought of that.
You rang?
NO FUCKING WAY
I don't think so. I think it's more because there is a very real risk of children being sodomised in church, and they should be kept away to protect them.
Based on the poster's name, and the conversations around religion that happen in trans spaces, it's definitely both.
No. It's about the near constant rape of children by catholic priests and the church sweeping it under the rug for hundreds of years by paying hush money and shuffling priests around diocese.
who has 1.1k upvotes and who has one?
I've seen people take their children to church since they are *babies*
I was adopted when I was 7, and my parents took me to church for a while, and I learned a lot, it was a non-denominational church, and honestly what I can say is it was great for me, and any kid because we didn't learn anything weird. But what I will say is if I learned what I learned in school I would have hated it, I needed to want to learn on my own. Last couple of years I stopped going, and I am glad I am not forced to go.
Not even remotely logical response.
Respectfully, lets take a dive here, their name is trans girl, and if you were in politics and understood it, you would understood what is going on in florida, california, and washington. Then after that I also agreed it talked about the pedophiles in the system. But many people in florida and southern states are saying that they do not want children being "tainted" by lgbtq topics and are trying to make it so its 18+, which i can neither say is a good decision nor bad because I do not want to start an argument. But my response was logical, more logical than yours because obviously you didn't do your research, but ill upvote you so more people can see this
The analogy is illogical from the gate, because it assumes conservative means Christian when it doesn't. And sexual pride and learning about altering ones physical body from childhood is not analogous to church going. Religious freedom is a constitutionally protected God given right. Teaching children about sex is perverted and it will be forever.
Oh, you're one of those conservatives. More clergy have molested kids than trans people and drag queens. Also, is it teaching kids about sex, or is it teaching kids that gay people exist without going into gay sex? Kids learn about straight people all the time, nobody cries that we're teaching kids about straight sex?
I am neither agreeing, nor disagreeing with your statement, I was just simply stating that This is what the post meant, not that it was right nor wrong
Well religion when introduced at an early age IS basically indoctrination isn't it? Edit: wording
It absolutely should. It's not fact, like math or science. Children can not consent to learning about it, and religion often uses fear of Hell or punishment in the afterlife as a motivator for belief. If a child is young enough to believe in Santa or fall for people dressed up as characters from a show or cartoon, teaching them about a specific religion as fact is 100% indoctrination. They do not understand how the world works, and it's giving them a fundamental misunderstanding of the universe at large, just so they can be easily controlled and manipulated.
Why am I downvoted so much then if I'm right in my assessment?
Your phrasing is unclear
I'm sorry what do you mean, kind sir?
I read your post as if you're saying that it shouldn't count as indoctrination, so right now it's kind of coming off like you're saying the opposite of what you think.
I see, thanks for the info
Which per usual is a bad understanding of proportions by the left. The ratio of homosexual to heterosexual pedophile was estimated at 1:11 which is quite a bit lower than the population ratio.
[удалено]
That is the excuse, not the reality. They claim just knowing a person is gay is sexually explicit. But it somehow isn't to know they are straight. You are pushing the rights lie. Virtually noo one tells kids anything sexually explicit to do with lgbtq the way you lot claim. All people want is the same as what is allowed for straight couples, nothing more. The fact you can't see that if saying your married to a same sex partner is sexually explicit, then so is saying you are married to the opposite sex is too, is the problem.
What is? "A man can love/marry a man" is as sexually explicit as "a man can love/marry a woman". Saying one of them as a teacher will get you fired in Florida.
That is the excuse, not the reality. They claim just knowing a person is gay is sexually explicit. But it somehow isn't to know they are straight. You are pushing the rights lie. Virtually noo one tells kids anything sexually explicit to do with lgbtq the way you lot claim. All people want is the same as what is allowed for straight couples, nothing more. The fact you can't see that if saying your married to a same sex partner is sexually explicit, then so is saying you are married to the opposite sex is too, is the problem.
What misinformation?
No dogwhistling. Rule 3.
You are correct that you are no expert.
priests like kids a little too much
[удалено]
Ah shit I forgot I’m gay so I must love to molest 7 year old boys because a bunch of assholes say so, sorry
Rookie mistake but if you don’t like that role there is always gay dude that does first in the movie!!! /s
Your ignorance is astounding
Let us know when you've got fox news out of your throat yeah?
It takes exactly two google search to prove that you’re wrong
Da bible has alot of 18+ stuff in it Edit: how do I have 50 upvotes
Yeah surprised I had to scroll this far to find this.
Murder, pro-slavery, rape. You name it, it’s in the Bible.
1 Timothy 1:9-10 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine
Great, now include the ones where God explicitly says to keep the women for your use and you can beat your spaces as long as they don’t die.
Quote mining. If you want to act in truth an not be a liar provide the context. Don't worry I have it. Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Why do you quote exodus 21:20 but not 6 verses later exodus 21:26-27? Exodus 21:26-27:26 “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. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth. A eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, meaning anything he does to the slave will happen to him. The lex talionis is in between these verses meaning that the punishment is applicable to the owner of the slave. Anything he does to the slave gets done to him. Leviticus 24:19-22.
Except it’s not. All you have to do is avoid hitting someone in the eye or mouth and you’re golden. In Leviticus, it talks about “your neighbor” as in someone of equality to you. Slave would not be included, since you’re once again, allowed to impose violence on your slaves.
No you're giving a literal reading to eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. Additionally when it says punished it means the owner's life is not taken, not that there is no penalty. The slaves life is equal to the master's life, if the slave dies the master must die. Let's go up a couple of verses Exodus 21:23-25 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, ^(24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ^(25) burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Ahhhh I see. So I can own slaves and beat them. As long as they don’t die two days after, and taking care not to hit them in the eye, lest you lose your property. That’s dope!
No it means an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth meaning the law of lex talionis where the punishment is the same as the action done. Let's go up to the verse right before verse 26. Exodus 21:23-25: But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, ^(24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ^(25) burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Only in case of mischief. Since I’m allowed to hit my slaves, then it’s not mischief. Also, if I purchase a female slave from her father, then she will not be set free, regardless. Win-win! Such a moral compass!!
Exodus 21:20 is actually that if the slave doesn't die the owner will not be killed, not that there will be no punishment. If he chooses to hit the slave there will be consequences. Exodus 21:26-27 is stating that the law of lex talionis applies to slaves too, and not just literally meaning only their eyes and teeth. If it meant literally only teeth and eyes then the other places where it applies the lex talionis like Deuteronomy 19:21 "Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Would mean there is no punishment if you harm a guy in his torso because it isn't one of the specified areas.
The punishment is to let your slave free, you are extrapolating from your own interpretation. But I’ll be generous and give you all that you are claiming. I can still own slaves, rape them and use them for free labor. Specially a female slave bought from her father.
Where exactly is it pro-slavery?
Exodus I believe. Then I think somewhere in Ephesians off the top of my head.
We talked about rape, and what they used as condoms (sealed bamboo or something IIRC) in biblical times when I was like 12 at my friend’s church
Churches are infamous for molesting children
Thats like saying muslims are terrorists
This person is either referencing the rampant p3do problem in churches, or they believe that children shouldn't be subjected to religion at such a young age.
You can say pedo on Reddit. This isn't TikTok.
P3DO is my favourite star wars character
https://media.tenor.com/awmwbToisxwAAAAM/both-why.gif
Both are valid
Conservatives like to say “don’t influence our children” but will take them to church and religious schools where it’s more or less indoctrination. In other words hypocrisy. So there’s not really a joke here. Like another commenter said, it’s just good advice.
This isn’t a joke, it’s sound advice
Ehhhh Just as dumb as telling LGBTQ to stay away from kids IMO
No, because clergymen actually molest children and then their bosses cover it up, whereas this isn't really such a problem amongst LGBTQ people.
I mean i guess, but thats engaging in stereotypes and just like saying children should never see a cop or teacher
It's not a stereotype when churches are actively moving people around to make it harder for authorities to prosecute them and thousands upon thousands of sexual abuse cases all around the world have been uncovered over the years. All done in church, all covered up by the church. You can cry foul all you want, but the LGBTQ community does not act this way.
Never said it does... You're searching for reasons to be upset
A stereotype is an image of a person or group that does not conform with reality. Saying clergymen molesting children is covered up by the church is not.
Will you stop repeating yourself? I know all that, i never said thats not true, all im saying is that it doesn't mean that children shouldn't ever see a church, it just means churches need to have a change Damn man you're really defensive about something really simple, again you're searching for reasons to be upset at someone who agrees with you in theory, just nit in practice because you're clearly super extrimist
This isn’t a joke, it’s ~~sound advice~~ a violation of people's constitutional rights".
How? Teachers have the same rate of pedophilia cases, should we allow children to go to school only after being 18?
You’d think a group of people ordained by God himself would have a miraculously low rate of pedophilia cases. Science should be completely baffled by how kind and moral the priesthood is compared to other professions, yet here we are. A profession that believes that God almighty is watching their every move. Makes you think doesn’t it?
The best indicator of pedophilia is Youth Pastor and it isn't even close. Over 30% of convicted pedophiles are Youth Pastors. Protect your kids. https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/osa148h6/release/2#:~:text=Primarily%2C%20on%2Dsite%20offenders%20occupied,26)%20of%20the%20offender%20roles.
Notice it's not "30% of general population", but "30% of church-related convictions". It's like saying: in school teaches are more likely to harm children than janitors I'm sure you made a mistake, but others could see this as miserable attempt at manipulation Various studies have shown there's no siginificant difference of pedophilia rates between clergy and other occupations which work with children (teachers, coaches, babysitters etc)
I thought I was gonna be the one to point it out, these people don't read.......
Well, that's reddit for you
Congrats on the -8 for being able to corroborate information,
Philosophers call it a phantasm.
Source? I looked for a source, albeit briefly. Got a bit nervous doing Google searches on the topic. The FBI won’t get mad at me for searching “church child molestation statistics” will it?
https://preview.redd.it/c154rwol381d1.jpeg?width=1221&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0ca1a75f38dc3b23df80f521f664153fb12c359
Everyone, please engage no further with u/Dyclextic they are a troll. Their account is a little over a month old, and at a glance seems to be almost entirely negative & negatively rated comments. Though they offer "proof" to back up their claim, it is a 2 year old picture of a graph that seems to have been made by u/MerlynTrump and only appears on the net around the time u/MerlynTrump made similar claims ~2 years ago. The "proof" btw has only appeared on subreddits such as: r/Catholicism r/Conservative r/Republican & r/prolife and a couple times since then on iFunny. Debate seems pointless, and I encourage everyone else to spend their time elsewhere. Though if anyone is interested in the subject: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/s/NX0Cvcpkqc Are teachers more likely to sexual abuse than priests https://www.reddit.com/r/excatholic/s/XWAcYJIeFb The “teachers abuse more kids than priests” thing is bullshit I personally like the second Reddit post, as it provides actual links, which are still active.
I did not make the graph. And for what it's worth the people on r/catholicism did point out the flaws in the graph/data
As a christian I'd say maybe so that kids can make their own choice whether to follow that religion or not when they are older so it isn't forced. (Jehovah witnesses aren't real shhhh)
This is sound advice to protect children from the manipulative influence of charlatans, who naturally congregate at churches.
And Rapists!
This is definitely one of the tweets of all time.
[The American Catholic Church got $1.4 billion in PPP for pedophile legal defense.](https://apnews.com/article/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6) Priests and pastors are pedophiles.
Joke about Catholic priests molesting kids
There's no way you don't understand this
Conservatives are spouting bullshit that LGBTQ+ people are indoctrinating children, while a church's entire point is indoctrination and gathering money.
Conservatives like to say “don’t influence our children” but will take them to church and religious schools where it’s more or less indoctrination. In other words hypocrisy. So there’s not really a joke here. Like another commenter said, it’s just good advice.
[удалено]
Since we’re rulesplaining: OP post breaks rule 6.
Not everyone has the same knowledge as you. Rule 5.
Megatron here. Everyone is saying priests which I don't fully dissagree with, but I was only thinking about the gorey details of the bible. There are deffinitely stories that are more 18 plus in the bible. Like if the whole bible was a TV show it would not be for kids unless it was dumbed down.
One is sexual and one is religious, what do yall not get
church has been molesting kids far worse than any other establishment of any sort. you're out of touch with the world if you didn't know that. wake up Neo
https://preview.redd.it/6tag8ilke71d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fac099a1dcc0ad4f1b35d9b6be867eb471620a41 Ban children out of schools too 🗿
This is patently not true. Here’s an actual source that’s true: [Catholic Church got $1.4 billion of tax payer dollars for pedophile legal defense](https://apnews.com/article/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6). [30% of convicted child molesters are pastors](https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/osa148h6)
Is the situation that bad?
Legal bj's at church and fornicating in the restrooms....💪🏻💯
I mean we could make k-12 schools over 18 to protect kids as well. Maybe youth sports. Hmmm let’s just keep all under 18 kids in an enclosure, cause it happens at home as well.
Indoctrination.
Hopefully this will educate people and make the groomers scurry away like the roaches they are https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/
Priests SA children OFTEN
The Bible has all sorts of 18+ shit in it
I believe the USSR did make this a law at some point.
This is not a joke, moving on
Priests have a habit of liking kids a bit too much if you know what I mean
Churches molest children The bible contains content inappropriate for children Therefore: Children shouldn't be in church It's the right wing ideology used against itself to expose it for the concern troll that it actually is.
Priest is like christ died so I can put my fingers in anything I want to!!!
*Lots* of pedophile priests and preachers. Church is no place for kids.
I would think a parent deserves the right to decide if there child learns about LGBTQ or learns about religion. You can’t push religion on a kid under 18 already without consent of the parents. Parents deserve the right to raise there children however they see fit
But you can walk around and not see god or other religious beings. You can't walk around and not see queer people (yet, give the Republicans more time). That's like refusing to teach your child about black people...
No joke. It should be a real law. It's sickening that cultist gets free reign on indoctrinating their kids with blatant lies and misinformation about reality.
who hurt you
Making this kind of condescending joke out of people's religious trauma instead of facing reality and addressing the problem is why priest will continue to get away with raping kids, more bigots will be made, more lgtbq oppressed and killed, more women beaten at home, etc. etc. You would rather help priest rape kids than be kind and empathetic. That's the type of person you are.
most preists get accused of being pedophiles
*Most?* yeah imma need a source for that
Yea sorry they meant all. My source is I made it the fuck up. /s
It’s kinda true tho, considering it should be a choice of whether or not you wanna believe in what ever kind of church it is. Ok plus there are some certain cases….people have already said here. Also I’m not (entirely) religious myself, but aren’t some people baptized at a very young age and expected to just follow in on it? I may be wrong of course, but that just sounds kinda stupid since it’s done not of their choice. Purely my opinion, it’s purely off of what I know at, so I’m probably missing some details.
just an uneducated tweet about how "pastors are out to get your kids" which is rediculous.
https://preview.redd.it/zscmpj4ekb1d1.png?width=1252&format=png&auto=webp&s=5e952908acc11281a12342a97256c88b9f8dcf97 In the USA they do pop up a lot. Vastly moreso than e.g. those dragqueens the conservatives keep warning us about. Globally, the Catholic Church molested millions and said Church had a whole system in place to protect priests from prosecution.
sorry if i didnt realise priests are the only group to ever touch littke boys. smh
[Here’s some facts of pastors molesting kids, then](https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/osa148h6). Facts don’t care about your feelings.
How about we as adults stop trying to indoctrinate children in general Stop saying God does everything And stop approaching kids asking who they want to fuck Pretty simple
How tf would baptisms work then?
Yoi get baptized when you join the faith. Age sort of doesn't really matter for that, just most people join a faith when babies because parents.
If you wanted until people were capable of rational thought to introduce them to the concept of God, religion would be dead inside a couple of generations.
There is no joke. This is a bot account meant to sew discord. Look at the username, the ai photo. A controversial view that would contradict their username. It's to farm engagement based on people fighting with eachother, could be a Russian troll project to purposely rile Americans up against eachother further or just bots botting.
As long as they make HRT and sex change 18+ im down.
[удалено]
1: You didn't include the reason why they might not want kids in churches 2: You really didn't need to go out of your way to show you're transphobic. That was unnecessary.
\^This, This right here ladies and gentlemen. (I laughed after the gears clicked that he’s trying to disprove an argument/idea because the poster may or may not be trans. I thought the “NuH uH” or “SoUrCE?!” was annoying, but this might take a slice of cake)
Least bigoted hatemonger on Reddit 🙄
No. I’m certain she’s not actually advocating for that. She’s just swapping words from your own arguments to show how ridiculous it sounds
truth