Really, Houston?? (San Antonio, Austin, The Woodlands: vs., ordinances, suburban)

[3shipguy]

Sheesh! Clarify the bathroom part and I bet the ordinance passes. The reason it failed had nothing to do with Houston being anti-LGBT.

[RedRat44]

I think the LG etc people want to eliminate the idea of gender eventually. And follow that up with the trendy laws prohibiting mention of it because someone might be offended. We can all see how we're being steered in that direction.
Personally, the idea of living in a controlled society where people are prohibited from speaking their minds and children are taught that what is natural is somehow wrong offends me.

[PinkLadyK]

Dude, whoever sent me the anonymous message trying to explain to me how XXY equals penis equals men's room kinda missed my whole point that it's not quite as simple as X = female and Y = male.

By the way, you probably meant to send me a direct message, not add to my reputation. Too bad City-Data isn't as simple as genetics.

[curbur]

Originally Posted by RedRat44

Personally, the idea of living in a controlled society where people are prohibited from speaking their minds and children are taught that what is natural is somehow wrong offends me.

You mean like how gay people have been treated their entire lives by Western society? Prohibited from speaking their minds about how they feel until very recently in the last 1-2 decades, and as children are taught that what they naturally feel is somehow wrong and unacceptable.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Lowexpectations

So I can keep veterans from using the restroom, even gender appropriate and that's fine with you?

Uh, are you responding to the right post??

[Lowexpectations]

Originally Posted by 3shipguy

Sheesh! Clarify the bathroom part and I bet the ordinance passes. The reason it failed had nothing to do with Houston being anti-LGBT.

So I can keep veterans from using the restroom, even gender appropriate and that's fine with you?

[Lowexpectations]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Uh, are you responding to the right post??

Nope it was a misquote

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by curbur

Most sexual assault websites will tell you roughly 90% of offenders know their victim and vica versa, so again, how often will this bathroom boogeyman be paying our dear children a visit? Better question, how many more assaults will happen annually compared to before it was passed? What I can guarantee you is the amount of times a gay or transgendered person gets discriminated against or even attacked for being in the "wrong" bathroom will be far and away more often than anytime a child is unfortunately assaulted. I don't buy that open carry would lead to more murders or school shootings, which is why I don't believe that letting transgender people use the restroom will realistically cause an uptick in the amount of assaults that would happen.

Like I said before, pointing to stats is spurious because the issue is with the vague language in the provision that Houstonians believe would open a potential legal wormhole. I never said I necessarily agreed fully with them but can see their side of it. I don't just dismiss this as a case of bigoted people vs intelligent open minded free thinking souls. Regardless if there are no instances of this happening before or ever in places where a similar measure has passed, the people of Houston just took issue with the language. That's it. You guys keep playing the stats game and avoiding the main point that if things were just worded differently this measure most likely would've passed.

This is simply a matter of rewording a bill, presenting it and dropping the narrative that Houstonians are bigoted.

[radiolibre99]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Not at all, it's stating a fact. Are you really going to disagree that irrational fear of people who are different didn't play a big part in how the vote went?

I agree that there might have been but more so that the narrative was used to pain the opponents and the city of Houston as a bastion of bigots.
You didn't state a fact, that was your opinion of the situation.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by curbur

So I'm clueless because I don't agree with you? That's how it works. Sorry, I get it now. Also, what race/ethnic group am I? Please do tell, I'd love to hear your conclusions.

Conjecture aside, "There are also those against more government regulation and against business getting into your personal business" falls into what I said about those that voted against it due to the ordinance's potential implications, not because they didn't believe in lgbt protections in general and are proud of blocking them. If you're proud about this outcome, then that says a lot, and probably is pretty telling about how you felt about gay marriage also. I wonder how you feel about interracial marriage also now that I think about it; care to tell me what race I am?

No, you have demonstrated that you are clueless about those who disagree with you on this issue. You may be quite knowledgeable about those who agree with you and about the ordinance.

And you continue to demonstrate your cluelessness with the 2nd paragraph.