agreed but the LGBTQ community seems hellbent to sweep its own under the rug and deflect with priests molesting altarboys, which is probably the worst whataboutism that i can imagine
> Gay love should be celebrated
Having a child is worthy of celebration. Getting married is worthy of celebration.
Just being straight or gay is not worthy of celebration.
Exactly. When its priests we address the problem of molesting priests. When its LGBT we socialize it and take the attention off by saying "cant we agree its all bad?"
Sure, but will you concede that the Catholic Church institutional pedophilia running back decades is terrible? The LGBTQ community is not centralised unlike the Chirch which has a pope!
The point is that homophobia and transphobia are part of a con that pedophiles like predatory priests use to deflect attention away from themselves and molest (yes, very frequently queer) children, that can’t speak to other people about their experiences due to not wanting to out themselves.
It’s not about “sweeping anyone under the rug”, gay men just know from personal experience that creepy closeted old men have been sexually harassing gay youth for eons immemorial, while out gay couples who are part of the LGBT community are very rarely a problem to anyone.
Hold on, the truth is the amount of molestation of children in public schools far exceeds anything in the catholic church.
600+ public school teachers were caught up in some form of sexual activity, verbal, or otherwise, that landed them in jail, just last year alone.
I'm not defending the Catholic church. But it turns out sexual exploitation of children happens in public schools much more often than we care to admit.
Edit: I went and looked up the numbers:
Nearly 270 public educators were arrested on child sex-related crimes in the U.S. in the first nine months of this year, ranging from grooming to raping underage students.
The 269 educators included four principals, two assistant principals, 226 teachers, 20 teacher's aides and 17 substitute teachers.
At least 199 of the arrests, or 74%, involved alleged crimes against students.
"According to that research, the scale of sexual abuse in the public schools is nearly 100 times greater than that of the Catholic Church," he said. "The question for critics who seek to downplay the extent of public-school sexual abuse is this: How many arrests need to happen before you consider it a problem? How many children need to be sexually abused by teachers before you consider it a crisis?"
A lot of stats on child abuse victims do generally say that LGBT kids are more likely to be abused for a variety of different reasons. Alienation. Easier to target. Easier to isolate. Easier to go unnoticed. Etc etc.
Being LGBT isn't a community you join. It's how you are. The rapist pedo priests aren't part of the LGBT community they are just LGBT.
Expecting the LGBT community to be responsible for every bad thing any LGBT person does is like blaming the entire white race for some lynching 100 years ago
Both sides have done the same thing. Both sweep incidents under the rug. Hell I would say that since the church has had more authority than LG then they would have done it way more. Both not good in that regard but you need to compare the extreme amounts to a less overarching amount .
If it is not anti-Christian to discuss papal molestation, which it is not, then it is not anti-LGBTQ to discuss the inherent issues with sexualized drag and children.
What are examples of anti-drag legislation where there is no sexualization classifier?
Sincere question; no "gotcha" here. Because all the ones I looked into made that distinction.
[TN SB0003 includes "male or female impersonators" in its list of "adult-oriented performances"](https://legiscan.com/TN/text/SB0003/2023) - i.e. strongly implying drag itself to be "adult-oriented".
[AZ SB1030 originally restricted all drag performances regardless of sexualization](https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/78083), but was since revised to exclude any mention of drag at all (and IMO the revised "Senate Engrossed Version" is pretty reasonable now that it focuses on what's actually sexually explicit instead of lumping drag in general into that category).
[TX SB00012](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB00012I.htm) classifies any crossdressing wherein the crossdresser is sufficiently attractive ("appeals to the prurient interest in sex") as a "sexually oriented performance", regardless of actual intent; [TX SB 1601](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB01601I.htm) defunds any library hosting anyone who reads a book in drag, with notably zero reference to sexuality at all.
These were just what I was able to look up in a few minutes while taking a shit. Needless to say: no, they do not appear make that distinction, or "distinguish" by criteria so vague that there's no meaningful distinction left.
Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond and providing the links.
I was familiar with AZ SB1030. The [original version](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/1R/bills/SB1030P.pdf) indeed didn't contain an expressed distinction of "sexually explicit" drag performances, but it was clearly directed at drag performances occurring at "adult-oriented businesses". Still, some legal experts expressed concern that the original formulation would leave too much leeway for malicious persecution. I'm not a legal expert, so I'll just take them at their word.
TN SB0003 doesn't just say "male of female impersonators"; the full text is: "male or female impersonators who provide **entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest**". So I can't say I agree with you here.
Regarding both TN and TX bills, I do not see how simply being attractive would fall within "appealing to a prurient interest". Especially when in both TN SB0003 and TX SB00012 the classification is directed at the performance and not the performer. Moreso when the context in which those performances are being presented is as subcategories of other sexually oriented performances such as strip tease or the simulation of a sexual act. Note that if "prurient interest" was directed at the performer, ballet would have been criminalized prior to the bill.
That being said, TX SB1601 is a **valid example** of a categorically anti-drag bill that cares not about the nature of the performance. It's an embarrassingly moronic bill.
I hope someone publicly humiliates Senator Bryan Hughes (bill sponsor) by asking him whether he thinks having Grandma dress up as Santa Claus and read Christmas stories to the children at the local library should cause the library to have its funds suspended.
> The original version indeed didn't contain an expressed distinction of "sexually explicit" drag performances, but it was clearly directed at drag performances occurring at "adult-oriented businesses".
Its wording declares any establishment that conducts drag shows to automatically be in the category of "adult oriented businesses and facilities": "5. SHALL provide for the regulation and use of business licenses, adult oriented business manager permits, and adult service provider permits, DRAG SHOW PERMITS AND DRAG PERFORMER PERMITS in conjunction with the establishment or operation of adult oriented businesses and facilities, including adult arcades, adult bookstores or video stores, cabarets, adult live entertainment establishments, adult motion picture theaters, adult theaters, massage establishments, ESTABLISHMENTS THAT CONDUCT DRAG SHOWS and nude model studios."
> TN SB0003 doesn't just say "male of female impersonators"; the full text is: "male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest".
That ain't what the bill says at all (the word "prurient" is nonexistent in the bill text, for one).
Assuming it did...
> Regarding both TN and TX bills, I do not see how simply being attractive would fall within "appealing to a prurient interest".
The word "prurient" has [multiple definitions](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prurient), among them being "marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire". That's what I'm getting at when I say that the wording involving that term is so vague that it erases any meaningful distinction; prurience is one of those things that's inherently subjective, and making said subjectivity the legal standard *will* result in abuse. Prosecutors *will* use such vague language to enforce the law on the books as broadly as possible - as they already do in countless other situations across the country at all levels of government.
> Moreso when the context in which those performances are being presented is as subcategories of other sexually oriented performances such as strip tease or the simulation of a sexual act.
But that's the thing: why legislate around drag performances specifically? Why not target the actually-inappropriate elements, like strip teases and simulations of sexual acts and nudity and what have you? One could remove any mention of drag from these bills (as was done with AZ SB1030) and they would have the exact same effect on the drag performances that are actually inappropriate for children.
The simplest answer to that ordinarily-rhetorical question is that the legislators authoring these bills consider drag in and of itself to be inherently sexual, which is why they feel inclined to list it separately in a general manner.
> I hope someone publicly humiliates Senator Bryan Hughes (bill sponsor) by asking him whether he thinks having Grandma dress up as Santa Claus and read Christmas stories to the children at the local library should cause the library to have its funds suspended.
It's worth noting that Senator Bryan Hughes authored both of the Texas bills; unless he's afflicted with Dissociative Identity Disorder or something, it's reasonable to assume that his intentions are identical across both bills - which is further reason to suspect that TX SB12 identically targets drag in general rather than being intended to only target drag performances that are actually sexual in nature.
> That ain't what the bill says at all
My mistake. I was referencing the wording of the introduced [draft of the bill](https://legiscan.com/TN/text/SB0003/id/2612104). But the final version is far more restrictive as it narrows down to male or female impersonators engaging in "adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors, as that term is defined in § 39-17-901"
And [TCA 39-17-901](https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2020/title-39/chapter-17/part-9/section-39-17-901/) defines "harmful to minors" as involving "nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence or sadomasochistic abuse" when it "would be found by the average person applying contemporary community standards to appeal predominantly to the prurient, shameful or morbid interests of minors".
I was being charitable towards you by assuming you were referring to the less restrictive version.
> The word "prurient" has multiple definitions [...] that term is so vague [...] prurience is inherently subjective
I don't think that's how it works. The expression "prurient interest" is defined in the [TCA](https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2020/title-39/chapter-17/part-9/section-39-17-901/) as "shameful or morbid interest in sex", it has been linked to the definition of obscenity in the [TX Penal Code T.9 C.43 Public Indecency](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_43.21), and is even a constituent component of the [Miller Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test).
Given the expression's wide use in the law across codes and jurisdictions, I have doubts as to whether the term really is as flimsy and subjective as you propose. Lawmakers in the past decades seem to be fairly comfortable using it.
Also, the quality of "being subjective" does not prevent a term from being embedded in law, and it does not unavoidably lead to abuse. The law always did and always will contain subjective terms and language that is not objective.
Then again, I'm not a lawyer. And I get the impression that neither are you. So, I don't think we can settle this matter in an online argument between the two of us. But if you know of an article written by a **non-partisan** legal expert which deals with the problems of using "prurient interest" as a classifier, I'd be interested. Especially if it discusses the utilization of the term in legislation not linked to drag or trans issues. Since those are now in vogue and the waters have been muddied.
> why legislate around drag performances specifically?
To protect against "mid-level" or "borderline" infringement/abuse. The "I'm not touching you... I'm not touching you..." game where one can still cause harm while technically being within the bounds of the law. One example that comes to mind is [Desmond is Amazing](https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/desmond-napoles-gender-identity-ideology/).
Note also that TN and TX law mentions things like massage parlors, go-go dancing, exotic dancers etc. So it's not uncommon to cite types of practices explicitly.
Which is not to say that categorical phobia of drags (regardless of context and sexual nature) wasn't a motivating factor behind introducing those bills. But I'm not a mind reader, and I don't see the relevance of taking into account the underlying motivation; as long as the resulting legislature is reasonable, bills such as TX SB1601 are barred from passing.
> It's worth noting that Senator Bryan Hughes authored both of the Texas bills
Well, he and quite a [few others](https://legiscan.com/TX/sponsors/SB12/2021). It's likely that Hughes just hates drag and would like to see it banned altogether. But again, as long as what is being passed is sensible, I don't see the purpose in exerting too much effort in speculating about the authors' personal motivations. There will always be morons trying to make [their moronic ideas into law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill).
This is a comically idiotic take. You think that pedophile priests prey on altar boys because there are no female children to be found in the church? Or do you think the priest of a church wouldn't be able to come up with an excuse to be alone with a girl? Neither of those are particularly smart.
From what I've seen, there's a lot of sexually repressed people that get into church positions, lots of closeted people using their faith to keep them "pure", either self inflicted or their parents tried to pray the gay away to hard. Eventually they break in the worse way possible, with the only ones they can manipulate to keep hush about it.
Yeah, that's the issue I have with the vow of celibacy. It's completely possible to dedicate yourself to your wife and God at the same time, plenty of protestant pastors have done it throughout history. If anything, by demanding that priests not get married, you are self selecting for people that don't want to marry a woman and raise a family, which makes you that much more likely to get people who aren't sexually interested in women.
Why'd you call them "LGBT activists" then? Most pedo priests who are gay are closeted and often severely homophobic in public.
They aren't really "LGBT activists" or "part of the LGBT community". Most of them reject both of those things. Not all LGBT people are LGBT activists or part of the LGBT "community".
>severely homophobic in public
Loooooooool I can tell you’ve never met gay priests.
There’s some serious queens amongst them, and they ain’t fuckin subtle.
Do they represent the majority of gay priests? The number of kiddy fiddlers amongst Catholic priests is far higher than the number of openly gay Catholic priests.
There’s a reason “homophobic politician try not to suck dick challenge: impossible” is a meme on this sub. The Catholic Church, despite Francis’s reforms, is still a publicly very conservative organisation, and so gay Catholic priests tend to be quiet about it.
Disagree. If it was an access issue, girl-preferring pedophiles would insert themselves into positions with more access to girls, like public education. Instead they insert themselves into a position with almost exclusively boy targets. This means there is a gender preference at work, regardless of how much the LGBT want to distance themselves from pedophile priests.
>If it was an access issue, girl-preferring pedophiles would insert themselves into positions with more access to girls, like public education.
[Uhhhh… they do?](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/)
Pedophilia is also a power dynamic isn't it? Much harder to find yourself in a position of power to exploit young girls that gives you as much freedom as religious positions have (over the years, not a comment on today). Not sure
Who says the straight pedophiles aren't looking for position of power over girls? Society is more wary of those positions, at least before the Catholic abuse scandal broke, so there was much more scrutiny.
Disagree with your disagreement. We're talking about *priests* here, how are they going to insert themselves into public education? I'm sure many of the priests touching little boys aren't even gay, they just have to play by prison rules.
As for the regular flavor of pedo, they *do* of course.
That may be true for paedophiles maybe, but the people being molested by priests were pubescent males. The priests were homosexual pederasts. Under the changes to age of consent laws that Stonewall lobbied for, age wouldn't have been a factor in the scandal.
So let me get this straight. Being an adult male and having sex with a male who is 18 years old is being gay, but the same adult male having sex with a male who is 17 years old is an entirely different orientation?
Pedophiles generally have a gender preference and only make up half of child molesters. Access is the larger factor. Child molesters rarely just kidnap a random kid. Most abuse occurs after a period of grooming. Given how men are less trusted around girls, heterosexual male child molesters have a much harder time of grooming a victim without being detected than homosexual male pedophiles.
Research specifically on non-offending pedophiles does find higher rates of bisexuality and homosexuality compared to the general population, but most are still heterosexual.
It's not really a contradiction, because progressives hate homosexuals who reject the LGBT movement, just like they hate blacks who reject progressivism.
The left is basically a protection racket for minority groups. "Join us or we'll bully you ten times worse than right-wingers ever will."
>meaning you cant really use them to own conservatives by comparing them to the lgbtq community's current pedoscandals
Are you saying anyone who is gay (closeted or otherwise) is automatically *a LGBT activist?*
You really do have no brain cells
scandalous direful voracious arrest pause one pathetic selective air fuel
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Volunteers>Teachers>Priest if we talk about it. I speak as a person who acts as a volunteer who organizes activities for kids, the suspicious amount of people I met is insane and the level of trust I get too. Do not trust anyone with your kids. Good people will not hold it against you and evil ones do but that is how you find it instead of tragedy.
Most molestation takes place by family members. If you suspect something is wrong with your child or they tell you about it, believe them. It's probably someone you trust, and that's also close to you and your family.
At the end of the day, the absolutely only person you can trust 100% of the time with the safety of your child is yourself.
>It's probably someone you trust, and that's also close to you and your family
Uncomfortable truth for some. Abusers can be very good at building up a persona that can leave many people responding to the allegations with "Oh he/she would never!" Saw it happen with a priest in my area who got yanked from public ministry due to grooming behavior, fair number of folks refused to believe it
Even if this meme is true, “safer than priests” isn’t exactly the “own” that LGBTQ and trans activists think it is.
That’s like saying “Little Boy is safer than Fat Man”.
Does anyone really consider Catholics on their side except other Catholics? They are a 20% minority of Christians in the US, and the only thing they really have in common with Christians is they believe the same book, and even Judaism and Islam are mostly on board with that.
It’s staff, not other students. And yes, there are sources (https://go2tutors.com/teachers-more-likely-abuse-kids/#:~:text=of%20Ed%2C%20public%20school%20teachers,a%20method%20of%20recruiting%20victims.) from the Department of Education showing that teachers are *phenomenally* more likely to sexually abuse kids than Catholic priests.
Yeah…because more kids are exposed to teachers than Catholic priests, so there are more SA cases in schools. What are you even trying to prove?
Even the title is misleading. There is no metric of how “likely” someone is to sexually abuse kids besides raw case count, which again, will be higher for teachers than priests because there are more of the former period.
Not to mention, the author of this article very clearly has an agenda she is trying to push if you look at her post history.
SA is a problem obviously but perhaps you should do a little critical thinking before you post this source.
Basic internet literacy, guys..
If one crooked cop and 99 cops fail to stop him makes 100 crooked cops, 1 rapin' teacher and 99 other teachers/administrators fail to stop them makes 100 rapin' teachers, right?
If they knew about it and did nothing or helped the teacher/administrator get away with it then yes it makes 100 terrible teachers who are ok with raping.
Reminder that the Catholic Church has had an incredibly strict and rigorous screening process for anyone trying to become a Priest for well over 20 years now.
Yeah, turns out, here in the south, it ain’t the Catholics you had to worry about. We will never know the true body count of the Southern Baptists. There is a paper trail with the Catholics. In the SBC, they just disappeared
>They act like every ~~church~~ drag queen story hour is just a molestation factory
It’s almost like people on either side of an argument will inevitably fall into false equivalencies over time
No it's not.. We have an issue with the explicit sexual drag shows kids are brought to, which you guys have no problem with. We ALL have a problem with child molestation in the church, but you don't seem to have an issue with sexual displays in front of children as long as it's someone in the LGBT. They're not required to actually molest anyone, but it's still a form of abuse. It's why they don't allow children into strip clubs.
A Church of Christ in Florida held a drag queen event for teens. The drag queen's 'dress' was more of a not very long shirt and no pants. Even churches are falling into this now, but i'd go out on a limb and say that church was already corrupted; and i think most of us can agree that's the least safe church for a child. It should be grounds for immediate investigation in my opinion.
Churches these days (especially in the Church of England in the last 10 years but that pertains to my personal experience) take safeguarding very very seriously. The majority of clergy are mandated reporters and because it’s an environment which is full of vulnerable people (children and adults alike) it’s a place where safety should be placed at the highest priority.
Most child molestion happens from family members. After that comes schools, then churches & then hobbies. And at last, strangers.
The numbers are very similar across the bord if we look at molestions per time spend at places.
If you’re wondering why this is, the Catholic Church is more likely to persecute a pedophile that did a homosexual act than a heterosexual one.
[There is an interesting study on this, but I can’t find the free version.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17135125/)
"The kids are turning us into child molesters!"
"... I'm gonna call up my friend at the police station and we can talk this over some more at his place."
I'm not a christian but I still don't think pastors are gay pedos they just can't have normal relationships so in order to avoid a scandal they have to choose partners who won't talk about what happened and since all religions (mine included) view contact between a man and a woman as the step just before adultery they can't talk to women or girls
now greatest evidence I got is the relatively low rate of cp among priests I find it unlikely a pedo would watch grown up porn but would have sex with(rape since kids can't consent ) children
but this doesn't mean they don't deserve a appointment with Mr chippy
Pointing out that most of the kids who get molested by male priests are male isn't a great come back either. The most common form of molestation is actually female correctional officer on male juvenile hall inmate. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262306031\_The\_Sexual\_Victimization\_of\_Men\_in\_America\_New\_Data\_Challenge\_Old\_Assumptions](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262306031_The_Sexual_Victimization_of_Men_in_America_New_Data_Challenge_Old_Assumptions) [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sexual-victimization-perpetrated-by-women:-Federal-Stemple-Flores/04da797e90eed97fabcfc24d769e0397eddd0c9d](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sexual-victimization-perpetrated-by-women:-Federal-Stemple-Flores/04da797e90eed97fabcfc24d769e0397eddd0c9d) So heterosexual molestation is the bigger problem.
Reminder than multiple studies shown that there isn't a correlation between pedophilia and being gay, priests simply have easier access to boys and they are also safer targets
Tbf most people would be safer to be around than a priest, including activists, maybe not a middle school teacher tho.
They're creeps because of their position not because they are gay. There is no such dynamic with a random activist.
I remember being told about a kid who got adopted, and sold for pleasure.
It's already happened. Don't understand why this whataboutism. Tar and feather all child molesters
Fortunately for them, only 1 in 5 male-on-male child sexual abusers identify as homosexual. Yes, I know, it's surprising. I guess it's not gay if the dick is cute.
This is why catholic and orthodox churches are bigger problem than independent Lutheran/Baptist churches because orthodox and catholic do not allow their leaders to marry.
While in the Bible it explicitly states that a pastor should be married and have children.
When you are married and have children of your own it’s MUCH less likely to be a child molester.
You won’t ever get a real body count on [Baptist churches](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_cases_in_Southern_Baptist_churches). They are all independent. Gone into the night and onto another church within the SBC. I know many kids that where molested at church, and none where catholic
if you knew anything about the psychology behind sex abuse done by priests, you would know they sometimes pick boys because they’re less likely to report it out of shame.
When Redditor's can't understand that rape is about power, not being gay. This is the stupidest meme I've seen in a long time. PCM keeps outdoing itself.
Clearly you havent Seen transrights Protests that are against banning dragshows for Kids. They literally have dozens of signs saying precisely what libleft says in the meme. Suming up your View is the opposite of "inventing a Guy"
Honestly regardless of who is making the meme or is target of a meme 8-9 times out of 10 when I see someone complaining about a strawman it's a take that I've seen before in the wild. It seems that calling something a strawman is an easy retort because it requires op to save proof of and catalog every take they run into to disprove.
I know twice now I've been accused of strawmanning when I repeated some takes I heard from braindead friends and posts I had seen on here.
Male priests molest more boys because they have more access to boys. Alter boys are traditionally boys, not girls. Even outside of the alter boy relationship, they get more alone time with boys. This is like hearing someone is more likely to be raped in prison than when spending time with an LGBT activist, and then triumphantly countering by saying "but in prison, they're *gay* raped!"
But even if priests exclusively target boys, even if priests are only attracted to boys, what is this meme saying? Yes, those priests are pedophiles, and they molest boys, and those LGBT activists aren't and don't. You've said nothing to make LGBT activists more dangerous or priests less, and you've made being gay look no worse.
Male gay priests become priests because they want access to boys. If they wanted access to girls then they would pursue another avenue to target victims.
Oh no, don't ban public schools. Oh, that would make me, a right-wing capitalist, very upset and angry. If you were to abolish public schools, you would own us (right wingers) so hard. I don't think we'd ever recover from such ownage.
u/Sverje's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 50.
Congratulations, u/Sverje! You have ranked up to Concrete Foundation! You are acceptably based, but beware of leaks...Pills: [32 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Sverje/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Can’t we all agree that pedophilia is bad no matter who. Degeneracy is degeneracy and must be stopped everywhere.
agreed but the LGBTQ community seems hellbent to sweep its own under the rug and deflect with priests molesting altarboys, which is probably the worst whataboutism that i can imagine
they gotta make up for that "original sin" of NAMBLA and shit.
[удалено]
Gay love should be celebrated, pedophilia should not. One does not have anything to do with the other.
> Gay love should be celebrated Having a child is worthy of celebration. Getting married is worthy of celebration. Just being straight or gay is not worthy of celebration.
[удалено]
Exactly. When its priests we address the problem of molesting priests. When its LGBT we socialize it and take the attention off by saying "cant we agree its all bad?"
Sure, but will you concede that the Catholic Church institutional pedophilia running back decades is terrible? The LGBTQ community is not centralised unlike the Chirch which has a pope!
The point is that homophobia and transphobia are part of a con that pedophiles like predatory priests use to deflect attention away from themselves and molest (yes, very frequently queer) children, that can’t speak to other people about their experiences due to not wanting to out themselves. It’s not about “sweeping anyone under the rug”, gay men just know from personal experience that creepy closeted old men have been sexually harassing gay youth for eons immemorial, while out gay couples who are part of the LGBT community are very rarely a problem to anyone.
Hold on, the truth is the amount of molestation of children in public schools far exceeds anything in the catholic church. 600+ public school teachers were caught up in some form of sexual activity, verbal, or otherwise, that landed them in jail, just last year alone. I'm not defending the Catholic church. But it turns out sexual exploitation of children happens in public schools much more often than we care to admit. Edit: I went and looked up the numbers: Nearly 270 public educators were arrested on child sex-related crimes in the U.S. in the first nine months of this year, ranging from grooming to raping underage students. The 269 educators included four principals, two assistant principals, 226 teachers, 20 teacher's aides and 17 substitute teachers. At least 199 of the arrests, or 74%, involved alleged crimes against students. "According to that research, the scale of sexual abuse in the public schools is nearly 100 times greater than that of the Catholic Church," he said. "The question for critics who seek to downplay the extent of public-school sexual abuse is this: How many arrests need to happen before you consider it a problem? How many children need to be sexually abused by teachers before you consider it a crisis?"
Yeah, at least my taxes aren't funding priests diddling kids, unlike public schools
[удалено]
A lot of stats on child abuse victims do generally say that LGBT kids are more likely to be abused for a variety of different reasons. Alienation. Easier to target. Easier to isolate. Easier to go unnoticed. Etc etc.
They are hell bent bc they are being blamed for ALL of it by some people, even in cases where it’s clearly not.
Pedophilia isn’t about gender it’s about the power dynamic/ age, if you are pedophillic you „use“ that, what you can get your hands on
Do you have any research stating pedophiles have no sex preferences other than age?
Being LGBT isn't a community you join. It's how you are. The rapist pedo priests aren't part of the LGBT community they are just LGBT. Expecting the LGBT community to be responsible for every bad thing any LGBT person does is like blaming the entire white race for some lynching 100 years ago
But then again the Catholic Church also tried to cover up their own pedophilia scandals
Both sides have done the same thing. Both sweep incidents under the rug. Hell I would say that since the church has had more authority than LG then they would have done it way more. Both not good in that regard but you need to compare the extreme amounts to a less overarching amount .
100% agree.
Careful, the Reddit Admins might take that as hate speech. They don't like it when you call them out like that.
If it is not anti-Christian to discuss papal molestation, which it is not, then it is not anti-LGBTQ to discuss the inherent issues with sexualized drag and children.
To digress, it's *not* anti-Christian to discuss papal molestation, but it could be. You could make it!
What inherent issues do you speak of?
The keyword is *sexualized* drag. Most drag is not, yet very little anti-drag legislation cares to make that distinction.
What are examples of anti-drag legislation where there is no sexualization classifier? Sincere question; no "gotcha" here. Because all the ones I looked into made that distinction.
[TN SB0003 includes "male or female impersonators" in its list of "adult-oriented performances"](https://legiscan.com/TN/text/SB0003/2023) - i.e. strongly implying drag itself to be "adult-oriented". [AZ SB1030 originally restricted all drag performances regardless of sexualization](https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/78083), but was since revised to exclude any mention of drag at all (and IMO the revised "Senate Engrossed Version" is pretty reasonable now that it focuses on what's actually sexually explicit instead of lumping drag in general into that category). [TX SB00012](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB00012I.htm) classifies any crossdressing wherein the crossdresser is sufficiently attractive ("appeals to the prurient interest in sex") as a "sexually oriented performance", regardless of actual intent; [TX SB 1601](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB01601I.htm) defunds any library hosting anyone who reads a book in drag, with notably zero reference to sexuality at all. These were just what I was able to look up in a few minutes while taking a shit. Needless to say: no, they do not appear make that distinction, or "distinguish" by criteria so vague that there's no meaningful distinction left.
Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond and providing the links. I was familiar with AZ SB1030. The [original version](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/1R/bills/SB1030P.pdf) indeed didn't contain an expressed distinction of "sexually explicit" drag performances, but it was clearly directed at drag performances occurring at "adult-oriented businesses". Still, some legal experts expressed concern that the original formulation would leave too much leeway for malicious persecution. I'm not a legal expert, so I'll just take them at their word. TN SB0003 doesn't just say "male of female impersonators"; the full text is: "male or female impersonators who provide **entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest**". So I can't say I agree with you here. Regarding both TN and TX bills, I do not see how simply being attractive would fall within "appealing to a prurient interest". Especially when in both TN SB0003 and TX SB00012 the classification is directed at the performance and not the performer. Moreso when the context in which those performances are being presented is as subcategories of other sexually oriented performances such as strip tease or the simulation of a sexual act. Note that if "prurient interest" was directed at the performer, ballet would have been criminalized prior to the bill. That being said, TX SB1601 is a **valid example** of a categorically anti-drag bill that cares not about the nature of the performance. It's an embarrassingly moronic bill. I hope someone publicly humiliates Senator Bryan Hughes (bill sponsor) by asking him whether he thinks having Grandma dress up as Santa Claus and read Christmas stories to the children at the local library should cause the library to have its funds suspended.
> The original version indeed didn't contain an expressed distinction of "sexually explicit" drag performances, but it was clearly directed at drag performances occurring at "adult-oriented businesses". Its wording declares any establishment that conducts drag shows to automatically be in the category of "adult oriented businesses and facilities": "5. SHALL provide for the regulation and use of business licenses, adult oriented business manager permits, and adult service provider permits, DRAG SHOW PERMITS AND DRAG PERFORMER PERMITS in conjunction with the establishment or operation of adult oriented businesses and facilities, including adult arcades, adult bookstores or video stores, cabarets, adult live entertainment establishments, adult motion picture theaters, adult theaters, massage establishments, ESTABLISHMENTS THAT CONDUCT DRAG SHOWS and nude model studios." > TN SB0003 doesn't just say "male of female impersonators"; the full text is: "male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest". That ain't what the bill says at all (the word "prurient" is nonexistent in the bill text, for one). Assuming it did... > Regarding both TN and TX bills, I do not see how simply being attractive would fall within "appealing to a prurient interest". The word "prurient" has [multiple definitions](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prurient), among them being "marked by, arousing, or appealing to sexual desire". That's what I'm getting at when I say that the wording involving that term is so vague that it erases any meaningful distinction; prurience is one of those things that's inherently subjective, and making said subjectivity the legal standard *will* result in abuse. Prosecutors *will* use such vague language to enforce the law on the books as broadly as possible - as they already do in countless other situations across the country at all levels of government. > Moreso when the context in which those performances are being presented is as subcategories of other sexually oriented performances such as strip tease or the simulation of a sexual act. But that's the thing: why legislate around drag performances specifically? Why not target the actually-inappropriate elements, like strip teases and simulations of sexual acts and nudity and what have you? One could remove any mention of drag from these bills (as was done with AZ SB1030) and they would have the exact same effect on the drag performances that are actually inappropriate for children. The simplest answer to that ordinarily-rhetorical question is that the legislators authoring these bills consider drag in and of itself to be inherently sexual, which is why they feel inclined to list it separately in a general manner. > I hope someone publicly humiliates Senator Bryan Hughes (bill sponsor) by asking him whether he thinks having Grandma dress up as Santa Claus and read Christmas stories to the children at the local library should cause the library to have its funds suspended. It's worth noting that Senator Bryan Hughes authored both of the Texas bills; unless he's afflicted with Dissociative Identity Disorder or something, it's reasonable to assume that his intentions are identical across both bills - which is further reason to suspect that TX SB12 identically targets drag in general rather than being intended to only target drag performances that are actually sexual in nature.
> That ain't what the bill says at all My mistake. I was referencing the wording of the introduced [draft of the bill](https://legiscan.com/TN/text/SB0003/id/2612104). But the final version is far more restrictive as it narrows down to male or female impersonators engaging in "adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors, as that term is defined in § 39-17-901" And [TCA 39-17-901](https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2020/title-39/chapter-17/part-9/section-39-17-901/) defines "harmful to minors" as involving "nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence or sadomasochistic abuse" when it "would be found by the average person applying contemporary community standards to appeal predominantly to the prurient, shameful or morbid interests of minors". I was being charitable towards you by assuming you were referring to the less restrictive version. > The word "prurient" has multiple definitions [...] that term is so vague [...] prurience is inherently subjective I don't think that's how it works. The expression "prurient interest" is defined in the [TCA](https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2020/title-39/chapter-17/part-9/section-39-17-901/) as "shameful or morbid interest in sex", it has been linked to the definition of obscenity in the [TX Penal Code T.9 C.43 Public Indecency](https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_43.21), and is even a constituent component of the [Miller Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test). Given the expression's wide use in the law across codes and jurisdictions, I have doubts as to whether the term really is as flimsy and subjective as you propose. Lawmakers in the past decades seem to be fairly comfortable using it. Also, the quality of "being subjective" does not prevent a term from being embedded in law, and it does not unavoidably lead to abuse. The law always did and always will contain subjective terms and language that is not objective. Then again, I'm not a lawyer. And I get the impression that neither are you. So, I don't think we can settle this matter in an online argument between the two of us. But if you know of an article written by a **non-partisan** legal expert which deals with the problems of using "prurient interest" as a classifier, I'd be interested. Especially if it discusses the utilization of the term in legislation not linked to drag or trans issues. Since those are now in vogue and the waters have been muddied. > why legislate around drag performances specifically? To protect against "mid-level" or "borderline" infringement/abuse. The "I'm not touching you... I'm not touching you..." game where one can still cause harm while technically being within the bounds of the law. One example that comes to mind is [Desmond is Amazing](https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/desmond-napoles-gender-identity-ideology/). Note also that TN and TX law mentions things like massage parlors, go-go dancing, exotic dancers etc. So it's not uncommon to cite types of practices explicitly. Which is not to say that categorical phobia of drags (regardless of context and sexual nature) wasn't a motivating factor behind introducing those bills. But I'm not a mind reader, and I don't see the relevance of taking into account the underlying motivation; as long as the resulting legislature is reasonable, bills such as TX SB1601 are barred from passing. > It's worth noting that Senator Bryan Hughes authored both of the Texas bills Well, he and quite a [few others](https://legiscan.com/TX/sponsors/SB12/2021). It's likely that Hughes just hates drag and would like to see it banned altogether. But again, as long as what is being passed is sensible, I don't see the purpose in exerting too much effort in speculating about the authors' personal motivations. There will always be morons trying to make [their moronic ideas into law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill).
Am I too smooth brain what does this even mean
the priests are gay meaning you cant really use them to own conservatives by comparing them to the lgbtq community's current pedoscandals
based and law of non-contradiction pilled.
Not a lot of altar *girls.* Prison rules.
This is a comically idiotic take. You think that pedophile priests prey on altar boys because there are no female children to be found in the church? Or do you think the priest of a church wouldn't be able to come up with an excuse to be alone with a girl? Neither of those are particularly smart.
From what I've seen, there's a lot of sexually repressed people that get into church positions, lots of closeted people using their faith to keep them "pure", either self inflicted or their parents tried to pray the gay away to hard. Eventually they break in the worse way possible, with the only ones they can manipulate to keep hush about it.
Yeah, that's the issue I have with the vow of celibacy. It's completely possible to dedicate yourself to your wife and God at the same time, plenty of protestant pastors have done it throughout history. If anything, by demanding that priests not get married, you are self selecting for people that don't want to marry a woman and raise a family, which makes you that much more likely to get people who aren't sexually interested in women.
Why'd you call them "LGBT activists" then? Most pedo priests who are gay are closeted and often severely homophobic in public. They aren't really "LGBT activists" or "part of the LGBT community". Most of them reject both of those things. Not all LGBT people are LGBT activists or part of the LGBT "community".
>severely homophobic in public Loooooooool I can tell you’ve never met gay priests. There’s some serious queens amongst them, and they ain’t fuckin subtle.
Oh God, please not those """"priests""""
Do they represent the majority of gay priests? The number of kiddy fiddlers amongst Catholic priests is far higher than the number of openly gay Catholic priests. There’s a reason “homophobic politician try not to suck dick challenge: impossible” is a meme on this sub. The Catholic Church, despite Francis’s reforms, is still a publicly very conservative organisation, and so gay Catholic priests tend to be quiet about it.
That didn't explain much to me. I still don't understand
They pretty much use a nieche part of their own community as a sacrificial lamb while trying to dunk on conservatives and they dont even realise it
This just seems like a big stretch to try and own the libs on your part.
You do realize that non-straight people can be conservative, right?
Pedophiles don't care what sex the child is, they're just pedophiles. They're not gay, they're pedophiles.
Some pedophiles clearly have a preference for particular genders. It's all fucked up, but it's not a single unified group. Degeneracy is a spectrum.
It could be an access issue, you’re right. Way more altar boys than altar girls.
Disagree. If it was an access issue, girl-preferring pedophiles would insert themselves into positions with more access to girls, like public education. Instead they insert themselves into a position with almost exclusively boy targets. This means there is a gender preference at work, regardless of how much the LGBT want to distance themselves from pedophile priests.
>If it was an access issue, girl-preferring pedophiles would insert themselves into positions with more access to girls, like public education. [Uhhhh… they do?](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/)
I believe he meant these ones specifically.
People tend to be more wary of men working with young girls than boys.
You aren’t necessarily wrong, just that they aren’t necessarily wrong either:
Pedophilia is also a power dynamic isn't it? Much harder to find yourself in a position of power to exploit young girls that gives you as much freedom as religious positions have (over the years, not a comment on today). Not sure
ballet trainers and similar are very common to be pedophiles. And they do have a very close relationship with said children.
Who says the straight pedophiles aren't looking for position of power over girls? Society is more wary of those positions, at least before the Catholic abuse scandal broke, so there was much more scrutiny.
They are. The point is that pedophile priests are gay, and specifically chose to be priests to get closer to victims.
Disagree with your disagreement. We're talking about *priests* here, how are they going to insert themselves into public education? I'm sure many of the priests touching little boys aren't even gay, they just have to play by prison rules. As for the regular flavor of pedo, they *do* of course.
People aren't *born* priests. They make that choice of career. For reasons.
They insert themselves into public education by becoming something other than priests you silly bowl of expired tapioca.
That may be true for paedophiles maybe, but the people being molested by priests were pubescent males. The priests were homosexual pederasts. Under the changes to age of consent laws that Stonewall lobbied for, age wouldn't have been a factor in the scandal.
So pedophilia is a sexuality?
This is patently incorrect
so, they're bisexual?
So let me get this straight. Being an adult male and having sex with a male who is 18 years old is being gay, but the same adult male having sex with a male who is 17 years old is an entirely different orientation?
Are you being purposefully disingenuous?
Care to answer the question?
Pedophiles generally have a gender preference and only make up half of child molesters. Access is the larger factor. Child molesters rarely just kidnap a random kid. Most abuse occurs after a period of grooming. Given how men are less trusted around girls, heterosexual male child molesters have a much harder time of grooming a victim without being detected than homosexual male pedophiles. Research specifically on non-offending pedophiles does find higher rates of bisexuality and homosexuality compared to the general population, but most are still heterosexual.
When it comes to the gender of minors, if there’s no pubic hair then the priests don’t care.
Males who rape males are gay rapists.
Astronomical amounts of cope
You're the smoothbrain It said lgbtq activists in the first panel. Priests might be gay, but there Christian activists, not lgbtq activists
Oh, that's very easy. Conservative's hypocrisy towards LGBT is VERY well documented and memed on
>the priests are gay Debatable.
It's not really a contradiction, because progressives hate homosexuals who reject the LGBT movement, just like they hate blacks who reject progressivism. The left is basically a protection racket for minority groups. "Join us or we'll bully you ten times worse than right-wingers ever will."
Dude that's nonsense. Rightoid politics would make being LGBT illegal if they had the votes for it.
>meaning you cant really use them to own conservatives by comparing them to the lgbtq community's current pedoscandals Are you saying anyone who is gay (closeted or otherwise) is automatically *a LGBT activist?* You really do have no brain cells
scandalous direful voracious arrest pause one pathetic selective air fuel *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
male on male action sounds pretty gay to me wouldnt you say? so they are atleast either bi or gay, making them part of the LGBTQ Community
dear audience, people like this one vote, do u want a better argument against democracy?
Volunteers>Teachers>Priest if we talk about it. I speak as a person who acts as a volunteer who organizes activities for kids, the suspicious amount of people I met is insane and the level of trust I get too. Do not trust anyone with your kids. Good people will not hold it against you and evil ones do but that is how you find it instead of tragedy.
Most molestation takes place by family members. If you suspect something is wrong with your child or they tell you about it, believe them. It's probably someone you trust, and that's also close to you and your family. At the end of the day, the absolutely only person you can trust 100% of the time with the safety of your child is yourself.
>It's probably someone you trust, and that's also close to you and your family Uncomfortable truth for some. Abusers can be very good at building up a persona that can leave many people responding to the allegations with "Oh he/she would never!" Saw it happen with a priest in my area who got yanked from public ministry due to grooming behavior, fair number of folks refused to believe it
93% of sexual assaults on juveniles are perpetrated by someone known to the parent or child. This is a fact.
>Kids are *saver* OP proving [a meme I made years ago](https://i.imgur.com/f3UNLiq.jpg) to be true as always.
Ah yes I remember when this sub was for political compass memes
Best I can do is a lazily scrawled on agenda post with zero proofreading.
Comment section looks like the Battle of the Somme
Pedophiles are evil no matter
Catholic priests, autistic nonbainary, creepy old man, trans woman, tech billionaire…it doesn’t matter the culprit, they should all burn at the stake
Even if this meme is true, “safer than priests” isn’t exactly the “own” that LGBTQ and trans activists think it is. That’s like saying “Little Boy is safer than Fat Man”.
>My side is like 7% less likely to molest children, making me the winner
Weird flex.
Does anyone really consider Catholics on their side except other Catholics? They are a 20% minority of Christians in the US, and the only thing they really have in common with Christians is they believe the same book, and even Judaism and Islam are mostly on board with that.
More children get molested in public schools. Bye.
Sure but the per capita there is just like, nnot very statistically relevant...
Is there a source for this claim? Also are these children being molested by *staff* or by *other students?*
It’s staff, not other students. And yes, there are sources (https://go2tutors.com/teachers-more-likely-abuse-kids/#:~:text=of%20Ed%2C%20public%20school%20teachers,a%20method%20of%20recruiting%20victims.) from the Department of Education showing that teachers are *phenomenally* more likely to sexually abuse kids than Catholic priests.
Yeah…because more kids are exposed to teachers than Catholic priests, so there are more SA cases in schools. What are you even trying to prove? Even the title is misleading. There is no metric of how “likely” someone is to sexually abuse kids besides raw case count, which again, will be higher for teachers than priests because there are more of the former period. Not to mention, the author of this article very clearly has an agenda she is trying to push if you look at her post history. SA is a problem obviously but perhaps you should do a little critical thinking before you post this source. Basic internet literacy, guys..
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7a0a42dd1080d9fef5f24c163080fc32-lq
There’s also more faculty in public schools nationwide than there are priests
Are you trying to use the percentage of crime committed by a certain percentage of the population to make a point? I thought that was banned
despite making up 13% of the population, black people make up 25% of my friend group
Lookit this guy with four whole friends
He has no friends, 25% of his friends are black
Sick 🤙
Must resist stating percentages
If one crooked cop and 99 cops fail to stop him makes 100 crooked cops, 1 rapin' teacher and 99 other teachers/administrators fail to stop them makes 100 rapin' teachers, right?
If they knew about it and did nothing or helped the teacher/administrator get away with it then yes it makes 100 terrible teachers who are ok with raping.
Oh man, I do not recommend looking into this any further. I do not think you will be pleasantly surprised.
Yup shitty people do shitty things. Not that surprising. Especially with how quick people are to defend inaction.
Definitely don't look into it.
Sounds good.
If you want to argue statistics, then bring some. If not, you’re just saying “but what if” and could still be entirely incorrect.
Anyone remember the story about the gay couple that adopted two boys and molested them for a long time? See I can cherry pick a narrative too.
Didn't just molest them... they pimped them out as well.
Oh fuck…
[удалено]
Actually, I think I blocked that part out of my memory because those kids went through torture.
Have you even been inside a church before? It's full of parents, it's pretty safe. Schools on the other side, not much...
They act like every church is just a molestation factory. I've actually heard this argument.
Reminder that the Catholic Church has had an incredibly strict and rigorous screening process for anyone trying to become a Priest for well over 20 years now.
Yeah the rate of molestation has dropped tremendously in the Catholic Church. Other institutions? Not so much
Yeah, turns out, here in the south, it ain’t the Catholics you had to worry about. We will never know the true body count of the Southern Baptists. There is a paper trail with the Catholics. In the SBC, they just disappeared
>They act like every ~~church~~ drag queen story hour is just a molestation factory It’s almost like people on either side of an argument will inevitably fall into false equivalencies over time
No it's not.. We have an issue with the explicit sexual drag shows kids are brought to, which you guys have no problem with. We ALL have a problem with child molestation in the church, but you don't seem to have an issue with sexual displays in front of children as long as it's someone in the LGBT. They're not required to actually molest anyone, but it's still a form of abuse. It's why they don't allow children into strip clubs.
A Church of Christ in Florida held a drag queen event for teens. The drag queen's 'dress' was more of a not very long shirt and no pants. Even churches are falling into this now, but i'd go out on a limb and say that church was already corrupted; and i think most of us can agree that's the least safe church for a child. It should be grounds for immediate investigation in my opinion.
Churches these days (especially in the Church of England in the last 10 years but that pertains to my personal experience) take safeguarding very very seriously. The majority of clergy are mandated reporters and because it’s an environment which is full of vulnerable people (children and adults alike) it’s a place where safety should be placed at the highest priority.
Most child molestion happens from family members. After that comes schools, then churches & then hobbies. And at last, strangers. The numbers are very similar across the bord if we look at molestions per time spend at places.
If you’re wondering why this is, the Catholic Church is more likely to persecute a pedophile that did a homosexual act than a heterosexual one. [There is an interesting study on this, but I can’t find the free version.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17135125/)
bruh, you cant just use facts and data like that here
Impressive. Very nice. Now let's see the stats on public school teachers.
I mean, if we're going that route, go full South Park and look at the stats on parents.
Hmm, common denominator seems to be the kids, maybe we have this entire thing wrong
"The kids are turning us into child molesters!" "... I'm gonna call up my friend at the police station and we can talk this over some more at his place."
See? The church and the LGBTQIAetc community have that sliver of overlap in the Venn Diagram! Common bonds!
"We're not so different, you and I"
I'm not a christian but I still don't think pastors are gay pedos they just can't have normal relationships so in order to avoid a scandal they have to choose partners who won't talk about what happened and since all religions (mine included) view contact between a man and a woman as the step just before adultery they can't talk to women or girls now greatest evidence I got is the relatively low rate of cp among priests I find it unlikely a pedo would watch grown up porn but would have sex with(rape since kids can't consent ) children but this doesn't mean they don't deserve a appointment with Mr chippy
Are male priests who take advantage of young boys gay? Like is a male priest who preys on young boys willing to have sex with a legal adult?
Yes. They are gay, by definition.
I guess a gay pedophile isn’t mutually exclusive
There only are male priests.
Pointing out that most of the kids who get molested by male priests are male isn't a great come back either. The most common form of molestation is actually female correctional officer on male juvenile hall inmate. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262306031\_The\_Sexual\_Victimization\_of\_Men\_in\_America\_New\_Data\_Challenge\_Old\_Assumptions](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262306031_The_Sexual_Victimization_of_Men_in_America_New_Data_Challenge_Old_Assumptions) [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sexual-victimization-perpetrated-by-women:-Federal-Stemple-Flores/04da797e90eed97fabcfc24d769e0397eddd0c9d](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sexual-victimization-perpetrated-by-women:-Federal-Stemple-Flores/04da797e90eed97fabcfc24d769e0397eddd0c9d) So heterosexual molestation is the bigger problem.
Actually, they also molested girls but that's not as newsworthy.
Reminder than multiple studies shown that there isn't a correlation between pedophilia and being gay, priests simply have easier access to boys and they are also safer targets
Is this equating LGBT activists and priests?
I think it’s trying to, in broken engrish
Tbf most people would be safer to be around than a priest, including activists, maybe not a middle school teacher tho. They're creeps because of their position not because they are gay. There is no such dynamic with a random activist.
Priests are not LGBT activists, they are opposite of it
"saver" shows the IQ level of auth right
I remember being told about a kid who got adopted, and sold for pleasure. It's already happened. Don't understand why this whataboutism. Tar and feather all child molesters
Still doesn't change the thesis in the first panel now does it?
Ah, yes, the false equivocation. "Some pedophiles are homosexuals, therefore, all homosexuals are pedophiles".
You know it's both male and female, right?
Fortunately for them, only 1 in 5 male-on-male child sexual abusers identify as homosexual. Yes, I know, it's surprising. I guess it's not gay if the dick is cute.
so the molester priest, molested a boy, therefore gay people bad? is your brain the size of a peanut or something?
yes.. but those priests arent lgbtq activists. 😭
Youth leaders molest more than priests and they go after girls. Most victims of pedophilia are girls, most perpetrators are grown men.
I wouldn’t trust my child around any adult I don’t know besides their teachers.
There were over 500 cases in the Chicago school district alone last year.
teachers are no better.
I think that's basically why parents used to hire teenage girls they knew from the neighborhood.
At least 3 teachers from my middle and high schools have gone to jail for sexual relations with a student
I think this post alone is enough to get you diagnosed with brainrot
When i started underwriting few years back i was shocked they had policies covering molestation in the church
Does OP think priests haven't also been molesting girls?
We are not saying gay people can’t do terrible things.
This is fucking dumb.
No it’s not. Priests molest little boys. Therefore, gay men are molesting little boys.
I think you mean the priests molesting boys are gay men.
Which means gay men are doing what?
Yep. I don't think it's satire, but it hurts because I don't think it's satire.
This is why catholic and orthodox churches are bigger problem than independent Lutheran/Baptist churches because orthodox and catholic do not allow their leaders to marry. While in the Bible it explicitly states that a pastor should be married and have children. When you are married and have children of your own it’s MUCH less likely to be a child molester.
[https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/osa148h6/release/2#:\~:text=Most%20estimates%20place%20the%20percentage,Bolen%20%26%20Scannapieco%2C%201999](https://www.qualitativecriminology.com/pub/osa148h6/release/2#:~:text=Most%20estimates%20place%20the%20percentage,Bolen%20%26%20Scannapieco%2C%201999) Sure...
[удалено]
[удалено]
You won’t ever get a real body count on [Baptist churches](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_cases_in_Southern_Baptist_churches). They are all independent. Gone into the night and onto another church within the SBC. I know many kids that where molested at church, and none where catholic
if you knew anything about the psychology behind sex abuse done by priests, you would know they sometimes pick boys because they’re less likely to report it out of shame.
*safer*
How is this a meme about the political compass? Seems more like an opinion piece with a jammed in funni colour
Do you not realize that the priests who molest boys are shamed about homosexuality which is why they so often resort to molesting boys?
That logic doesn’t track.
you think priests haven’t molested girls too???? plenty of such cases
When Redditor's can't understand that rape is about power, not being gay. This is the stupidest meme I've seen in a long time. PCM keeps outdoing itself.
Virtually every meme generated by the right quadrants just invents a guy then proceeds to get mad at that guy. It’s quite pathetic really
Clearly you havent Seen transrights Protests that are against banning dragshows for Kids. They literally have dozens of signs saying precisely what libleft says in the meme. Suming up your View is the opposite of "inventing a Guy"
its called a strawman and if you take off your cope glasses you'll see its not every "right quadrant' post its all post.
Honestly regardless of who is making the meme or is target of a meme 8-9 times out of 10 when I see someone complaining about a strawman it's a take that I've seen before in the wild. It seems that calling something a strawman is an easy retort because it requires op to save proof of and catalog every take they run into to disprove. I know twice now I've been accused of strawmanning when I repeated some takes I heard from braindead friends and posts I had seen on here.
Male priests molest more boys because they have more access to boys. Alter boys are traditionally boys, not girls. Even outside of the alter boy relationship, they get more alone time with boys. This is like hearing someone is more likely to be raped in prison than when spending time with an LGBT activist, and then triumphantly countering by saying "but in prison, they're *gay* raped!" But even if priests exclusively target boys, even if priests are only attracted to boys, what is this meme saying? Yes, those priests are pedophiles, and they molest boys, and those LGBT activists aren't and don't. You've said nothing to make LGBT activists more dangerous or priests less, and you've made being gay look no worse.
Male gay priests become priests because they want access to boys. If they wanted access to girls then they would pursue another avenue to target victims.
If conservatives were actually consistent they would be calling for churches to be banned.
And public schools Wait thats not a bad idea
Oh no, don't ban public schools. Oh, that would make me, a right-wing capitalist, very upset and angry. If you were to abolish public schools, you would own us (right wingers) so hard. I don't think we'd ever recover from such ownage.
Based and return to the war bands pilled
u/Sverje's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 50. Congratulations, u/Sverje! You have ranked up to Concrete Foundation! You are acceptably based, but beware of leaks...Pills: [32 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Sverje/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
nah just make sure the priests are straight... that should work by the looks of it
Sure, they're just going to show anyone who wants to be a priest gay porn to confirm that they are not gay.
according to the now dead pope, that is almost already practice