PepeLivesMatter

Aren't public schools in the US already secular? Somehow I don't think they're the ones "indoctrinating" people with any religion except statism, which I was under the impression you hated almost as much as Christianity.

If you ask me, we should get rid of government schools entirely and just let the private sector figure out how best to prepare children for life. That would likely be far cheaper and more effective. But of course it will never happen, because it would provoke great anger and pearl clutching among so called "liberals", who WANT to use the school system to indoctrinate children into their statist child exploitation cult.

Also, you once again have shown a major lack of reading comprehension, because I have by no means used DeSantis as a metric, I just used him as an example to show that what you claim isn't happening in schools WAS actually happening in schools. Because if it hadn't been happening, the law would have been a) entirely unnecessary and b) not the least bit controversial. Imagine banning wearing your pants backwards in public, something nobody has done since Kriss Kross went out of style over 20 years ago. Apart from a few fringe lunatics concerned about government overreach, nobody would be protesting something like that, because nobody is actually doing it. Yet the outrage over Florida was nationwide.

Sure you are.

Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll look into it.

I don't have VR but thanks for the recommendation.

Okay then. I think "titta" makes it a lot funnier than "mira" would have been, regardless of the likelihood of any of this actually happening.

NONE of that is happening ANYWHERE. IT IS NOT.

It's not happening, and it's good that it is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/06/03/schools-gender-identity-transgender-lessons/

Stop gaslighting me. You know damn well that public schools in many Democrat run states have already included LGTB and gender identity education into their lesson plans, and that progressive teachers in conservative states are trying to do the same, and vociferously protesting any attempts to pass laws forbidding that. It's not that long ago that Governor DeSantis raised a big stink when he passed a law to make this illegal in Florida.

This is what I mean by "access to other people's kids". People like you are demanding that they be allowed to introduce other people's children to the concept of same sex relationships. That's exactly what the law we're discussing here is forbidding, and that's the reason you're so upset, because in your mind, this constitutes fascism for not allowing other to "live their lives as they see fit".

I'm sorry, but you gotta draw a line somewhere. If you want to have same sex relationships with other consenting adults in the privacy of your own home, be my guest, but you don't have a right to drag other people's children into this. Their brains are still developing. Being weak or effeminate as a boy does not mean someone is gay or born in the wrong body and needs to be taught about sucking dick or taking feminizing hormones to reveal their "true self". They need protection from bullies and demagogues like you who are trying to recruit them into their sadomasochistic world of sexual exploitation.

And I'll be the first to admit that on the whole, conservatives and Christians aren't doing a particularly great job at this either, but that doesn't mean that these kids would be better off sodomizing each other because a teacher in school told them that boys having anal sex with other boys is healthy and natural. It's not. And your constant murderous, vitriolic anger is a good illustration that being gay, unlike the name implies, is not at all a fun and happy lifestyles, but merely a fake front intended to mask a sheer bottomless pit of rage and contempt for everything that's pure and natural.

At the risk of overexplaining the joke, I think the word "titta" being used in this context plays a significant role in making this as funny as it is. It just wouldn't be as funny if it was, say, Spanish ("mira") or French ("regarde").

The "proof" that's linked in the article that he does, in fact, intend to do this is a condescending 2017 op-ed from the Baltimore Sun.

This is considered journalism now.

You realize none of these answers the question I asked, which was about the long mental health outcomes of people in abstinence-only programs vs. sex positive ones which specifically include homosexuality in it as well, right?

You're making an a priori assumption that teen pregnancies lead to worse long term mental health outcomes than homosexuality does. Also, what does abortion have to do with any of it? Is there any data that shows that women who have abortions are happier in the long run than those who don't?

The best data that I found from abortion advocates shows that abortion has no impact on mental health, in which case it would be irrelevant to the question we're trying to answer here.

Meanwhile, there is data that LGBT people have worse mental health and higher rates of substance abuse than straight people. And yes, I am aware you're just going to say "that's because they are being discriminated against by society for being who they are" but once again, that is simply an assumption and remains to be proven.

As I have said before, society has made huge steps in the past 20 years towards accepting homosexuality, with gay marriage being legal and many states allowing adoption, yet somehow people still feel persecuted because some states won't allow them access to other people's kids in order to teach them about homosexuality.

At some point, you have to ask yourself whether perhaps the Bible is right about homosexuality, and perhaps a permanent feeling of victimhood and oppression is part and parcel of being gay, and a manifestation of God's punishment for violating the natural law.

Okay, where is the proof? Show me the data. Peer reviewed studies, please.

Also, for the record, I don’t support marrying 14 year old girls, and you won’t find me arguing for that anywhere. You’re just making stuff up again because you don’t have any actual arguments.

Ah yes, that makes sense – because other people abused you and I didn't, you get to take your anger out on me. Is that how superior empathy works?

Isn't that exactly the same behavior that you are criticizing about this new law, that it is abusive towards gay people who aren't intending to harm children, just because others may have not had that much restraint?

Sorry, but I remain utterly unconvinced that you are in any way, shape, or form morally superior to the people you are criticizing. You're doing exactly the same thing you're criticizing them for. You are a hypocrite, nothing else.