Sweeping Federal LGBT Rights Bill Will Be Introduced This Week

So your argument is that any human who is incapable or chooses not to reproduce does not meet the criteria for belonging to a specie. And you think biologists are going to back you up on this?

Wow. Guess biologists have been wasting their time with that whole DNA thingy ...

 

`
Cool your jets. The bill hasn't even made it to the congressional floor yet. While I respect the argument for sex specific facilities, I for one am delighted to see the this so-called "Religious discrimination" being addressed and hopefully completely negated.

 

please show those of us at home where I mentioned "diddling"

thanks

 

I guess denying equal rights to the majority is the gay thing to do.
Would a gay that refused to make a wedding cake that symbolized a union of a man and woman be fined $135,000.
I doubt it. Gays relish the attention they get from all this gay rights bull sh*t. Straights have the human right to not want their children seeing a bunch of men dressed in women's cloths, kissing on each other. Why should your rights come before my human rights?

 

This argument didn't work for interracial bans either.

 

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”

 

I also want to be clear about why this is a political trick on behalf of Democrats.

The provision to let people into facilities based on their gender identity is a controversial issue. This was added to get Republicans to vote NO on this bill.

Now, they have already started pushing this issue in some schools, yes, but I wouldn't think they would make a grand push it for maybe 15 years maybe longer. That's when the impressionable young minds who experienced mixed gender bathrooms grow up.

 

umm, read the article

it's about how one "identifies"

 

`
"Eternal damnation awaits those who do not believe in Gods unconditional love."

 

Biologists are the ones who made up the rules. 'Animals included in any species procreate to produce sexually viable offspring'. I didn't make the rules. Considering how PC main stream scientists have become these days, they will probably 'delete' that rule as it offensive to gays.
Choosing not to procreate, and not being able to procreate due to a disease process is not the same as not being able to procreate due to your homosexuality, and sexual preferences. In times of scarcity, animals choose not to procreate, but in times of plenty they procreate to produce sexually viable offspring. It is kind of like the Noah thing. Noah filled the boat with his sons and their wives, and with two of every kind, both male and female. WOW

A few years ago, I would never have written the fact about "procreation" as I am sure it is offensive. But I am sick of listening to your incessant BS about your civil rights. I am angry that this BS keeps getting shoved in everyone's face; and when I am angry, I go on the offensive. You called attention to yourselves, now take the heat or get out of the kitchen..
Please don't think that I care what your sexual preferences are because I could care less. But I don't want to have to listen to the incessant BS about gays' civil rights.

 

My apologies. You said "ogles" not "diddles"

 

For 2,000 years, religious people have targeted homosexuals with every punishment from imprisonment to stoning to chemical castration and more recently legislation to get them fired from their jobs and disrespect their military service.

Now, one gay guy demands a cake and religious folk crap their pants with indignant outrage.

Just too pathetic for words.

By the way, DNA match is used to determine specie - not procreation. Been that way for decades.

 

That is the problem. If some guy with a beard and lots of masculine traits all of a sudden decides he wants to be female I don't give to (*)(*)(*)(*)s about what he thinks. Until he has gone through enough of the therapy that he could pass for a woman at a quick glance then he should use the mens room. His comfort does not supercede the comfort of far more people that would be disturbed if some guy just comes waltzing into a bathroom. In this day and age where parents are constantly telling their kids about the dangers of interacting with strangers how the hell do you think a little kid is going to react to some strange guy just popping into their bathrooms and how are the mothers going to react to seeing a stranger guy just walk into the bathroom.

One persons comfort doesn't justify any of that and they need to grow up and stop (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing and whining. You are not the center of the universe.

 

Cross dressers can look like a female without taking one drug. Will businesses need to hire a chromosome checker at the door to facitlities to verify one's sex?

Or, are the Democrats pushing for open showers, fitting rooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms etc because it would be too expensive to test the sex of people.

 

Crossdressers look like women........or at least more than they do men when they are all dressed up. I don't know how much simpler I can make it. Until a transgendered person has gone through enough treatment to the point where they have more dominant feminine traits then they should use the same bathroom as before. Crossdressers go out of their way to appear feminine so as long as they aren't scaring the crap out of kids of freaking out other people then I don't care if they use the women's bathroom. Appearance is the key determining factor here not feelings or how comfortable they feel. Until they can make a passable female then they have no business going into the women's bathroom. Obviously, there are women who dress up as guys but guys wouldn't care about them coming in for obvious reasons.

 

they have the same right....to marry....a person of the opposite sex....just like us. Now they have an extra right. Marry a person of the opposite sex or marry a person of their same sex...if they can figure out what that is.

Doesn't alter the fact. these people are not right in the head. It's too small a segment of the population to be legitimate. Our problem is we've become terminally PC. We're killing ourselves with this folly.

 

No. Equal right. Straight males now have the option to marry a man as well. Equality maintained.

 

This argument didn't work for interracial bans either.

They are the same percentage of the population as they've always been through the the entirety of human history. You don't lose constitutional rights because you are a minority.

 

It's literally the exact same marriage right you have. You can go out and get married to any adult that'll say yes if you want. There's nothing special about it. They just removed a block that was unfairly targeting minorities.

The slippery slope argument is fallacious.

Talk to me when there's an actual problem, rather than just your paranoid scaremongering.

It's far from the saddest thing in this conversation.

- - - Updated - - -

Not legally. There has to be sincerity.

No, there isn't. "Because gay people are icky" is not a legitimate reason.

- - - Updated - - -

Sexual orientation entails more than sex. It's the entire axis along which you pursue romantic relationships. Imagine if you couldn't even be in public with your significant other without getting (*)(*)(*)(*) from some self-righteous hick. You take that for granted.

You have the right to get as offended as you want. You can refuse to socialize with me. You can say whatever you want, as ignorant as I may find it.

What you cannot do, is try to restrict other people's rights over it. If you have a job, do your damned job. And don't try to pass legislation stripping others of their rights.

You chose to be celibate. That's your problem. You wanted it. I never asked to be queer. All I want is for people to not be a dick to me.

You aren't exactly inspiring sympathy from me here.

"Tranny" is a slur. It's the same thing as calling a black person one of the myriad of slurs against their race. Or if I called you an impotent eunuch.

If they're walking into a women's bathroom, they obviously present as women. The word is she.

So you're just going to passive-aggressively be rude to people because you hate their kind? That says measures about what kind of person you are.

- - - Updated - - -

More like "If your religious restrictions prevent you from doing your duty as a government official, you should find a different job instead of getting all indignant."

There isn't a single reported case of somebody posing as a trans person to commit sex crimes. Your hysterical paranoia is unwarranted, and I'm willing to bet that you're just trying to come up with excuses to make trans people's lives worse.

The republican party is just a bunch of fascists wearing a flimsy disguise.

- - - Updated - - -

I said what I meant, and meant what I said. You should not have the ability to push your religious restrictions onto other people and make their day worse because of it.

When's the last time you've seen a Jew heckle you at a deli for getting pork? Never? That's because most Jews get that nobody else cares about following their restrictions. Be like Jewish people.

 

One of the other defining 'characteristics' among particular species is that they are distinguished by a combination of biochemical (DNA and haplotypes), morphological, and behavioral features. DNA can verify links between organisms but it isn't the sole factor in classifying organisms into species. Many Primates are fairly close genetically but they each had a distinct evolutionary pathway; occupy certain biological niches; are distinguished by certain biochemical, morphological, and behavioral features, and procreate to produce viable offspring. (An Inordinate Fondness for Beetles, Evans and Bellamy)

Speaking of morphological and behavioral features: in the "noprocreatidae" species of the genus "Exceptiontotheruleinis" certain morphological features define them as "noprocreatidaes": men with Y chromosomes, beards and with artificial boobs, or men with the "Y" chromosome with man-made vaginas. Behaviorally, they also fit into the "noprocreatidae" species because, they are different from all other animal species. That behavior is: male-to-male sex, and female-to-female sex. Yep, sometimes animals get confused and do the same, and sometimes they get confused about which species they belong to, but that is a rarity and an anomaly; and, they too could be lumped into the family of "noprocreatidae" species.

 

men who have sex with other men are not right. It is not natural, it is not right, it is death. You don't lose constitutional rights but neither do you re-write the constitution in order to legalize a perversion.

 

There is a legal justification, property rights included, but you already knew that.

It is already, illegal to discriminate based on religious beliefs, this argument is completely dingy. You cannot sacrifice the neighbors goat because he is a non believer and your God says it is the right thing to do, and that excludes the Baptist's eldest blonde virgin as being a candidate for the active volcano, even if it is about to blow.

The letting anybody go into any bathroom/shower they sexually identify with is complete bat (*)(*)(*)(*) craziness though. There is absolutely "NO" justification for such blatant ignorance.

- - - Updated - - -

It isn't illegal and they have every right to protect their property when they enter into a contractual relationship as you do.

 

Where has the Constitution been re-writen?

 

So, because I don't have children, I'm not a human? What a funny little brain you have.

 

You are free to hold any opinion you like.

Well, no. If you hold opinions contrary to the facts, you look foolish.

L:egal equality requires no re-write, it's been there all along. Sexual orientation is an aspect of normal human variation just like handedness and earlobe shapes. None of these are fatal, none of these are perversions, and none of these should bother anyone who doesn't go out of his way to be bothered.