On the bathroom issue
- Thread starter Horn6721
- Start date
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
If Danielle wants to be considered a "woman" then put forth some effort. By "her" appearance the claim appears to be paper thin. I have sympathy for the guy cross-dresser wearing makeup with 5 o'clock shadow because they are sacrificing public perception and ridicule for what I'm assuming is a deep seeded need to be perceived as a woman. Danielle? At best you're an effeminate man.
That may make me sexist for defining a woman by makeup and clothes but it defines intention to me. Seriously, putting yourself out there as transgender is tough. This guys simply claiming he's a woman is in the same category of that Spokane woman claiming she's black, IMHO.
Gender-neutral bathrooms will be enough for transgender people who just want a place to go to the bathroom. They won't be enough for those whose agenda is to dismantle or redefine sex and gender in society.
Nevertheless, you're somewhat rewriting history on gay marriage. Civil unions weren't enough for the most hardcore gay marriage advocates because finding common ground wasn't the priority. Defeating and humiliating religious conservatives was. However, many well-meaning gay marriage advocates were OK with civil unions. The problem is that the gay marriage opponents weren't OK with civil unions. They didn't want gay marriage or "any legal status identical or similar to marriage," to borrow the language used in the Texas Proposition 2. It wasn't enough to stop gay marriage. They wanted absolutely no state recognition of any homosexual relationship and wanted gays to be put in their place.
Rather than trying to reach common ground, the issue got polarized by both sides' activists, and anyone who advocated any kind of balanced approach was deemed a sellout. Somebody had to completely win, and somebody had to completely lose. Good and unifying results rarely come out of such circumstances.
Deez you mean "mudhole?" this is a football board!
Your perspective of that conversation is different from mine. I do not know anyone who objected to the attempted redefinition of marriage also objecting to civil unions with the same legal status for anyones (sic) who didn't seek/qualify for marriage ... and my primary circle is filled with the "vast (Christian) right wing conspiracists."
That topic only underscored the folly in letting the government get involved with marriage in the first place. AFA the govt is concerned, we should all have civil unions.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
This sums up just about every social issue in America today. The right and the left are, together, ruining the country.
NJlonghorn
2,500+ Posts
And yet, the Texas Constitution was amended to prohibit gay civil unions. Similar things happened around the country, often with super-majorities.
Shark, the states that passed gay marriage bans could have permitted civil unions or at least remained silent on the matter. Instead, most did what Texas did - passed bans that voided civil unions as well as gay marriages.
In the case of Texas, we went all out. We banned gay marriage four times. First, our common law didn't recognize gay marriage. Second, in 1997, Texas prohibited the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. See Tex. Family Code § 2.001(b). Third, in 2003, Texas banned and declared void any same-sex marriage or civil union. See Tex. Family Code § 6.204. Finally, in case those "damn queers" didn't get the message the first three times, the Legislature passed and the voters approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions. See Tex. Const. Art. I, § 32. Not only did we ban gay marriage and civil unions, we enjoyed that ****.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Conservatives would see a line out their door if they would put the religious nuts in their place. Gay marriage and abortion should be settled issues; if you don't like it, don't do it. Just say no.
As for "identifying as a boy or a girl" I have not been able to get my head around it. I have a 12-year old daughter. Once she is in the bathroom I have a vested interest in her well-being.
What should I think?
As for "identifying as a boy or a girl" I have not been able to get my head around it. I have a 12-year old daughter. Once she is in the bathroom I have a vested interest in her well-being.
What should I think?
The Charlotte Observer's editorial advice?
Girls must overcome discomfort of seeing male genitalia in locker rooms. It is all about young girls getting used to see men's junk just like it was about seeing white and black people as couples etc.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/18/charlotte-observer-girls-must-try-overcoming-disco/
Girls must overcome discomfort of seeing male genitalia in locker rooms. It is all about young girls getting used to see men's junk just like it was about seeing white and black people as couples etc.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/18/charlotte-observer-girls-must-try-overcoming-disco/
And yet we see so much hysteria about "safe-zones" (is that the right terminology) and providing for all girl schools and the sacredness of the female body vis a vis abortions etc etc.The Charlotte Observer's editorial advice?
Girls must overcome discomfort of seeing male genitalia in locker rooms. It is all about young girls getting used to see men's junk just like it was about seeing white and black people as couples etc.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/18/charlotte-observer-girls-must-try-overcoming-disco/
Now they have to get used to genitalia?
Is there such a thing as intellecual thought running amok? Can you be too educated?
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
"Settled to your satisfaction" is what you mean. Because both those issues were "settled" some time ago before they came "unsettled". But in your mind, those of us who are just "religious nuts" need to just keep quiet now that you have it where you want it, is that it? Would you feel that it's "settled" if the next administration enacted a 60-percent annual wealth confiscation tax? Would that then be "settled?" And if the government decided to mandate that kindergartners have to spend one year of their lives acting as a member of the opposite gender, so that they could pick the one they feel best suits them, I guess we'd then have to accept it because "it's settled?"
I'm not talking about an issue about whether we should be banning one thing or another. I'm talking about your disrespectful and dismissive attitude about a group who you apparently don't believe has the right to vote their conscience and hold to their values. Who gets to decide what groups should just "keep quiet and fall in line?"
Sorry if you're offended but the aggression by the religious right is well known and the wall between church and state is established. You have hijacked the Republican Party and destroyed them. I'm a Conservative but not a religious conservative. YOu can go ahead and complicate the matter with wealth distribution but abortion and gay marriage is CLEARLY being argued by those on the right who want to use the Bible as their law.
That's my take and I know quite a few of those nuts so I am quite comfortable with my opinion.
Our leading politicians in Texas fit my description. They are loudly shoving Christianity down everyone's throat. If you don't see it then that's fine. It's clear as day to me.
Your religious beliefs mean nothing from a legal standpoint. Christianity has no most favored status in the law. It is the right that tries to make it more than it should be.
That's my take and I know quite a few of those nuts so I am quite comfortable with my opinion.
Our leading politicians in Texas fit my description. They are loudly shoving Christianity down everyone's throat. If you don't see it then that's fine. It's clear as day to me.
Your religious beliefs mean nothing from a legal standpoint. Christianity has no most favored status in the law. It is the right that tries to make it more than it should be.
I'm about as fundamental on this issue as one can be and I do not share the characterization. I oppose formal recognition of a homosexual relationship as i believe that activity is not only wrong in the sight of our Creator, it's abhorrent and has become it's own virus in our society. "love wins?" hardly. The agenda has been about redefining nomenclature from the beginning.
I appreciate your outline of the legislative efforts and will refer you to your own post where you correctly ID the response has been born from the homosexual agenda.
I recognize the difference in a personal relationship with someone who is confused about their sexuality and the political agenda which actually generates more of such confusion by directive ... not as a matter of a by-product. It's quite intentional.
I recognize all people are precious in God's sight ... and I recognize there is evil committed by groups of people all the time.
I try to be respectful to the former (individuals) ... but I wholeheartedly oppose the latter. (collective agenda which promotes ideals anathema to those of mine)
Walk with me down the homosexuals' political agenda history of the past almost 40 years.
In the 80s - "all we want is tolerance"
In the 90s " all we want is acceptance"
In the 00s " all we want is to be acknowledged as normal
in the 10s .."we deserve the institution, too"
Kicker is ... what does redefining marriage from a legal standpoint actually get 'em none of these other mechanisms won't? As a servicemember, I had to have a power of attny on file to execute my will ... my wife, without the POA, wasn't legally authorized to execute the will ... then my "estate" would be probated by the State.
So ... having a wedding ring didn't do it. Nor did having a marriage license.
So ... you tell me. Were they lying in the 80s or what?
now ... we've got this transgender thing skipping a few lanes of traffic. They've gone from late-night comic subject matter to front-center "normal." Was that also an accident ... evolution???
nah.
The Charlotte Observer's editorial advice?
Girls must overcome discomfort of seeing male genitalia in locker rooms. It is all about young girls getting used to see men's junk just like it was about seeing white and black people as couples etc.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/18/charlotte-observer-girls-must-try-overcoming-disco/
And this is what I'm talking about. Some people are truly just trying to create a workable situation for everybody. But some are using the transgender issue as a conduit to push a very, very ****** up and perverse agenda.
Shark, well thought out post. However, . . .
What "other mechanisms" are you referring to?
What "other mechanisms" are you referring to?
I think I see the point the editorial was trying to make but to say that this is just a matter of everyone including young girls becoming comfortable seeing genitalia just like it was becoming comfortable seeing black and white couples boggles the mind of I would guess most parents and teachers etc. It does go on to say in the article that putting up curtains and walls would solve some of the issue.
I wonder if the writer has young daughters.
I wonder if the writer has young daughters.
You underestimate the potential of that occurring...not only has it already happened at a college but you have the young male-to-trans sashaying on camera while pitching a tent while going commando in a skirt. Compound that by the fact that NO medical intervention is required under the policies being forced into place, which means there will be yet another wave that won't have any manner of hormonal reduction of the male sexual response.
However, when it gets pointed out that this is a problem, the trans-contingent shouts it down as either a sexualization of minors or simply reverting to the 'cannot go to the men's room because men are violent' mantra...
Telling people that they just have to get used to the notion of seeing opposite-sex genitalia is simply the foot in the door to legitimizing porn on network television or for other kinks to be normalized. All of a sudden, the flashers are emboldened and women who are victimized are told that no prosecution can be had lest they be viewed by a jury as 'phobic' or 'bigoted.'
I miss the days where someone who was 'transsexual' tended not to draw attention to themselves, got their medical intervention and went on about their lives, often without crossing anyone in a manner that created problems. It was with the push to create the 'transgender' umbrella notion that includes everyone from drag queens to cross-dressers to the guy who just gets off wearing silk panties under their three-piece suit that led to the real problems that exist with identity politics today. Absent some manner of medicalization of the process, there should be no legal protections. However, genderists don't want it to be under a medical process, except of course when they demand the insurance carriers pay for their fetish...
the POAs namely.
The errant whine was about making family decisions when married couples had to take these same actions. Medical decisions can be likewise designated by the person of choice ... but actually having these authorities were insufficient ...
their perverted relationship had to be codified and not only that, codified with the very institution The Church ordains. So, this is well beyond "equal rights." it's about "special rights" and the transparency or lack of distinction.
Hence, there is no absolute truth, see. This transgender is yet another manifestation.
Thanks for asking!
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
You're not really getting the point. It has nothing to do with whether something is or is not the law. It has to do with the idea that you've decided that something is "settled", and no more discussion is allowed. I'm not arguing that everyone that fits into the "religious right" heading has made good legislative decisions. I'm arguing that for you to simply dismiss all of them as "nuts" is no better than how you are often dismissed as a "nut" by those on the left.
The idea that a law being passed means an issue is settled is ridiculous, and I guarantee you don't even really believe it. But you're using it selectively because in this case it's convenient to you. Laws can be repealed, and it happens all the time.
A person is not "nuts" for believing that abortion is murder and shouldn't be legal. Some of the things many have done in support of that idea might be extreme and sometimes even wrong in themselves, but to simply say "all you people who don't want legalized abortion are nuts who just need to shut up about it" is just wrong.
Again, not arguing for everyone because I would argue that no one gets fit neatly into the same box. For example, there are plenty of pro-lifers who are not Christian. It is not a "christian" position, and in fact, technically the Bible doesn't address it directly. (I believe it does indirectly, but that's another story.) Just because Christians that you don't like hold that viewpoint doesn't make it a "Christian viewpoint", and it also doesn't mean that they are trying to force you into a theological government.
Many in the civil rights movement argued (rightly, I believe) that the way men and women of color were treated in this country was against the laws of God. That didn't make it a "Christian" movement, and it was not an attempt to impose theology.
I know there are some Christians who would be more than happy to turn the country into a theistic government, but it's not going to happen and most get that, and are not trying to achieve that. Those people don't have to shut up about "settled issues" just because some of the more extreme of their number happen to tick you off.
Before I get into this, understand that I oppose gay marriage. However, there's a problem with simply pointing out the POA as the fix-all.
First, as you mentioned, gay couples could not file a joint tax return. That's a big deal.
Second, while gay couples could by legal agreement and wills simulate some of the legal framework of marriage, not everyone has the money and sophistication to do this. When married couples lack the money or sophistication to make these arrangements, default rules apply that are satisfactory to most. I don't think it's unreasonable for a gay couple to want the same thing.
Third, without gay marriage, there was no gay divorce, which means there was no equitable division of property (or where applicable alimony) when a gay couple split up. Could that have been contractually arranged? Sure, but that's expensive and means that the "spouse" with the most leverage would dictate the terms.
Think about it. Suppose mb227 lives with a woman for 50 years, and they share everything as spouses would, acquire money, property, etc. Suppose the woman dies without a will. With a marriage or civil union, a property division will take place, and MB will inherit the woman's property as an heir at law. With neither, mb227 would not be an heir at law, and she would be screwed. Don't you see the injustice of that?
Not nearly often enough, sadly.
Even without the death component, it gets complicated. While it has been several years now, my ex and I had to jump through all sorts of hoops for my income to be included when she got a VA mortgage. Nevermind that we had already lived together for a handful of years and had joint title on things like vehicles and financial instruments.
Admittedly, in hindsight, it made our separation far easier not to have to jump through the disentanglement of the mortgage since my name was never on it but it did create issues on other matters where both names appeared. The lone saving grace was that, when she filed her BK7 a few months later, the filings had her surrendering her half-interest in the vehicles I kept.
hmm ... my skills here on this board are not as keen as yours ... IDK how you split the quotes ...
The tax issue is a big deal FOR ALL OF US. Therefore, it's not a "reason" to attempt or justify redefining marriage.
I was a GI, Deez ... how sophisticated does one have to be? Maybe before the internet businesses offering $50 legal documents, (Legal Zoom, et al) this was an issue ... it's not anymore and hasn't been for a long time.
So the reason to attempt redefinition of marriage is to have an institution which can later be destroyed?
That's really not demonstrating a full grasp of the word "marriage" in the first place. (and this isn't directed at you, I'm addressing the points of the argument)
nevertheless ... my point remains. The intent was to sully the real institution, at the national/agenda level, not that any given person who may/may not read this post intended ... this was done effectively by "making the case" of equality. Problem is ... it was never to be equal ... it was to be special.
When you invite the government to dabble ... by your leave sir is what you get. We've built FAR too much minutiae with government. We've let it grow such that there is no longer any facet of our personal lives which is not directly, if not intrusively, influenced by government.
And we BEG for more!
What was it Ben Franklin said about the republic? ".... if you can keep it." hello.
mb
"Absent some manner of medicalization of the process, there should be no legal protections."
That may sound harsh to some but to me that seems basic. Just saying you feel like a woman or man one day is a pretty low bar for all the havoc and harm that can be done.
The case at the mesquite Ross store illustrates that perfectly. Nothing could be said to the man after he declared he had a right to be in the women's' dressing room even though nothing about him suggested he truly was a transgendered person. The only advice the store could give the woman was for her to wait until he left.
"Absent some manner of medicalization of the process, there should be no legal protections."
That may sound harsh to some but to me that seems basic. Just saying you feel like a woman or man one day is a pretty low bar for all the havoc and harm that can be done.
The case at the mesquite Ross store illustrates that perfectly. Nothing could be said to the man after he declared he had a right to be in the women's' dressing room even though nothing about him suggested he truly was a transgendered person. The only advice the store could give the woman was for her to wait until he left.
You are correct- it is a VERY low bar. And this is part of where my objection has rested in ALL of the threads before this one where the subject came about. It IS something primed for abuse, but even on these boards, I had users telling me it was much ado about nothing.
But now, with incidents actually occurring that show the fallacy of catering to the whims of the fetishists, it is getting the attention of more and more people...
In the old days, there was a process that those who legitimately felt themselves to be of the other sex went through, and it started with shrinks and medical management. Some even went to far as to get a 'carry letter' that arguably had no legal weight but would hopefully keep them from getting arrested as long as it was clear that they weren't doing anything other than relieving themselves and were not drawing attention to themselves.
However, today's breed of trans* seems to be more about playing professional victim and whining that people don't cater to their fetish. I've mentioned it before with respect to boundary violations...google 'cotton ceiling' and you quickly see that all of this is about fully intact males demanding access to all manner of female spaces. And now, with the Ross incident, we have an actual female being told to wait for access to space that is supposedly set aside for females because some male who isn't even trying to 'pass' decides he had laydee-feelz that day.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 0
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
