Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Mississippi & NC religious freedom laws | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 6 2016, 01:24 PM (2,732 Views) | |
| brumdog44 | Apr 22 2016, 03:34 PM Post #91 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
First of all: instead of the all too common 'sigh' response, give logic that disputes what I have said. It's a lazy response that will only force people further from your opinion. I'm open to listening to arguments but have reached a conclusion that is not the same as yours. All you seem to be doing is taking people like me and moving them farther from your opinion. In terms of allowing transgender people to use the opposite gender bathroom because of increased potential of violence of using the same gender bathroom (something that I dispute is the reality when a transgender female uses a men's bathroom instead of a women's bathroom)....laws IMO should be based on rights, not on what you feel are potential outcomes. Walking alone at night in a dangerous neighborhood probably isn't a good idea......it's a pretty basic thing, though. That said, I'm not for making a law that requires people to only walk at night in safe neighborhoods. |
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Apr 22 2016, 03:47 PM Post #92 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
My point was I don't think that there would necessarily be increased exposure by sexual predators should it become legal for transgenders to go into the opposite gender bathroom -- for instance, the person you posted would obviously never be confused with someone who is transgender and seeing him enter a women's restroom would raise the same flags to anyone seeing him enter regardless of whether it was legal or illegal for him to do so. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Apr 22 2016, 04:07 PM Post #93 |
![]()
Coach
|
true, but under the law we cannot act on those "flags" and he is free to be in there indulging his sick desires. Yes, it's likely that most women would walk out when seeing him in there, but what about the women already in there doing their business, or changing in a locker room....etc when he walks in? I think it's safe to say that it doesn't decrease our chances of this guy committing a crime....agree? |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Apr 22 2016, 05:35 PM Post #94 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Can I ask something? Before the Charlotte law saying it's now legal for transgenders to use the opposite bathroom, was it actually illegal for them to do so or was this law merely showing solidarity with the group?
Edited by dreachon, Apr 22 2016, 05:35 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Apr 22 2016, 05:42 PM Post #95 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
The situation I cited from the report is a guy dressed like a woman peeing in the urinal. Which restroom should s/he use, the men's or women's. One thing that needs to be factored in is the fact that 99% of sexual predators are men, so laws need to have a bias towards protecting women from them. |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | Apr 22 2016, 05:48 PM Post #96 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
This is where my frustration comes from. Prior to this law AND after this law, there will be creeps and sexual predators. Some will act out and victimize someone, sometimes in a bathroom, which has ALWAYS been illegal. Proponents of this bill argue it's about sexual predators and not trans people, which I find to be absolutely bullshit and extremely coincidental given the national conversation around trans people. These folks have been sharing restrooms with folks of the opposite biological sex for years and years and years without issue. To hear the the argument that trans people are making others uncomfortable really flies in the face of history and is a dangerous thought. Talk to any trans person about where their "danger zones" are and it may open your eyes to the issue. To hear comments about how there is no lgbt targeted violence in North Carolina makes my head explode. So....yes. SIGH. It's not my problem if people who are finally now coming to the light on these issues (in freaking 2016!) are being pushed away from my opinion (which, turn on the tv, is shared by MANY) based on frustrations being expressed. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Apr 22 2016, 06:33 PM Post #97 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
It's freaking 2016? Well, hell, then your opinion must be right based on the year it is. Why, I was writing 2015 on my checks, so no wonder I didn't have the right opinion. BTW, I tend to not let tv form my opinions. And I don't remember anyone arguing that your opinion doesn't exist there and only bg has said there was no lgbt targeted violence in North Carolina, so you can take the duct tape off your head to keep it from its imaginary explosion. With Philly and Portland's laws, public buildings would have a unisex bathroom. Are you telling me that doesn't go far enough? So I've said there is targeted lgbt violence (and there would continue to be so in bathrooms should Charlotte's law be upheld -- and in the case of women in a men's bathroom it would be greater than it would have been in a women's bathroom, something that you have selectively avoided answering). And while your opinion on the matter is shared by many, it certainly is not shared by many as well. A poll in the last week by Reuters has 43% of respondents say that people should use the bathroom of their biological sex while 41% say they should use be. Those numbers are....COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. If it was 99 to 1 either for or against, it's still going to be about legal interpretation, not public opinion. The number of people who share my opinion or your's means squat. I'm willing to let the courts sort it out, and if the ruling is against my opinion, which I feel it could very likely be, so be it. |
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Apr 22 2016, 06:45 PM Post #98 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
I can just tell you that in Indiana, there is no law on the books or legal precedents court case. That said, I would say that there were most certainly cases in Indiana where a transgender person has used the restroom of the opposite gender as well as times where someone was removed from a restroom for which they were a member of the opposite gender. |
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Apr 22 2016, 06:49 PM Post #99 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
I do want it noted that your charges of proponents against the bill: -- argue that it's about sexual predators -- don't believe there is violence against lgbt. I have stated that IMO neither of these arguments are true.....so I wouldn't generalize those that oppose the bill. |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Apr 23 2016, 12:38 PM Post #100 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Yeah. So what I'm thinking is this. 1) I'm against the Charlotte law because I really don't feel like it was necessary since I'm guessing that's what everyone was doing anyways. 2) That said, if there's a Charlotte law on the books, who cares? It doesn't change anything. 3) It also means the response to the Charlotte law is clearly for the specific purpose of being discriminatory for the LGBT community. They we were like, "oh no, you mean transgender folks use the other bathroom? We better make that illegal." 4) I think it also reinforces the idea that the Republican party has lost its way. Fiscally conservative, small government. That's what they're nutshell |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | Apr 23 2016, 12:46 PM Post #101 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
This bill is solely about trans discrimination. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Apr 23 2016, 02:58 PM Post #102 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
The opposite could be said about the Charlotte bill -- that it grants a right specific to transgenders that it does not to others. Let the courts figure it out. That's what they are there for. Everything else on both sides right now is just posturing. |
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Apr 23 2016, 03:03 PM Post #103 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
bump You can't simply generalize it as a right/left bill. Reuters ran a survey in which basically it was 1/3 of republicans supporting transgenders using the bathroom that they identify with while 2/3 of democrats approved of the same thing. This isn't one of the ones where you see 90% of party agreeing with it and 90% of the other disagreeing with it. A lot of democrats and republicans are in agreement with the quote-unquote 'other party's stance'. |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | Apr 24 2016, 11:43 AM Post #104 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
Totally not a d/r thing. More of an LGBT supporter vs non-supporter thing. I trust the courts to make the right decision and abolish this unconstitutional bill. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Apr 24 2016, 08:23 PM Post #105 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
Not sure what amendment the right to bare bottoms is. :P I think it should be mentioned that this is one of the areas that I don't think our forefathers ever considered. Even not considering LGBT issues, I think the number of buildings with indoor plumbing in 1776 was limited. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:54 PM Jul 10
|













7:54 PM Jul 10