Transgender student rights bill signed into law (to live in, parks)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by 9162

I think it is more of an issue with girls who think they are boys. To many, I think this represents the last frontier of the militant feminist agenda, with the relentless ongoing power struggle so many females seem committed to, against guys.

Boys grow up in a world, where they are forced to urinate in front of each other in public restrooms in urinals, they have to change their clothes in a locker room without privacy, unlike the girls...I can picture some tough bich taking full advantage of the situation, daring any guys around her to give her a hard time, after all, we know how persistent the lawsuits will be with the likes of the Gloria Allred type attorneys.

Wow. This is just ludicrous.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by nmnita

If you want to play the conservative versus the liberal game on this one, then you would have to admti, there are a lot more conservatives around than any of us think: I know a few people, in CA who are considered anything but conservative and still think this law goes over the top. In fact there are a few here on CD who usually take liberals views who also are not excited about this. To me, this bill is missing common sense and has little to do with political views.

Agreed. I'm not comfortable about this law. BUT, and heres the BUT, I don't know enough about it to truly make a informed opinion of it.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with the major concerns people have. I would not feel comfortable if I had children in the public schools. If this law did affect me directly I would do my research. I don't think that BUT, that is NOT what the tone is.

The tone, is jumping to the conclusion that every boy that decides hes really a girl can without any medical diagnosis can just use the girls bathroom without any consequence. Do people making this claim, know this or are they assuming this?

And calling them freaks and sexual deviants. Instead like some posters, articulately, intelligently stated: "I understand having sympathy for those struggling with gender identity, but this law goes too far" Perfect.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Jackall

Rom 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Cor 6:9-10

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

By the way, sin is sin. God doesn't see homosexuals as great sinners and gives straight couples a wink and a nod. To Him it's all sin, but this is the wrong forum for this discussion. However, you wanted the scriptures, so here they are.

You are correct. This is not the forum for this discussion, however . . .

there is a lot of debate amongst bible scholars about the interpretation of this. During the era of the new testament, the Roman Senators/Emporers/Nobility, simply to exert their power and dominance, were having non-consensual sex, basically raping boys.

There simply did not exist any publicly aware monogamous, mutually caring homosexual couples the way we know them today. So, just like enviromental/ecological issues, we don't know what the bible would say about these issues for the simple fact that they were non-issues at the time.

Marriages were arranged, and ONLY those of nobility who were above the law were allowed to do whatever they wanted, so it was simply political corruption.

[9162]

Originally Posted by Jackall

Rom 1:26-27

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

1 Cor 6:9-10

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

By the way, sin is sin. God doesn't see homosexuals as great sinners and gives straight couples a wink and a nod. To Him it's all sin, but this is the wrong forum for this discussion. However, you wanted the scriptures, so here they are.

Assuming one actually has the mentality to believe in such ridiculous, primitive and archaic drivel, for the record, there was no such word as homosexual when white heterosexual men wrote the bible, to their liking.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Agreed. I'm not comfortable about this law. BUT, and heres the BUT, I don't know enough about it to truly make a informed opinion of it.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with the major concerns people have. I would not feel comfortable if I had children in the public schools. If this law did affect me directly I would do my research. I don't think that BUT, that is NOT what the tone is.

The tone, is jumping to the conclusion that every boy that decides hes really a girl can without any medical diagnosis can just use the girls bathroom without any consequence. Do people making this claim, know this or are they assuming this?

And calling them freaks and sexual deviants. Instead like some posters, articulately, intelligently stated: "I understand having sympathy for those struggling with gender identity, but this law goes too far" Perfect.

As I understand it and again, this is just based on what I have seen on TV from both the left and the right, it isn't really very clear at all, as to who can decide they are transgender, or how it will be determined. I do agree, name calling, lack of understanding and lack of sympathy for some of these kids is inexcusable, but I still do not like the law. Boy am I glad I don't live in CA any longer.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by 9162

Wow, this is just ludicrous. Wow, no woman would ever do such a thing. Wow, no woman would ever try to seek monetary damages similar to the mayor of San Diego for putting his arm around a female co-worker at a Christmas party either, oh no. That would never happen.

Pretty sure it wasn't just one woman that complained about the mayor- it was EIGHTEEN. And I'm also pretty sure he grabbed her ass- not just put his arm around her. And I'm also pretty sure that the city council voted 7-0 to get rid of him.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

You are correct. This is not the forum for this discussion, however . . .

there is a lot of debate amongst bible scholars about the interpretation of this. During the era of the new testament, the Roman Senators/Emporers/Nobility, simply to exert their power and dominance, were having non-consensual sex, basically raping boys.

There simply did not exist any publicly aware monogamous, mutually caring homosexual couples the way we know them today. So, just like enviromental/ecological issues, we don't know what the bible would say about these issues for the simple fact that they were non-issues at the time.

Marriages were arranged, and ONLY those of nobility who were above the law were allowed to do whatever they wanted, so it was simply political corruption.

Nero was having homosexual relations and had to hide it. Such were common acts then and now, and the NT observations deal directly with it. Greece had a long history of such and it included the famous Theban band, a group of homosexual warriors (all adults) in Thebes who were "Gay". They may have been non issues to some, but not among Christians. What others believed did not make it OK with Christians based on the NT passages. Greek culture heavily influenced the world of that time and that included "homosexual" activities.

In CA as in other States the rejection of the thoughts expressed in the Bible does not make the Biblical thoughts wrong, any more than it makes the opinions of others who disagree right. CA is a bit more expressive of "Gay Rights" than most other States, but that neither makes the Biblical standards wrong or right.

[Chatteress]

What concerns me about this piece of legislation is what's to stop males predators from trying to access the women's restrooms by claiming they are "transgendered"? There are lots of sickos that could take advantage of this law for perverse reasons ....

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Chatteress

What concerns me about this piece of legislation is what's to stop males predators from trying to access the women's restrooms by claiming they are "transgendered"? There are lots of sickos that could take advantage of this law for perverse reasons ....

How many students in grades K-12 are male "predators" or "sickos"? Women's restrooms? These are public school kids.

How can people equate a child who has been born into the wrong body with someone who is a pedophile? And Bible verses on homosexuality? Come on.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

How many students in grades K-12 are male "predators" or "sickos"? Women's restrooms? These are public school kids.

How can people equate a child who has been born into the wrong body with someone who is a pedophile? And Bible verses on homosexuality? Come on.

I'm not talking about the transgendered folks but people who are posing as transgendered just to get into the girls restrooms and locker rooms. You are naive and shortsighted if you think this would not occur.