Am I Vulgar for not wanting men in woman's bathrooms?

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Only s---s are allowed to called themselves s----s.

I just read online that Obama has no problem with that "comedian" the other night calling him the "N" word.

So that means WE can use it, right?

I am sure you are racist in even daring to ask the question...

If you have to ask, you're a racist. Everybody knows that.

 

[JettaKnight]

I just read online that Obama has no problem with that "comedian" the other night calling him the "N" word.

So that means WE can use it, right?

Nope, not us. We call call each other "cracker". But, Kut can't call us cracker.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Nope, not us. We call call each other "cracker". But, Kut can't call us cracker.

Sure he can. Everyone knows minorities cant ever be racist. Its strictly a WASP thing.

 

[JettaKnight]

Sure he can. Everyone knows minorities cant ever be racist. Its strictly a WASP thing.

Sorry for the poor quality.

[video=youtube;aRK5rU1ZPJc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRK5rU1ZPJc[/video]

 

[Beowulf]

Well, it could be because some of us can see a day when that's coming. Quite frankly, given how far we come in "sexual liberation" in society, it's potentially the next hurdle we'll cross in our descent into total moral decay.

What was abhorrent is now celebrated. Why is it hard to imagine what is abhorrent will be celebrated?

Yup, you are so right.

 

[JettaKnight]

The topic at hand isn't gay marriage, it's transgenderism. Keep up with the times.

 

[Beowulf]

The topic at hand isn't gay marriage, it's transgenderism. Keep up with the times.

Funny how the topic at hand WAS gay marriage a couple of years ago and the exact same arguments you are making were used then... just like they were used with interracial marriage. It's just as ridiculous now as it was then (on both counts).

For the record, if we are really concerned about children's safety, I'd be way more concerned with the Catholic church, which has engaged in a worldwide coverup of child abuse at the hands of priests. Think about it, there has been a systematic global conspiracy to cover up the rape of children. Yet, you seem way more concerned that somehow letting someone use the bathroom of the gender they identify with (even though there is no evidence of child abuse occurring from that in any great numbers), than with what the Catholic church has been doing for decades. Sounds like you aren't really concerned about the children at all, but rather are using that as an excuse to justify your stance.

 

[JettaKnight]

Funny how the topic at hand WAS gay marriage a couple of years ago and the exact same arguments you are making were used then... just like they were used with interracial marriage. It's just as ridiculous now as it was then (on both counts).

For the record, if we are really concerned about children's safety, I'd be way more concerned with the Catholic church, which has engaged in a worldwide coverup of child abuse at the hands of priests. Think about it, there has been a systematic global conspiracy to cover up the rape of children. Yet, you seem way more concerned that somehow letting someone use the bathroom of the gender they identify with (even though there is no evidence of child abuse occurring from that in any great numbers), than with what the Catholic church has been doing for decades. Sounds like you aren't really concerned about the children at all, but rather are using that as an excuse to justify your stance.

Oh, I'm concerned with the HR Catholic church - go digging through my posts someday!

Where did I ever mention 'the children'? IMHO, it's a red herring.

Another red herring is IR marriage vs. gay marriage. I'm too young to have been around for it, but there's no Biblical basis for opposing IR marriage and to my knowledge there was not a unified stance on this within the RC or protestant church. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know the history.


But hey, throw up whatever strawmen you can to avoid the topic.

 

[Beowulf]

Oh, I'm concerned with the HR Catholic church - go digging through my posts someday!

Where did I ever mention 'the children'? IMHO, it's a red herring.

Another red herring is IR marriage vs. gay marriage. I'm too young to have been around for it, but there's no Biblical basis for opposing IR marriage and to my knowledge there was not a unified stance on this within the RC or protestant church. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know the history.


But hey, throw up whatever strawmen you can to avoid the topic.

Right here:

Well, it could be because some of us can see a day when that's coming. Quite frankly, given how far we come in "sexual liberation" in society, it's potentially the next hurdle we'll cross in our descent into total moral decay.

What was abhorrent is now celebrated. Why is it hard to imagine what is abhorrent will be celebrated?

You said that specifically in reference to my complaint about people deciding to conflate LBGT rights with endorsing pedophilia. I mean, you literally just said that a few hours ago.

Anyway, this might be where we just have to agree to disagree, but if you are basing your beliefs on a Biblical basis, then we just have to part ways. I base my arguments on the Constitution and the principals of freedom our country was founded on, not what one particular religion (even if it is the largest religion in the world) decrees. I 100% support your right to believe what you want. I just don't support your right to use government to limit the actions of others based on your beliefs, especially when there is literally no evidence of any harm that you will suffer from them. Just arguing about what could happen isn't sufficient, since you can do that for anything. By that argument, because guns could be used for crimes, we should just ban guns, right? We don't accept that rhetoric from the gun banners, so we should really not accept that argument in other issues.

 

[JettaKnight]

You said that specifically in reference to my complaint about people deciding to conflate LBGT rights with endorsing pedophilia. I mean, you literally just said that a few hours ago.

Ah, yes. I thought you were trying to lump me in with the 'kids in the restroom with perverts' crowd.

Anyway, this might be where we just have to agree to disagree, but if you are basing your beliefs on a Biblical basis, then we just have to part ways. I base my arguments on the Constitution and the principals of freedom our country was founded on, not what one particular religion (even if it is the largest religion in the world) decrees. I 100% support your right to believe what you want. I just don't support your right to use government to limit the actions of others based on your beliefs, especially when there is literally no evidence of any harm that you will suffer from them. Just arguing about what could happen isn't sufficient, since you can do that for anything. By that argument, because guns could be used for crimes, we should just ban guns, right? We don't accept that rhetoric from the gun banners, so we should really not accept that argument in other issues.

Shame on me for not being moral relativistic.



And nice use of the old clichéd, "let's equate X with guns". If it works for pit bulls (it doesn't) maybe it works with queers (their term of choice, not mine).

 

[Beowulf]

Ah, yes. I thought you were trying to lump me in with the 'kids in the restroom with perverts' crowd.



Shame on me for not being moral relativistic.



And nice use of the old clichéd, "let's equate X with guns". If it works for pit bulls (it doesn't) maybe it works with queers (their term of choice, not mine).

I never asked you to give up your moral beliefs. I'm just asking you to leave them out of the realm of the government. "Render unto Caesar...", "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" and all that. How you live your life is between you and whatever deity (or lack thereof) you choose. How someone else lives theirs is none of your business. Personally, having seen what a theocracy looks like (Iran and ISIL, for example), I really don't want to deal with that nonsense in America.

 

[JettaKnight]

I never asked you to give up your moral beliefs. I'm just asking you to leave them out of the realm of the government. "Render unto Caesar...", "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" and all that. How you live your life is between you and whatever deity (or lack thereof) you choose. How someone else lives theirs is none of your business. Personally, having seen what a theocracy looks like (Iran and ISIL, for example), I really don't want to deal with that nonsense in America.

So now you've resorted to cherry picking and scripture twisting?

 

[Beowulf]

So now you've resorted to cherry picking and scripture twisting?

Isn't that what everyone does? Otherwise we'd be doing all sorts of crazy things, like putting witches to death (Exodus 22:18) and giving all of our shirts and food away (Luke 3:11). I'm not saying this to denigrate your faith, my point is that you are completely free to believe what you'd like, but you can't impose those beliefs on others (and before someone else jumps in, no, having a trans-gendered person use the same bathroom as you doesn't impose on your beliefs anymore than letting black people sit in the same bus seats as white people).

 

[JettaKnight]

Isn't that what everyone does? Otherwise we'd be doing all sorts of crazy things, like putting witches to death (Exodus 22:18) and giving all of our shirts and food away (Luke 3:11). I'm not saying this to denigrate your faith, my point is that you are completely free to believe what you'd like, but you can't impose those beliefs on others (and before someone else jumps in, no, having a trans-gendered person use the same bathroom as you doesn't impose on your beliefs anymore than letting black people sit in the same bus seats as white people).

Again with race verses queer comparisons, huh?



Really, I don't care that much at all about this issue. It's such a marginal issue with limited ramification, IMHO. Restroom usage tends to be dictated on social norms which may vary by venue. If a dude is wearing a wig and dress, I just don't want him at the urinal next to me. (And if you'll note, I refuse to use the pronoun "her".)

 

[jamil]

No, no, no. That's not hate speech. That's just advocating for social change.

(in before beowulf and lowe)

Considering that I already addressed this scenario in post #20, this must be some new definition of the word "before" of which I was previously unaware.

Post #20 does not address that.

 

[Beowulf]

Again with race verses queer comparisons, huh?



Really, I don't care that much at all about this issue. It's such a marginal issue with limited ramification, IMHO. Restroom usage tends to be dictated on social norms which may vary by venue. If a dude is wearing a wig and dress, I just don't want him at the urinal next to me. (And if you'll note, I refuse to use the pronoun "her".)

Would you prefer a different comparison? How about Christians living in Islamic countries then, since you seem to be hung up on the idea that sexuality is a choice and thus different than race (that or I don't see how you are making a distinction at all). I mean, Christians can just convert to Islam if they are tired of being persecuted right? They shouldn't complain about being thrown in jail for proselytizing (like in Malaysia or much of the Middle East) right? They are probably bringing on themselves for their disgusting behavior. Clearly they are violating a societal norm by practicing their apostasy among good God-fearing Muslims, right?

 

[JettaKnight]

Would you prefer a different comparison? How about Christians living in Islamic countries then, since you seem to be hung up on the idea that sexuality is a choice and thus different than race (that or I don't see how you are making a distinction at all). I mean, Christians can just convert to Islam if they are tired of being persecuted right? They shouldn't complain about being thrown in jail for proselytizing (like in Malaysia or much of the Middle East) right? They are probably bringing on themselves for their disgusting behavior. Clearly they are violating a societal norm by practicing their apostasy among good God-fearing Muslims, right?

Sorry, maybe I missed something - but who's being persecuted? Who's being systematically killed or imprisoned?

The only thing I know of that's going on is a law, "if you got a woo-woo-dilly, then don't go into the women's room". And what's the punishment? It's certainly not amputation. I haven't checked, but I'd be amazed if it's felony.



Your sexual desires and proclivities are not a choice, but your behavior is.

 

[jamil]

Maybe it's my upbringing, but any time I see "SJ", I picture a Jesuit.

IKR? Wasn't raised a Jesuit but also I had never heard of SJW until #gamergate happened.

You know, or maybe that whole thing is a complete and utter fabrication, designed to ensnare and rile up people who are looking to justify their own prejudices.

Transgender Woman Arrested for Photographing Underaged Girls in Target Bathroom? : snopes.com

I sincerely doubt the LGBT community really endorses pedophilia as a legitimate choice. Frankly, I still don't understand why the opponents of the LGBT community continue to try to equate the two, other than in an attempt to smear the entire community. Frankly, it's pretty distasteful. If you are going to debate something, debate it on its merits. Don't just make things up to discredit those you disagree with.

I don't think LGBTs escape statistics. They probably have some perverts among them like straight people do. However, whatever the percentage of transgendered people that are also perverts, it's probably very small since the number of transgendered people is very small.

Most of the concerns I've heard raised were more about perverts who claim they're transgendered just so they can exploit the policy for their jollies. Since there are tons more perverts than there are LGBTs, it doesn't sound to me like a far fetched concern that some creepy dudes would claim to be lgbt just to sneak a peek.

 

[JettaKnight]

I don't think LGBTs escape statistics. They probably have some perverts among them like straight people do. However, whatever the percentage of transgendered people that are also perverts, it's probably very small since the number of transgendered people is very small.

Most of the concerns I've heard raised were more about perverts who claim they're transgendered just so they can exploit the policy for their jollies. Since there are tons more perverts than there are LGBTs, it doesn't sound to me like a far fetched concern that some creepy dudes would claim to be lgbt just to sneak a peek.

Assuming that you mean sexual miscreant by pervert, then yes, there's probably someone bold enough to do it. My thought is that someone who is trans and bold enough to switch restrooms in public - they're probably passible enough and not looking for conflict...

Who needs to get busted? The chick who's got a crew cut and is (ahem)packing walking into the mens room or the creepy dude with three-day stubble and a Goodwill dress? There's enough laws to be able to address this situation.


So, dumb law? Maybe. Beneficial in 'protecting our children'? Doubtful Will enrage the queer community? Most certainly.

 

[jamil]

Nope, not us. We call call each other "cracker". But, Kut can't call us cracker.

Sure he can. Everyone knows minorities cant ever be racist. Its strictly a WASP thing.

Yes. According to the official progressive rule book, Kut gets to call us Cracka, or Cracker. JettaKnight, you need to check your privilege.

I never asked you to give up your moral beliefs. I'm just asking you to leave them out of the realm of the government. "Render unto Caesar...", "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" and all that. How you live your life is between you and whatever deity (or lack thereof) you choose. How someone else lives theirs is none of your business. Personally, having seen what a theocracy looks like (Iran and ISIL, for example), I really don't want to deal with that nonsense in America.

Hey, I thought you were in favor of Charlotte's law.