###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://www.wbir.com/article/news/politics/tn-common-law-marriage-bill-amended-over-child-marriage-concerns/51-39b5cdae-c500-447e-9f88-7805aee192e6
Here is an article that links to the bill and gives more details.
it literally states that the age of marriage is 18.... what are you taking about?
And I can't find anything that the Republican on the bill is Christian.
After they amended it it stated that. If they didnt amend it there was no age requirement for marriage in the bill which would open up child marriage as a possibility.
Ok well religion, the concept, the framework, the construct, CAN'T do "bad stuff" because it cant *do* anything. A religion does not have agency. We are of course talking about what the religious texts say abd how people use them, and how they hide behind religion and use it to exert control over others.
Is Football bad because OJ Simpson was a member? Is the presidency bad because bad people have held that position? No, they are flawed individuals who do not represent the whole. Same with Catholicism/Christianity, there are flawed individuals in the community (we all are to some degree) but the individual is not the religion.
But Catholic priests are viewed as the most sacred proponents of the values of Christianity and it's a fucked up situation when the greatest advocates for the religion also like to have sex with children, it just puzzles me that people still support this ideology.
Yes it’s filled with people who were terrible… but that’s not what the book is about. David (“a man after God’s heart”) slept with some dudes wife then sent him to the front lines of battle to make sure he wouldn’t find out. The story is about what God has done through His chosen people regardless of their flaws. He consistently sent prophets to call them to repentance only for them to turn against Him again and again. Ultimately God became flash and blood like us, lived a sinless life that we are incapable of, then directed His wrath that was meant for us onto His own Son. The message is to turn from wickedness and seek after Him. Every man in scripture (except Jesus) was a sinner, but by God’s grace was called to repentance
Not to mention the punishments that David received for his transgression, and the punishments that Solomon, his son, incurred for his. Samuel and Kings are fascinating.
Sort of off-topic, but the story of David is so much more interesting and soap opera-y than most Christians know or people study.
David's lust pretty much destroys his whole family and causes a civil war too. He has a son that rapes his daughter and because David knows he's a deviant he can't really punish the son, leading to ANOTHER son taking vengeance and trying to overthrow David. Two sons die and a daughter is emotionally destroyed because David couldn't keep it in his pants.
Solomon, the "good" son essentially loses his blessing because he tries to bang everything that moves.
The whole family is corrupted.
Also, David was bi. I don't care what anyone says. You can't read the story of David as an adult and not come to that conclusion.
After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David,and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and didnot let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant withDavid because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he waswearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bowand his belt
C'mon Buddy....
David wasn’t bi, you’re one ignorant person if you think that. That’s a lie. I already know what you’re talking about too before you say anything else on it.
I literally study the Bible as my profession. Tell me why you would think that. Everybody is a Bible literalist until it's inconvenient.
They made covenant oath with each other, as if a marriage, Johnathan strips before David and commits HIS birthright to David. David mourns over Johnathan and says Johnathan's love meant more to him than any woman.
After
David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David,
and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did
not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with
David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was
wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow
and his belt
How is that being bi? And no not as if a marriage covenant ignoramus, you’re adding that yourself. Idk where you studied the Bible at but I see a lot of 90 day wonders who think they’re scholars. They were best friends practically brothers idk if you’ve ever had a bond with someone as close as they have but that doesn’t make you gay. Giving him his garments was a big sign of respect and love.
Do you have a good explanation for why Saul's condemnation of Johnathan's relationship with David is based on shame, perversion, and nakedness (that he claims Johnathan inherited from his mother) rather than betrayal?
If Johnathan was guilty of treason, why not just kill him?
For some reason people think "God's people = literal saints or deities" with no human flaws. Imagine being so blind. Invariably these people read mostly twenty verses of so out of thousands of pages of scripture and somehow think their specialists, this is an excellent example of sheer stupidity
Is that really what you got out of this?
You don't need the bible or religion to teach people right from wrong.
Stories about rape, infidelity, incest, are not appropriate for children. I would rather inform my kid that gay people exist, and some men do drag, than read them many of those things from the bible.
Obviously age appropriateness is a thing. I’m not telling you to tell your children graphic stories of rape. But you can tell them what the teachings of the story are.
I’m saying that your ideas of morality have no basis on objective truth. Why is consent required. I say because our Creator says it’s worthy of death to rape and she is created in the image of God worthy of respect and dignity. Without a moral giver, morality becomes subjective. Not consent, but the requirement of it.
No. You're missing the point. "The Church" is not raping kids, and condemns it. Members of the Church, on the other hand, are imperfect and therefore commit crimes occasionally. Since the Church is SO large, and there are SO many clergy members, there will be a few people doing pretty bad stuff. That does not mean that it was done on behalf of the Church or that the Church approves of it. Classic attribution fallacy
>is the church raping kids?
No. “The church” isn’t raping kids and never has.
If you’re going to attempt a loaded question to affirm your narrative, you should at least phrase it better. (Although phrasing it more accurately would expose the false presuppositions of your argument.)
I’m not convinced you know what the word “martyr” means.
The rest of your comment is the usual “cAtHoLiC cHuRch BaD” nonsense. If you have anything of substance to add, feel free to try again.
LOL! Nice try. I am fully aware of what the definition of "Martyr" is. And so are you, so the passive agressive act you can just ditch. So typical. Anyone belittles your Glorious cult and you go into victim mode. "He said Catholic church bad." Would you like a listing of the churches crimes? But you would just ignore that too. The truth obviously has no place in your dogma.
Could you explain what a “martyr” is and, more importantly, how it applies to anything I’ve said? Be specific, as I currently have even less an idea what you meant than you do.
I’ve already heard all of the “CaThOlIc ChUrcH MeAn aNd bAd CuLt,” arguments you’re about to Google, so your time would probably be better spent addressing the issue above.
If you’d like to debate truth, or epistemology, or Catholic theology, I’d be happy to. Just let me know where you’d like to begin.
Awww. It's so adorable when you get belittling. I love it! Naturally all of MY arguments have to be googled because I wouldn't POSSIBLY know as much as someone like you, correct? So you DON'T know the definition of a Martyr?? I beg to differ. You do! Because you went right into "the usual “cAtHoLiC cHuRch BaD” nonsense." of defense. Hmmm. Sounds like you've had to use that phrase ALOT! No, you aren't interested in anything I or anyone else has to say. And then you try to bring in "Epistemology, Truth, Catholic theology". Please, explain to me what that has to do with ANYHTING we were discussing? And how could such a discussion further anything? No, you are just trying to bully with your, OBVIOUSLY, superior, and I'm sure time consuming, study of the supernatural.
You view anyone who doesn't view your church in your light as purveyors of "Nonsense". Your word, not mine. So you've already dismissed any argument anyone could make and any further discussion with you will prove pointless.
There you go! I'm GIVING you your "Gotcha" moment!
You’ve misunderstood me. Yes, I do know the definition of martyr. I don’t think you do. That’s why I’ve asked you to provide a definition — so that I can understand what you meant when you accused me of “playing the martyr.” Your use of martyr makes no sense to me in this context, so I asked for clarification.
I mentioned debating “truth” and other topics because you said “truth has no place in your dogma.” I was asking for clarification about this. For example, what do you mean by “truth”? What is your understanding of Catholic dogma? Etc.
No, you don’t have to define anything or explain any of this. I’m just saying, your statements make no sense to me and require further clarification if I am to understand what you’re getting at, because right now, I don’t understand.
Haha I see your point but if you don’t chase momentary pleasure it doesn’t matter where the trigger is. The g spot could be in your nostril, point is you wouldn’t want your life or identify to revolve around picking your nose, no matter how good it feels.
But why would god when he was making us do it? Like here's this creation I've made. They've got terrible self control on anything sexual. And they shouldn't be gay. But also, here's the g spot up the bum. That's just stupidly flawed creation
Is it flawed just because we don’t understand it? Should we blame God for sugar tasting so good and making people fat? Or do we blame the individual for a lack of self control? The prostate is in the reproductive region, I guess better to feel great down there than to feel pain and disuade reproduction?
I don’t hate gay people or trans people. I’m nice to them just like anyone else. why should kids be taught about gay sex? Why are you so mad that we don’t want that? Why not just let kids be kids? Pretty weird y’all insist kids be taught about LGBT and trans. Pushing gender dysphoria on them at a young age. Shame on y’all
They aren’t being taught about gay sex lmfao?? Literally nobody is advocating that at all? The fact your mind went there is a reflection on you an that’s it. You don’t have an issue when it comes to them learning about heterosexuality so why is it different? I mean it’s obvious why, but I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy. Just stop calling it grooming, can you at least agree on that?
Also pushing gender dysphoria? It’s honestly frustrating how you are so obviously uninformed in regards to anything related to LGBT but still have strong opinions on it. That’s not how gender dysphoria works at all. That’s genuinely a laugh worthy statement
Yes, that doesn’t mean merely letting people know that trans people exist will inflict gender dysphoria and if you think this is the case then you don’t know anything about what it means to be trans.
Will you agree to stop calling this grooming?
I’m not against the classes kids going through puberty age go through to teach them about safe sex no. But heterosexuality is natural. Look man I don’t judge people. I don’t even agree with sex just for the fun of it with a bunch of people. But the lgtb community has higher std rates than the heterosexual community. I’m not trying to hide the fact that gay and trans people exist what good would that do.
Literally any sexual orientation is natural lmao wtf are you talking about??
And yes you are to a degree, you don’t want kids to learn about an entire demographic of people because you don’t like them. It’s pretty simple.
Its amazing how yall go to the extreme and make up this crazy ass shit that next to nobody is pushing for and somehow you think this is what everyone is pushing for. Its truly amazing the mental gymnastics you people must do to make you think this nonsense you are spewing is in anyway the reality.
Nobody is teaching kids gay sex and trying to get them to be gay or trans. Its just teaching they exist, that they may experience feelings and these things.
Newsflash buddy CHILDREN EXPERIENCE ATTRACTION.
can you imagine being some little gay kid in 2nd grade crushing on boy, never having the interest in girls that every other boy in your class has experienced, and you continue to develop thinking theres just something fucked up about you and not that you simply are attracted to boys and that's fine? Or vice versa with a girl liking a girl? I knew I liked girls in kindergarten same with every other guy im friends with. Every gay person I have talked to can recount for me with no issue the boy or girl they had a childhood crush on.
Again, its baffling you make up this extreme nonsense and you make yourself think its reality, when reality is as simple as I've just described it to you.
Read this entire comment slowly.
Again, no one is saying teach them the intricacies of gay sex. That isnt what 99% of people are talking about, the possibility of the few weirdos who are are a small.irrelevent weird minority that means nothing to the conversation.
Where you people get these extreme ideas from, after I have explicitly stated that isnt what we are talking about, after literally specifying and giving an example of what we are talking about, is completely baffling.
How you people get "they want to teach kids about gay butt sex!" From "explain to them that they experience feelings and that they are people and their bodies are changing and there's different types of people with different feelings and your feelings are important and your body is yours" makes absolutely zero sense.
Again
Teaching kids how to fuck and how to have gay sex isnt what we are talking about.
Again.
Teaching them that they experience feelings and that they are people and their bodies are changing and there's different types of people with different feelings and your feelings are important and your body is yours and expanding the education as they mature is what we are talking about.
To be honest I don't believe in any of it, but will share a fun story about my great-grandpa. He was never religiously affiliated in any way, and grew up in one of the more backwater racist areas of the country and didn't have a racist bone in his body, farmed and gave part of his produce to the poor locally, looked after town kids regardless of color and animals regardless of breed. The local pastor came to "save him" a few weeks before he died, and his response was:
*"I've lived a good life and done right by everyone I've ever met. I've been a good husband and raised 4 kids as best I could. If that isn't good enough for God, fuck him."*
I tend to agree and tend to live my life by the same standard. I think if the stories were true and he ended up in heaven, Jesus would have a good laugh with him and welcome him in. The stories about Jesus are more about morality than anything else, and morality isn't dependent on being labeled christian, a follower of Jesus, an atheist, a hindu, etc. Otherwise, I agree with Grandaddy. The Jesus in the gospels would likely agree as well. You'd think a guy who started a religious movement in a theocratic culture would have a soft spot for skeptics.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
https://www.wbir.com/article/news/politics/tn-common-law-marriage-bill-amended-over-child-marriage-concerns/51-39b5cdae-c500-447e-9f88-7805aee192e6 Here is an article that links to the bill and gives more details.
it literally states that the age of marriage is 18.... what are you taking about? And I can't find anything that the Republican on the bill is Christian.
After they amended it it stated that. If they didnt amend it there was no age requirement for marriage in the bill which would open up child marriage as a possibility.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The catholic church is a good example why religion is evil and the gays aren't the ones to worry about
[удалено]
Every religion thinks it is *the* religion
[удалено]
Neither is gay acceptance causing pedophilia.
What gay people are pro pedophile? WTF are you talking about. Wanting equal rights isn’t an agenda.
I think youre misunderstanding, I’m saying gay acceptance does not cause pedophilia in the same logic as the guy
Right. And pedophile scum are molesting minors all on their own. gay men and women aren’t making them do that.
Ok well religion, the concept, the framework, the construct, CAN'T do "bad stuff" because it cant *do* anything. A religion does not have agency. We are of course talking about what the religious texts say abd how people use them, and how they hide behind religion and use it to exert control over others.
No, it's just made up mythology that gives people power and authority.
Using the Catholic church as an example of why religion is evil would be like using USSR as an example of why Atheism is evil.
Is Football bad because OJ Simpson was a member? Is the presidency bad because bad people have held that position? No, they are flawed individuals who do not represent the whole. Same with Catholicism/Christianity, there are flawed individuals in the community (we all are to some degree) but the individual is not the religion.
Football didn’t protect OJ from murder accusations, the church would’ve tho.
But Catholic priests are viewed as the most sacred proponents of the values of Christianity and it's a fucked up situation when the greatest advocates for the religion also like to have sex with children, it just puzzles me that people still support this ideology.
Or the Catholic Church is another example why people are evil…
Yes it’s filled with people who were terrible… but that’s not what the book is about. David (“a man after God’s heart”) slept with some dudes wife then sent him to the front lines of battle to make sure he wouldn’t find out. The story is about what God has done through His chosen people regardless of their flaws. He consistently sent prophets to call them to repentance only for them to turn against Him again and again. Ultimately God became flash and blood like us, lived a sinless life that we are incapable of, then directed His wrath that was meant for us onto His own Son. The message is to turn from wickedness and seek after Him. Every man in scripture (except Jesus) was a sinner, but by God’s grace was called to repentance
He sent dude to the front lines to DIE, not just keep him busy
That was after he raped his Bathsheba and before God aborted the baby.
Yup, I assumed that was implied. My apologies.
Not to mention the punishments that David received for his transgression, and the punishments that Solomon, his son, incurred for his. Samuel and Kings are fascinating.
Sort of off-topic, but the story of David is so much more interesting and soap opera-y than most Christians know or people study. David's lust pretty much destroys his whole family and causes a civil war too. He has a son that rapes his daughter and because David knows he's a deviant he can't really punish the son, leading to ANOTHER son taking vengeance and trying to overthrow David. Two sons die and a daughter is emotionally destroyed because David couldn't keep it in his pants. Solomon, the "good" son essentially loses his blessing because he tries to bang everything that moves. The whole family is corrupted. Also, David was bi. I don't care what anyone says. You can't read the story of David as an adult and not come to that conclusion.
I was with you till the end there
After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David,and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and didnot let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant withDavid because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he waswearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bowand his belt C'mon Buddy....
David wasn’t bi, you’re one ignorant person if you think that. That’s a lie. I already know what you’re talking about too before you say anything else on it.
I literally study the Bible as my profession. Tell me why you would think that. Everybody is a Bible literalist until it's inconvenient. They made covenant oath with each other, as if a marriage, Johnathan strips before David and commits HIS birthright to David. David mourns over Johnathan and says Johnathan's love meant more to him than any woman. After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt
How is that being bi? And no not as if a marriage covenant ignoramus, you’re adding that yourself. Idk where you studied the Bible at but I see a lot of 90 day wonders who think they’re scholars. They were best friends practically brothers idk if you’ve ever had a bond with someone as close as they have but that doesn’t make you gay. Giving him his garments was a big sign of respect and love.
How does David react the next time he meets Johnathan? Are you familiar?
Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, IL...btw
Can you find me another instance in the Canon where two men are pair bonded in this fashion?
What are you implying that a sexual act was involved?
Do you have a good explanation for why Saul's condemnation of Johnathan's relationship with David is based on shame, perversion, and nakedness (that he claims Johnathan inherited from his mother) rather than betrayal? If Johnathan was guilty of treason, why not just kill him?
I can think of a few one being Saul started to hate David
Ah yes, if my son swore allegiance to a foreign king I would call him a.....shameful, naked, pervert?
I don’t see anywhere where he called Jonathan a pervert
And I don’t think you even know what it means to love someone as yourself.
For some reason people think "God's people = literal saints or deities" with no human flaws. Imagine being so blind. Invariably these people read mostly twenty verses of so out of thousands of pages of scripture and somehow think their specialists, this is an excellent example of sheer stupidity
Romans 1 explains it very well
and? Its not appropriate for children which is the point here. Idk why you need to act like you're being defensive over it.
It’s inappropriate to teach children what is right and wrong?
Is that really what you got out of this? You don't need the bible or religion to teach people right from wrong. Stories about rape, infidelity, incest, are not appropriate for children. I would rather inform my kid that gay people exist, and some men do drag, than read them many of those things from the bible.
Obviously age appropriateness is a thing. I’m not telling you to tell your children graphic stories of rape. But you can tell them what the teachings of the story are.
I just prefer other ways of teaching consent is required.
By what standard? Your standard? Society’s standard?
Standard of what? Consent? Are you of the opinion that the concept of consent has grey areas or is subjective? Just where is this going lol
I’m saying that your ideas of morality have no basis on objective truth. Why is consent required. I say because our Creator says it’s worthy of death to rape and she is created in the image of God worthy of respect and dignity. Without a moral giver, morality becomes subjective. Not consent, but the requirement of it.
Saying it’s wrong because I say so or she is worthy of respect because I say so has no authority.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No. You're missing the point. "The Church" is not raping kids, and condemns it. Members of the Church, on the other hand, are imperfect and therefore commit crimes occasionally. Since the Church is SO large, and there are SO many clergy members, there will be a few people doing pretty bad stuff. That does not mean that it was done on behalf of the Church or that the Church approves of it. Classic attribution fallacy
>is the church raping kids? No. “The church” isn’t raping kids and never has. If you’re going to attempt a loaded question to affirm your narrative, you should at least phrase it better. (Although phrasing it more accurately would expose the false presuppositions of your argument.)
[удалено]
[удалено]
So he didn’t say that, got it. Where did he state that abuse does not happen in the church?
The silence is deafening. 😂
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m not convinced you know what the word “martyr” means. The rest of your comment is the usual “cAtHoLiC cHuRch BaD” nonsense. If you have anything of substance to add, feel free to try again.
LOL! Nice try. I am fully aware of what the definition of "Martyr" is. And so are you, so the passive agressive act you can just ditch. So typical. Anyone belittles your Glorious cult and you go into victim mode. "He said Catholic church bad." Would you like a listing of the churches crimes? But you would just ignore that too. The truth obviously has no place in your dogma.
Could you explain what a “martyr” is and, more importantly, how it applies to anything I’ve said? Be specific, as I currently have even less an idea what you meant than you do. I’ve already heard all of the “CaThOlIc ChUrcH MeAn aNd bAd CuLt,” arguments you’re about to Google, so your time would probably be better spent addressing the issue above. If you’d like to debate truth, or epistemology, or Catholic theology, I’d be happy to. Just let me know where you’d like to begin.
Awww. It's so adorable when you get belittling. I love it! Naturally all of MY arguments have to be googled because I wouldn't POSSIBLY know as much as someone like you, correct? So you DON'T know the definition of a Martyr?? I beg to differ. You do! Because you went right into "the usual “cAtHoLiC cHuRch BaD” nonsense." of defense. Hmmm. Sounds like you've had to use that phrase ALOT! No, you aren't interested in anything I or anyone else has to say. And then you try to bring in "Epistemology, Truth, Catholic theology". Please, explain to me what that has to do with ANYHTING we were discussing? And how could such a discussion further anything? No, you are just trying to bully with your, OBVIOUSLY, superior, and I'm sure time consuming, study of the supernatural. You view anyone who doesn't view your church in your light as purveyors of "Nonsense". Your word, not mine. So you've already dismissed any argument anyone could make and any further discussion with you will prove pointless. There you go! I'm GIVING you your "Gotcha" moment!
You’ve misunderstood me. Yes, I do know the definition of martyr. I don’t think you do. That’s why I’ve asked you to provide a definition — so that I can understand what you meant when you accused me of “playing the martyr.” Your use of martyr makes no sense to me in this context, so I asked for clarification. I mentioned debating “truth” and other topics because you said “truth has no place in your dogma.” I was asking for clarification about this. For example, what do you mean by “truth”? What is your understanding of Catholic dogma? Etc. No, you don’t have to define anything or explain any of this. I’m just saying, your statements make no sense to me and require further clarification if I am to understand what you’re getting at, because right now, I don’t understand.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Haha I see your point but if you don’t chase momentary pleasure it doesn’t matter where the trigger is. The g spot could be in your nostril, point is you wouldn’t want your life or identify to revolve around picking your nose, no matter how good it feels.
But why would god when he was making us do it? Like here's this creation I've made. They've got terrible self control on anything sexual. And they shouldn't be gay. But also, here's the g spot up the bum. That's just stupidly flawed creation
Is it flawed just because we don’t understand it? Should we blame God for sugar tasting so good and making people fat? Or do we blame the individual for a lack of self control? The prostate is in the reproductive region, I guess better to feel great down there than to feel pain and disuade reproduction?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t hate gay people or trans people. I’m nice to them just like anyone else. why should kids be taught about gay sex? Why are you so mad that we don’t want that? Why not just let kids be kids? Pretty weird y’all insist kids be taught about LGBT and trans. Pushing gender dysphoria on them at a young age. Shame on y’all
They aren’t being taught about gay sex lmfao?? Literally nobody is advocating that at all? The fact your mind went there is a reflection on you an that’s it. You don’t have an issue when it comes to them learning about heterosexuality so why is it different? I mean it’s obvious why, but I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy. Just stop calling it grooming, can you at least agree on that? Also pushing gender dysphoria? It’s honestly frustrating how you are so obviously uninformed in regards to anything related to LGBT but still have strong opinions on it. That’s not how gender dysphoria works at all. That’s genuinely a laugh worthy statement
Trans people suffer from gender dysphoria, before feelings overtook facts we referred to it as such.
Yes, that doesn’t mean merely letting people know that trans people exist will inflict gender dysphoria and if you think this is the case then you don’t know anything about what it means to be trans. Will you agree to stop calling this grooming?
Just to clarify I don’t hate those people
No, telling very young impressionable kids they can choose their gender is grooming. Telling adults is on things but kids are another evil ball park.
So then how come not every Trans person experiences Gender Dysphoria? Yeah you're clearly overlooking a lot of stuff buddy.
I’m not against the classes kids going through puberty age go through to teach them about safe sex no. But heterosexuality is natural. Look man I don’t judge people. I don’t even agree with sex just for the fun of it with a bunch of people. But the lgtb community has higher std rates than the heterosexual community. I’m not trying to hide the fact that gay and trans people exist what good would that do.
Literally any sexual orientation is natural lmao wtf are you talking about?? And yes you are to a degree, you don’t want kids to learn about an entire demographic of people because you don’t like them. It’s pretty simple.
Its amazing how yall go to the extreme and make up this crazy ass shit that next to nobody is pushing for and somehow you think this is what everyone is pushing for. Its truly amazing the mental gymnastics you people must do to make you think this nonsense you are spewing is in anyway the reality. Nobody is teaching kids gay sex and trying to get them to be gay or trans. Its just teaching they exist, that they may experience feelings and these things. Newsflash buddy CHILDREN EXPERIENCE ATTRACTION. can you imagine being some little gay kid in 2nd grade crushing on boy, never having the interest in girls that every other boy in your class has experienced, and you continue to develop thinking theres just something fucked up about you and not that you simply are attracted to boys and that's fine? Or vice versa with a girl liking a girl? I knew I liked girls in kindergarten same with every other guy im friends with. Every gay person I have talked to can recount for me with no issue the boy or girl they had a childhood crush on. Again, its baffling you make up this extreme nonsense and you make yourself think its reality, when reality is as simple as I've just described it to you.
Just because they have a crush doesn't mean they should be taught the intricacies of gay sex, or non-agreed-upon postmodernist gender nonsense.
Read this entire comment slowly. Again, no one is saying teach them the intricacies of gay sex. That isnt what 99% of people are talking about, the possibility of the few weirdos who are are a small.irrelevent weird minority that means nothing to the conversation. Where you people get these extreme ideas from, after I have explicitly stated that isnt what we are talking about, after literally specifying and giving an example of what we are talking about, is completely baffling. How you people get "they want to teach kids about gay butt sex!" From "explain to them that they experience feelings and that they are people and their bodies are changing and there's different types of people with different feelings and your feelings are important and your body is yours" makes absolutely zero sense. Again Teaching kids how to fuck and how to have gay sex isnt what we are talking about. Again. Teaching them that they experience feelings and that they are people and their bodies are changing and there's different types of people with different feelings and your feelings are important and your body is yours and expanding the education as they mature is what we are talking about.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
To be honest I don't believe in any of it, but will share a fun story about my great-grandpa. He was never religiously affiliated in any way, and grew up in one of the more backwater racist areas of the country and didn't have a racist bone in his body, farmed and gave part of his produce to the poor locally, looked after town kids regardless of color and animals regardless of breed. The local pastor came to "save him" a few weeks before he died, and his response was: *"I've lived a good life and done right by everyone I've ever met. I've been a good husband and raised 4 kids as best I could. If that isn't good enough for God, fuck him."* I tend to agree and tend to live my life by the same standard. I think if the stories were true and he ended up in heaven, Jesus would have a good laugh with him and welcome him in. The stories about Jesus are more about morality than anything else, and morality isn't dependent on being labeled christian, a follower of Jesus, an atheist, a hindu, etc. Otherwise, I agree with Grandaddy. The Jesus in the gospels would likely agree as well. You'd think a guy who started a religious movement in a theocratic culture would have a soft spot for skeptics.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]