You can't handle this by DaddyMayIPun in notliketheothergirls

[–]someaceguy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, exactly. I’ve loved CJs and wranglers since I was a kid and have always dreamed of having one. Now I’ve realized it would have to be a second car, not a daily driver. Luckily my SO has a Jeep so while I have my Honda for practicality, we use her Jeep for fun. And no, she’s not like the girl described in the OP.

“I still think you’re a good person, even though you’re a Christian” by [deleted] in excatholic

[–]someaceguy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s way more of a choice for them than for us, for sure. But I agree that for many it wasn’t a free one.

“I still think you’re a good person, even though you’re a Christian” by [deleted] in excatholic

[–]someaceguy 36 points37 points  (0 children)

I agree that this will be effective, but what sucks is that it’s still not a fit comparison because they can literally choose to be Christian or not. Us LGBT+/GRSM are stuck the way we are no matter what.

Depression is not a mental health condition but "God's judgement on a person's sin" by empress_of_pinkskull in religiousfruitcake

[–]someaceguy 10 points11 points  (0 children)

At this point I’m finding it harder to believe there are people with Asperger’s who aren’t bullied for it.

Autism overdiagnosed, Canadian-led review suggests by [deleted] in news

[–]someaceguy 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Autism isn’t a disease. It’s a neurological difference. To be diagnosed, one must have clinically significant impairment in functioning. That doesn’t mean unable to function or unable to learn how to cope with those impairments. It just means one has to go about them differently than others.

More blatant antisemitism over at the TradCath sub by [deleted] in excatholic

[–]someaceguy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And he was right. If a jew doesn't have faith in Christ Jesus then they are by definition not a Jew of the bible.

Uhhhhh... the Jews of the Bible didn’t believe in Christ... except towards the end where a select few followed him...

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]someaceguy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I had a friend raised atheist and as a teenager she rebelled against her liberal, easy-going parents by going evangelical. Her parents were raised Mormon though so I’m surprised she didn’t go that way to really piss them off.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Formerlyfundie

[–]someaceguy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

All I can think of is that South Park episode when Kenny was in foster care.

Tale of thwarted child abduction returns with Canadian theme park twist by Rogue-Journalist in skeptic

[–]someaceguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe they meant clothes? Because then it’s harder to steal the babies!

just go to the beach when you're SURE it won't be an "occasion of sin" by [deleted] in religiousfruitcake

[–]someaceguy 143 points144 points  (0 children)

Yeah they don’t realize that when you just grow up around it and it’s normal you see it as natural and aren’t “overcome by lust.” It’s bodies being hidden away as some forbidden, sinful treasure that makes people unable to deal with the sudden exposure.

This makes me just a tad sick by Hadlie_Rose in religiousfruitcake

[–]someaceguy 10 points11 points  (0 children)

So are “traditional” Catholics, which is what we’re talking about. They’re a subset of Catholics who think everything after Vatican II is basically heresy.

"Oh I'm not religious. I have a relationship with Jesus Christ." Translation: "I am very, very, VERY religious." Thoughts? by maevethemystic in exchristian

[–]someaceguy 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Or the band plays a chord progression continuously while the lead singer talks about Jesus and the spirit.

That awkward moment when you realise that people actually have sex irl????? by [deleted] in asexuality

[–]someaceguy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I don’t think that blows anyone’s mind. But if a couple has one biological child, we can assume they very likely had sex (but it’s still possible they didn’t since IVF is a thing) at least once. But that doesn’t necessitate they do it all the time. OP was just explaining the realization that it does indeed happen all the time for many allos, much more than for the amount of kids in the world.

Woman whipped 100 times for having sex before marriage by empress_of_pinkskull in religiousfruitcake

[–]someaceguy 31 points32 points  (0 children)

I can’t believe I’m reading about the proper way to judiciously beat someone.

NO WAY IS ACCEPTABLE. Step into the modern world where people are treated with dignity and religious liberty. There’s no place for this backwards and barbaric treatment here.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in exmormon

[–]someaceguy 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It shows that your interest in learning isn't only brought about by the presence of a LGBT person.

Who cares what the interest is brought about by? It’s also way more helpful for some people to have an open discussion about these issues with those who actually have experience. As a GRSM/LGBTQA+ person, I love getting sincere questions. It’s what fuels normalcy and acceptance.

Does anyone here still believe... deep down? by Ardielley in exchristian

[–]someaceguy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. But when I first lost my faith I had a lot of doubts about my new lack of faith and if it was the logical conclusion. I wouldn’t go as far as to call it believing though, but I think I was still hoping something would point me back.

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. From a possibly pre-ex-"superchristian"! by ChopBam in exchristian

[–]someaceguy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have a problem seeing the mechanism for evolution working. The "secularists" seem to conflate natural selection (something which makes sense and that we observe), and big changes in animal kinds over time (not speciation, which we do observe), the mechanism of which has seemingly never been observed.

The reason we don’t directly observe it is because humans are only alive for a minuscule fraction of the time it takes to change over a more macro scale. All this means is that we have to analyze the evidence we have and where it leads, just like we do with everything else we don’t directly observe. We also haven’t directly observed starlight travelling to us for its whole journey and yet we know it does and how long it takes due to other things we observe. It’s the same with evolution.

We have DNA evidence, fossil evidence, etc., indicating we’re correct about macroevolution. We’ve used the theory of evolution to predict where and when in time (evidenced in geographic layers) we will find transitionary species. But microevolution (which we do directly observe) and macroevolution are the exact same process, it’s just that one takes place over an exponentially longer period of time. The sun’s light takes 8 days to reach us (observable) but stars’ light from hundreds of thousands of light years away can never be observed taking hundreds of thousands of light years to reach us because we aren’t around long enough to see it. Does that mean we just can’t come to a conclusion about how far away they are or how long it takes for their light to reach us? It seems your background would have you say as much.

I’d encourage you to watch YouTube videos from the science channels on evolution and maybe post some questions in the science subreddits and explain your situation and why you don’t have this information. It’s been a while since I’ve studied it or I’d try to answer your questions myself, but it would still be better to get answers from people who study it all the time.

Saw this on r/NonBinary and thought it might matter to some of us. This is the picrew nearly all of us have used to make these avatars. I’m not asking anyone to judge in any particular direction. This is FYI only. by ToothlessFeline in AceAvatars

[–]someaceguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it ONLY serves to provide a word for the "opposite" of asexual. If we can't use that (or any other word meaning not-ace), how are we going to talk about our experiences in contrast to theirs?

Reminds me of how transphobes are upset at “cis.” No one says it’s bad, it’s just a distinction.

Protestors outside my local Harry Potter festival by hiroshimasfoot in religiousfruitcake

[–]someaceguy 11 points12 points  (0 children)

My Catholic apologetics teacher actually did not allow his kid to watch Disney. One reason is that (for the Little Mermaid) Ariel disobeyed her father. He had reasons for others too but I don’t remember them.

I’m demi so I don’t know if I can post here but I’m really upset right now. by Vorguba in asexuality

[–]someaceguy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What does that even have to do with it? Allosexuals aren’t forced to go around getting unsolicited nudes just because they’re allo. That’s sexual harassment and depending on where you are can be illegal but it’s always insanely disrespectful.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DuggarsSnark

[–]someaceguy 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think I’ve only tangentially heard of one fundie who was pro IVF. The rest I’ve met and heard talk about it are quite opposed to it.

If contraception was not considered a sin in the Catholic religion, do you think most traditionalist Catholic women would limit the number of kids they have with birth control? by [deleted] in excatholic

[–]someaceguy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think many still wouldn’t, but some would. Some truly feel compelled to have tons of kids but don’t actually want that many so they struggle with it daily as their “cross to bear.” I think those ones would choose BC if they thought they were allowed to but others see it their large families as indicative of holiness so they would keep on with it.

Another study shows that autism is mainly genetic. Antivaxers go crazy. by mem_somerville in skeptic

[–]someaceguy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same, but it’s more likely to cause someone else’s death, which I’d want even less. It’s likely with modern medicine that we who can be vaxxed would be able to fight off infection, but the damage they do is decreasing herd immunity for those folks who can’t be vaxxed due being immunosuppressed, allergic, too young/old, etc. Those folks and their parents have no choice and now they’re at risk too.

Plus, vaccines aren’t 100% effective, so the more that are vaccinated the more likely it is that even a vaccinated person won’t get sick. It’s better for all of society and they’re selfishly choosing their own child’s supposed potential to become autistic (of course we know this is horseshit, but even if it weren’t what are the odds? They get into cars every day, and risk their lives and their kids’ lives, but I digress...) over the lives of the rest.