A transgender representative in Minnesota has introduced a bill that will remove the exclusion of pedophiles from the protected class of “sexual orientation.” This means it will be illegal to discriminate against child rapists. They're trying to legalize pedophilia

submitted by [deleted] from twitter.com

all 19 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]AriShekelsteinDDS 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Kid fucking has always been the end game.

[–]IMissPorn 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

OK, but aside from that, WTF is this definition of "Sexual orientation"???

"Sexual orientation" means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment;

Emphasis mine.

[–]According-Junket-885 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

...or being perceived as having...

I guess there's no more self-ID, though. If I perceive you as gay, you are gay.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

Your honor. From my point of view, the sex was consensual.

[–]slavdude0 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I have self diagnosed reversetitis. She says no, I hear yes.

[–]Adventurous_Ad6212 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Take a seat young skywalker

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Master, I think we've found the shit lord we are looking for.

[–]OuroborosTheory 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Shmi's midichlorion consent accident

[–]IMissPorn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I guess the intent there is to say that you can't discriminate against someone because you think they're gay, whether you're right about that or not. But none the less, yeah, the qualifier "perceived" does not belong in the definition itself and putting it there makes it even more incomprehensible.

[–]xoenix 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's like a 360° orientation.

[–]Godknight 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"We're coming for theeeeeem"

"We're coming for theeeeem"

"WE'RE COMING FOR YOUR CHIIIIILRDREEEEEEN"

cocks 12-gauge shotty

[–]LyingSpirit472 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

So, they're really making it so the only sexual orientation to discriminate against is "not able to get any", aren't they?

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Don't worry mate you can still discriminate against those goddamn heterosexuals because of how goddamn lame they are. Fluid exchange can you even imagine? Gross.

[–]LyingSpirit472 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Um, do you understand how limiting that is? You don't know what those two heterosexuals' gender identity or kinks are, so you can never truly know that they're lame heterosexuals or cool awesome queer people. Even if it's gross fluid exchange, you don't know if it's a girldick entering a boypussy, which would make it still heterosexual, but a queer heterosexual that's to be celebrated.

As such, the only people to discriminate against are the losers who aren't having sex.

[–]hfxB0oyADon't piss on my head & tell me it's raining. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nice shirt. I'd have no problem with taking this guy's human rights away, TBH.

[–]TiredTrenders 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Remember when they said the slippery slope fallacy wasn't real? Because I sure do & boy, has it aged very poorly.

[–]SerpensInferna 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Would there be any other reason at all to remove this portion from the bill? Or is it really as blatant as it seems?

[–]IMissPorn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's interesting. It was removed along with verbiage including trangenderism in the definition of sexual orientation. This would be re-implemented as a separate protected status, but the exclusion of sexual attraction to children just disappears. So it almost looks like an accident, but it's a little hard to believe that.

"Sexual orientation" means having or being perceived as having an emotional,
physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of
that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such
attachment or having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not
traditionally associated with one's biological maleness or femaleness. "Sexual
orientation" does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children
by an adult.

[–]bucetao6969Ace Spectrum 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Depends if they make it perfectly clear that the pedophiles in question are ones that don't plan on making illegal sex acts OR are actively seeking for ways to have no desire to do them (such as castration).

But it seems it's very broad. So I have my considerations on this person's true intentions.