Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How much do you want to bet the Feds get involved with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones
True, the Feds will most likely force this upon the people of Houston somehow.
I think if it was close - like California's prop 8 from years back, the Feds may get into it.
In this case, NO votes were 60%+. So it wasn't even close. Also - the city tried to sneak this ordinance in. A group had enough signatures via petition to put this on the ballot... which the city took to court and lost.
I'm going to say it's not likely the Feds get involved.
I think if it was close - like California's prop 8 from years back, the Feds may get into it.
In this case, NO votes were 60%+. So it wasn't even close. Also - the city tried to sneak this ordinance in. A group had enough signatures via petition to put this on the ballot... which the city took to court and lost.
I'm going to say it's not likely the Feds get involved.
Prop 8 passed on a landslide, and was struck down by one circuit 9 judge who happened to be a homosexual. There's that little thing call "conflict of interest" being completely ignored these days.
The government, at every level, has become quite adept at ignoring what the people want and vote for.
This. The outrage over potential assault glazes over the fact that a cisgender man that rapes/assaults women is going to do it regardless of a law like this. Also a MTF transgender is much more likely to be assaulted or killed. Look at the hatred on many of these forums. This online hatred will and does translate into physical violence toward the transgender community. So, I agree, that this was just to keep the LGBT community from being protected.
They are already protected. Do you really believe that anywhere in the US, an LGBT person can be attacked without consequence?
This was about a bunch of other deviant (and not so deviant) "freedoms and rights" that were flying under the radar.
Prop 8 passed on a landslide, and was struck down by one circuit 9 judge who happened to be a homosexual. There's that little thing call "conflict of interest" being completely ignored these days.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,558 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Greg, do you have a daughter? Do you support a "female" with a penis using same restroom that your daughter uses? When did you come to the conclusion that this was OK?
You realize you dont need a penis to rape someone right ?
If it's too dangerous to allow people with penises into women's restrooms because they might sexually assault girls, then why allow them into men's rooms with boys? There are tons of pedophiles out there who want to rape or otherwise abuse boys. If the argument of the opponents of the Houston ordinance makes logical sense, then it seems that they should be advocating for only allowing one person (or one parent and his/her child) into a bathroom at a time. If allowing a predator into a bathroom with a potential victim is such a big problem when it's a male predator and a female victim, then it should also be a problem when it's a male predator and a male victim (or female predator and female victim, for that matter). The fact that no one is advocating that tells me that the opposition to the ordinance isn't about protecting people from sexual assault. It's about something else.
Because, believe it or not, there are a lot of females who don't want to see one of the grossest looking body parts God ever created.
Originally Posted by steven_h Prop 8 passed on a landslide, and was struck down by one circuit 9 judge who happened to be a homosexual. There's that little thing call "conflict of interest" being completely ignored these days.
4% (over 400,000 votes) IS a landslide in California. Arguing semantics only dilutes the bigger point.
My point is that a single judge with a personal bias/interest completely ignored the voters, and concocted his own legalese to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
You realize you dont need a penis to rape someone right ?
That was off the rails even for you
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
