• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

In Houston nondiscrimination is on the line (beheadings to follow)

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
On Tuesday Houston votes on a nondiscrimination ordinance called HERO.

Naturally conservatives are being totally rational in talking about it. Ha ha. Of course not. After all, conservatives are incapable of normal things like feeling empathy, so of course they are saying all sorts of batty things.

Josh Duggar, part time sister finger enthusiast and full time creep, spoke out about the measure which he thinks is an “evil” force that “wants to put us [Christians] behind bars.” Also, somehow, it is supposed to be a greater threat to children than him. Which is a pretty high bar to aim for.



Donny Swaggart, a man who never met a problem in other people's lives that couldn't be solved by mailing him money, thinks that gay rights activists really want to behead Christians...none of whom are gay rights activists...I guess because he thinks they are exactly like ISIS.

"They want the Bible gone. And I'm going to make a statement: These people that are trying to do this in Houston, the only difference between them and ISIS, those thugs in Iraq, is those here cannot chop our heads off. That's the only difference. The heart is the same. The heart is the same. If they could silence us that way to intimidate others, that's exactly what they would do"



Gordon Klingenschmitt, a Republican legislator from Colorado who is still angry over never getting to play a comical villain prison camp guard on TV, is attacking HERO because he says it will allow perverted men to “expose themselves to little girls". He must have access to the double top secret version of the law because no one else has been able to find this supposed bit about being able to expose oneself to little girls.



Pat Robertson seems to think that this is actually all about forcing pastors to do things. Ironically he couches this all in his understandings of an alternate history where Christians never force other people to act like them.

"There’s no Christian group I know of anywhere in the world that would force somebody to do something contrary to their deep-held religious beliefs or else face criminal penalties, but that’s what the homosexuals are trying to do here in America and I think it’s time pastors stand up and fight this monstrous thing.

If the gays want to go out and do their gay sex, that’s one thing, but if they want you to force you to accept it and solemnify it by marriage then that’s a different matter and it’s an infringement on people’s religious belief. What’s being done in Houston is a gay—the woman they elected is a homosexual, she’s a lesbian, and she’s trying to force pastors to conform to her beliefs. It’s wrong."



A pastor in Houston, Dave Welch, sees this as part of a war against openly homosexual mayor Annise Parker.

“They didn’t understand the consequences of putting somebody in political power, with the authority of the sword, who has literally rejected every element of the created order of God and his word and his moral truths. Why would we expect somebody to act lawfully when they are living lawlessly?”


I guess Welch thinks she'll be the one doing the public beheadings that Swaggart is so worried about.
 
Why is it wrong for parents to not want penises whipping around in front of their little girls in locker rooms?
 
The primary argument I'm seeing against it is that there is apparently a vast army of pedophile men who desire to hang out in women's restrooms just so they can rape little girls, and the only thing stopping them from doing that now is that pesky law against men entering women's restrooms. Once that restriction is lifted these pedophile rapists will "identify" as women so they can hang out in women's toilets.
 
Yep. Criminals don't follow the law so if you make guns illegal then only criminals will have guns. For some reason though making the opposite genders bathroom illegal doesn't result in only criminals using that bathroom.

Gotta love the contradictory thinking.
 

The proposed ordinance would provide rights to people who self identify as opposite gender. Therefore creepy men could claim to identify as opposite gender and go into women's restrooms and locker rooms where they would supposedly expose themselves to girls with impunity.
 
Yep. Criminals don't follow the law so if you make guns illegal then only criminals will have guns. For some reason though making the opposite genders bathroom illegal doesn't result in only criminals using that bathroom.

Gotta love the contradictory thinking.

I am not following your analogy. Would you explain it?
 
The proposed ordinance would provide rights to people who self identify as opposite gender. Therefore creepy men could claim to identify as opposite gender and go into women's restrooms and locker rooms where they would supposedly expose themselves to girls with impunity.

What's stopping them from doing that now?
 
What's stopping them from doing that now?
Currently, it's not acceptable for men to go into women's dressing rooms. If this law passes, then any man can self identify as a woman, and if he enters the women's restroom, and someone tries to stop him, that person is subject to a $10K fine for discrimination/harassment.
 
Currently, it's not acceptable for men to go into women's dressing rooms. If this law passes, then any man can self identify as a woman, and if he enters the women's restroom, and someone tries to stop him, that person is subject to a $10K fine for discrimination/harassment.

But is the issue that biological men will enter women's bathrooms, or is it that creepy men will expose themselves to children? If it's the latter, there are other laws against that. So, my question stands. Why do creepy men apparently care about the rules regarding men in women's bathrooms, but not the law against exposing themselves to children?
 
Last edited:
But is the issue that biological men will enter women's bathrooms, or is it that creepy men will expose themselves to children? If it's the latter, there are other laws against that. So, my question stands. Why do creepy men apparently care about the rules regarding men in women's bathrooms, but not the law against exposing themselves to children?
Well you have to draw your line somewhere. Even criminals have a code of honor. :eye-poppi
 
The proposed ordinance would provide rights to people who self identify as opposite gender. Therefore creepy men could claim to identify as opposite gender and go into women's restrooms and locker rooms where they would supposedly expose themselves to girls with impunity.
I once had a creepy man expose himself to me with impunity in a frigidly cold mall parking lot. I had a creepy man expose himself to me in a campus library. I had a creepy man expose himself to me from his open 2nd floor apartment window whilst I was walking down the street. Perhaps all these creepy men were heretofore unaware that ladies rooms were such an appealing option?
 
I personally couldn't care less if a woman walked into a men's restroom or locker room that I was in. I can understand if some would though, or if women would have a problem with men walking into theirs. I don't discount their feelings for the sake of a tiny fraction of the population.

If one group wants you out of their restroom, go to the other. Congratulations, you've found the answer for yourself.

Is this really a problem? Could it be a very very small group of people with lawyers pushing their agenda? Lawyers gotta eat!

To answer "uk2see's" post above, men's tallywhackers are exposed to one extent or another by default when one uses a urinal. If we weren't so hung up on sex in this country (the porn capital of the world, no less) we wouldn't have this problem.

Self identifying oneself seems to be a major problem these days:

Image
 
I personally couldn't care less if a woman walked into a men's restroom or locker room that I was in. I can understand if some would though, or if women would have a problem with men walking into theirs. I don't discount their feelings for the sake of a tiny fraction of the population.

If one group wants you out of their restroom, go to the other. Congratulations, you've found the answer for yourself.

Is this really a problem? Could it be a very very small group of people with lawyers pushing their agenda? Lawyers gotta eat!

To answer "uk2see's" post above, men's tallywhackers are exposed to one extent or another by default when one uses a urinal. If we weren't so hung up on sex in this country (the porn capital of the world, no less) we wouldn't have this problem.

Self identifying oneself seems to be a major problem these days:

Image

To my knowledge, there are no urinals in women's bathrooms.

Your image is kinda biased, don't you think? Also wrong. Nobody ever called Al Gore a scientist, including Al Gore.

ETA: This is a woman according opponents of trans gendered restrooms.
 
Last edited:
I am not following your analogy. Would you explain it?

Many of the people who are pro gun are also anti letting transgender people use the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

A common refrain from those who are pro guns is that if you ban guns, then responsible people will follow the law and won't have guns but criminals will still have guns because criminals don't follow the law anyway.

If that same logic is applied to banning males from entering female bathroom, then the result should be that males who identify as female just wanting to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with will follow the law and won't enter the female bathroom, but criminal rapists/pedophiles will still enter the female bathrooms because criminals don't follow the law anyway.

Yet they argue the exact opposite. They say that banning males from the female bathroom stops rapists/pedophiles/perverts and not banning males who identify as female from the female bathroom will result in male rapists/pedophiles/perverts going in the female bathroom.
 
Last edited:
Currently, it's not acceptable for men to go into women's dressing rooms.
Yes it is... if they are trans-men.

That's the thing that strikes me as most wacky about this. The discussion seems to focus entirely around those born in a male body who transition to female, using women's bathrooms. It seems to go entirely unremarked that the law as the conservatives support it allows this guy to go into the women's changing rooms and bathrooms.

Why do conservatives want guys like this to be able to go leer at women and girls in the bathrooms of America?
 
Yes it is... if they are trans-men.

That's the thing that strikes me as most wacky about this. The discussion seems to focus entirely around those born in a male body who transition to female, using women's bathrooms. It seems to go entirely unremarked that the law as the conservatives support it allows this guy to go into the women's changing rooms and bathrooms.

Why do conservatives want guys like this to be able to go leer at women and girls in the bathrooms of America?
Because most republickers want to anyway - and if voting it in makes that possible.............
 

Back
Top Bottom