[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

All I'm asking for is for you to provide one example to prove you're not pulling this out of the dark side to make a point (which I think is the case here).

I said I'd see what I find. Might be better in a different thread tho.

You're reaffirming my point that you don't believe homosexuals should be treated equally. Let's stop skirting around the issue - just say it.

Nope, I believe we all have equal rights. You just seem to think because I think they should be applied equally I'm being discriminatory, thats simply untrue.

I'm not saying anything about love. You're putting your own emotions in front of rationality. Of course love SHOULD be part of a marriage, but that's just my opinion, and love is immeasurable. The state has no say in what constitutes "love". It's up to an individual.

Agreed, but in the last post you said it should be ok for ANY two people to get married for any reason. Would homosexual marriage between siblings be ok?

The issue here is that the state recognizes it. If it was solely recognizable by a church, and not the state, then I'd understand your point.

Because the churches recognition is simply a ritual but the state actually confers a few privilages? The problem here I think is we view the state differently. I view the things the state confers & the state pays for as things society confers & society pays for. I'm all for letting my tax money be used to help people trying to raise a family & bring about the next generation of Americans. But why would I want to help two people I'v never met for no other reason than they want to spend their life together, as admirable as that may be?

With greater than 50% of heterosexuals getting divorces, that's where we're headed.

So lets demean the concept of it more eh. Time was a divorce was something people were at least a bit ashamed of, now its just like walking away from a week old tyrst.

But again, that's where we disagree. Homosexuals aren't "pretending" or choosing. They are the way God created them.

I'll grant you that God may have made them gay, the pretending is that two of them form a marriage. You might want to take a look at how God viewed homosexuality before you toss it out there too.

It never ceases to amaze me that people still think homosexuality is a choice. Why would someone make a choice to live an incredibly difficult life? Are homosexuals who say they wish they were straight lying?

Might be a choice I dont know really, I'm sure some is learned behavior. I dont think homosexuals who say they wish they were straight are lieing. There are many disorders that the sufferers wish it werent them.

Also people make choices that come back to haunt them every day.

The bottom line is it really doesn't matter why homosexuality happens, it does & thats not in question. The question seems to be whether we should treat men or women who decide that they are not a man or woman inside, like whatever sex they feel like they are. My opinion is that you are what you are regardless of how you feel about it. If you have male parts you are a man & should use the mens room. If you are female you should use the ladies room. If you decide you want to get married you should find someone of the oposite sex. These things dont deny anyones rights or discriminate, they also dont insult peoples intlligence or open the door for abuses to a cut & dry system thats done pretty good for a loooooong time.

Now, this time I'm really bowing out.

I'll PM you with what I find in that other matter.

[Francois]

Originally Posted by JViello

You all have a good time, I've got more pressing issues going on right now than to worry about offending a bunch of cross dressers.

In other words, people have met every one of your alarmist, sky-is-falling, hand-wringing extrapolations of what you "just know" is going to happen with cool logic and facts, and you're losing. So, now you're bailing out on a sensationalist thread YOU started, knowing it would be controversial and cause heated debate, in the first place.

[AnonChick]

I just read HB6599 and didn't see "the bathroom part" of this act. Can someone point it out to me? I must've missed it.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by Francois

In other words, people have met every one of your alarmist, sky-is-falling, hand-wringing extrapolations of what you "just know" is going to happen with cool logic and facts, and you're losing. So, now you're bailing out on a sensationalist thread YOU started, knowing it would be controversial and cause heated debate, in the first place.

No at the time I had a cat just diagnosed with cancer and had to tend to the matter. There is even a thread about in this forum. Its that good enough for you?

As you can see, I'm back in this thread there Francis. So are you moving to CT from NC? Just curious because this is a local issue here.

BTW nice attempt to label someone...sooo tollerant of you.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by AnonChick

I just read HB6599 and didn't see "the bathroom part" of this act. Can someone point it out to me? I must've missed it.

I'm getting tired of typing. Peter Wolfgang outlined it pretty clear.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/JUDdata/T...Action-TMY.PDF

[goldenband]

I think AnonChick was asking for the relevant text of the law itself, not for some lobbyist's polemic.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by goldenband

I think AnonChick was asking for the relevant text of the law itself, not for some lobbyist's polemic.

The law allows the use of womens bathrooms by men. Is it in text? No. But neither is the ability for a confused man to use an all womens gym.

Please stop being coy...

[goldenband]

I'm not being coy. I think anyone pontificating about this law needs to quote the EXACT text, because otherwise we're all making #1 in the wind (as opposed to in the women's lavatory!).

It's also irresponsible, if not downright dishonest, to make it sound like the law says "Be it henceforth decreed that men shall use women's bathrooms, and vice versa, with no impediment." It doesn't say that, and I really do think that the bathroom issue is a proxy for those whose main agenda is to attack transgendered people. Even the article you linked starts out not with discussion of bathrooms, but with discussion of how this law would protect transgendered people from discrimination, and how that idea is objectionable to the writer.

Alas, not protecting them is objectionable to me and a lot of other people, because we've seen too many friends and loved ones get the crap beaten out of them -- a scenario whose reality could not make for a starker contrast to your breathless, hypothetical rape vignettes -- and we've decided that it's time to put a stop to it, for good. We don't plan on budging from that position, ever -- and with every passing year, there are more of us than those on the other side.

[AnonChick]

I was looking for the relevent text. The law does not allow for the use of womens' bathrooms by men. It DOES require that public places, sale of private property, employment, government facilities (not bathroom facilities, facilities meaning, buildings, dwellings, residences, warehouses, etc. etc. etc.) not discriminate on the basis of a bunch of things, including gender identity.

Currently, it is possible for an establishment to have just ONE bathroom - for whoever gets to the door first, regardless of their gender, gender identity, etc. etc. It is also possible for an establishment to have two seperate accommodations - one for men, and one for women. It is also possible to have three - one for men, one for women, and one exclusively for the disabled, regardless of gender.

There are all kinds of accommodations that facilities are allowed to have, as long as they do not _prevent_ people from being allowed to all do the same particular behaviors. That means - if a man who identifies with being a woman wants to take a pee, he has the right to use A - bathroom, IF that building allows other people to use A bathroom. Not necessarily THE bathroom, not necessarily the men's room, not necessarily the women's room, or the disabled-only room. But *A* room that is designated specifically for the use of people who want to pee. It MIGHT be the men's room. Or it MIGHT be the women's room. THey MIGHT make a special room for "Cross-Gender-Identity-Only." Just like some places have "Disabled Only."

That isn't discrimination. That's accommodation. And I see nothing in the actual text of the law that requires anything else.

[andthentherewere3]

Originally Posted by AnonChick

The law does not allow for the use of womens' bathrooms by men. It DOES require that public places, sale of private property, employment, government facilities (not bathroom facilities, facilities meaning, buildings, dwellings, residences, warehouses, etc. etc. etc.) not discriminate on the basis of a bunch of things, including gender identity.

Currently, it is possible for an establishment to have just ONE bathroom - for whoever gets to the door first, regardless of their gender, gender identity, etc. etc. It is also possible for an establishment to have two seperate accommodations - one for men, and one for women. It is also possible to have three - one for men, one for women, and one exclusively for the disabled, regardless of gender.

There are all kinds of accommodations that facilities are allowed to have, as long as they do not _prevent_ people from being allowed to all do the same particular behaviors. That means - if a man who identifies with being a woman wants to take a pee, he has the right to use A - bathroom, IF that building allows other people to use A bathroom. Not necessarily THE bathroom, not necessarily the men's room, not necessarily the women's room, or the disabled-only room. But *A* room that is designated specifically for the use of people who want to pee. It MIGHT be the men's room. Or it MIGHT be the women's room. THey MIGHT make a special room for "Cross-Gender-Identity-Only." Just like some places have "Disabled Only."

Maybe I read this wrong, but they way you phrase it, it still sounds like men are allowed to use the women's bathroom.