An ex-priest was telling us that homosexuals were an aberration (Catholic school). We told him that homosexuality existed in nature, the only thing that's an aberration is being celibate
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
1079 points (100.0% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
6770 readers
5 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Uh anything humans do exists in nature. We are animals after all.
"Humane" is such a weird word twisted into somehow meaning "ethical" or "moral".
Homosexuality exists across nature.
Homophobia is only found in one species.
I reckon pandas are bigots.
They're just racist, not homophobic.
I get the intention here but being celibate isn't an aberration either, celibacy exists in nature too, and there are plenty of people who are voluntarily celibate for reasons other than religion, such as many asexual people.
Went to catholic school myself and had a similar argument with the ex-priest teacher in our religion class.
The slight difference is, it got me signed up for the debate team lol.
According to their book God made woman from the rib of a man. A guy's rib transition into a woman, that's perfectly fine. Whole person transitioning is bad? How much of the body can transition before it becomes a problem?
If an embryo is supposedly a full fledged person then was the rib also Eve while still in Adam? Does this technically mean Adam was pregnant with Eve when the rib was still in him?
True, each rib is a viable person so when I file my taxes I claim 24 dependents.
The IRS hates this one trick
If an embryo is a fully-fledged person then about 51% of people transition naturally before even being born, which is why men have nipples. Let's see the right wing lobby tackle that dilemma in the US legislature. Do they want no rights to medical support for all men? What if they switch back to women?
The Bible is an mpreg fic confirmed
Also, embryos are genderless, so if an embryo is a full human, we all transition.
What better authority on gender identity than old men in dresses.
All popes are bastards
APAB
Its all about "preserving reproductive capacity" until they realize that trans person has a kid, then they're suddenly opposed to it.
Mhmm "trans people can't be parents!" just like "gay people can't be parents!"
Still waiting to learn why that is, or could it be unadulterated bigotry?
He's not funny. I mean, neither is the pope, but damn.
Oh come on. I definitely thought that was funny.
He is funny because its true priests do fuck little boys if you ever read news you'd kniw that acting like something does'nt exist does not make it go away if so i would've done that we do need to acknowledge issues because only then can we move forward cause no one is gonna solve a problem that doesn't exist.
That doesn't make it funny, it's "good points" comedy for shitlibs to laugh performatively at. That's fine, he's a presenter more than a comic.
Jon Stewart definitely improves the quality of the Daily Show, but it is still pablum for libs. The difference is, Jon Stewart is actually funny.
What do you have against leftists?
As a leftist, I just dislike tankies. Libs aint leftists. Libs are status quo chucklefucks that think they're superior to conservatives without doing anything different.
So you’re left of liberal and right of what you consider tankies?
Kind of a narrow band you exist in.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Shitlibs aren't the left.
Hey there bud... I'm not sure if you know this or not, but you're not the arbiter of what is or is not funny.
load more comments
(10 replies)
I may be a little ignorant on this topic but can transgender people really reproduce with out the proper "equipment"?
Hi, trans woman here!
There are two aspects that affect fertility specifically for trans people:
- hormone treatment (HRT) involves replacing the body's endogenous sex hormones with those of the desired sex.
- "the surgery" or bottom surgery, which in most cases involves removal of the testies or ovaries/uterus, in addition to possible construction of desired genitalia.
The fact is most trans people don't have access to surgery. It's too expensive, or there are other concerns like not receiving support from doctors or therapists. Some people are simply afraid of the risks or undesirable results, which are very real as with any surgery. But it will put a final end to reproductive capacity. For now. Some of us hope one day science and technology will allow eg trans woman to conceive and carry a pregnancy.
HRT is far more accessible, and from a younger age, maybe 16 for puberty-blockers with parental consent in some areas -- but this is the exception. Most trans people can't get HRT until they are 18 and really I would say it's more common later in life. The 20s-30s can be a particularly distressing time (sex characteristics become even more defined) when trans people find motivation and means to medically transition. But this leaves time to have children, I know many trans people who had children before transitioning.
HRT obviously will put an end to reproductive capacity, at least while taking it, and in fact may become permanent. It's not unheard of for trans people to pause hormone therapy in order to attempt conceiving with their partner. Sometimes it works.
A better option would be freezing sperm, or I presume eggs, before starting medical transition. It's an expensive process, and so again not affordable to many trans people regardless of their desire for children.
It should also be stated that regardless of desire for children, quite a few trans people choose to not transition, for social, career, or personal reasons. Children and marriage are a commonly given reason I've seen.
I guess the Vatican and far-right don't know this, or maybe they do and pretend not to understand, although knowledge is something both claim to value. Then again I never considered the Catholic church to be experts on any sexual matters. They are usually centuries behind what science discovers in all fields. It turns out the bible isn't a great reference book for the human endocrine system.
The best option is not only improved access to gender-affirming care (this makes trans folks happier), less discrimination and scapegoating, but also increased education about and funding for preserving fertility. Being trans doesn't have to mean being childless.
Thanks for the detailed answer mate! We dont really have a trans community around the backwards-ass country where I live so you get less exposure to these kinds of topics.
Holy cow I just learned a lot. Thank you for taking the time to explain this!
No problem! I feel like I needed to cite everything for anybody thinking "oh, yeah right" lol. But if anyone asks, I can probably dig those up.
Equipment is unrelated to being trans.
If they don't get bottom surgery, they still have functioning reproductive systems of their birth sex.
In my experience, most trans people keep their "equipment." For me personally, the cost and effort just doesn't seem worth it.
Trans women often go infertile when getting hormones, but sperm banks are a thing, so...
Most of us who want surgery and to reproduce understand that the order in which we do these things is very important. Or we just bank gametes before HRT. Both work.
As others have told you, they can have the proper equipment. A friend of mine from high school transitioned and she and her wife still have three kids.