• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EARLY COUNT: Houston residents vote down LGBT equal rights measure...

LowDown said:
If they had proposed a straight up equal rights law it would have passed. But they larded it up with all sorts of overreaching nonsense.
Click to expand...

What a mess this country is today.
 
MickeyW said:
What a mess this country is today.
Click to expand...

Understatement of the day. I often wonder where it will lead.

I believe strongly that this nation is but a single disaster (be it a plague, solar flare, military miscalculation or terrorist act) from total mayhem.
I believe the thread holding things together is precariously thin.

Sure, people have been saying that for ever, but the world is in a very unsteady state right now. Volatility is high.
And too much of the population is arrogant, defiant and at the same time completely and utterly dependent on the system.

This measure deserves to crash and die. If anything, there would have to be created NEW facilities for the LGBT crowd, but one can already see where that is going.
 
LowDown said:
If they had proposed a straight up equal rights law it would have passed. But they larded it up with all sorts of overreaching nonsense.
Click to expand...

Like what? The full text of measure doesn't indicate "all sorts of overreaching nonsense."
 
Napoleon said:
Like what? The full text of measure doesn't indicate "all sorts of overreaching nonsense."
Click to expand...

Here's an article that explains it:

...And that same kind of affiliation-driven politics is the reason why, in spite of all of Houston’s serious municipal challenges, the topic that is dominating the discussion is a so-called civil-rights ordinance addressing in part the all-important question of public accommodations — read: toilet rules — for transsexuals. Houston may not know how it’s going to balance the books, but it is by-God certain that a fellow who wants to while away some time in the damas’ room at Taco Cabana has a civil right to do so if he’s feeling feminine that day, and that this right simply must be codified in the city’s legal code.
Click to expand...

Read more at: Houston?s Bathroom Ordinance: An example of what?s wrong with politics in American cities National Review Online

I'm also reminded of the Mayor's attempt to serve ridiculously overbroad subpoenas on Houston pastors opposed to the ordinance. Not part of the ordinance but certainly overreach.
 
LowDown said:
Here's an article that explains it:



Read more at: Houston?s Bathroom Ordinance: An example of what?s wrong with politics in American cities National Review Online

I'm also reminded of the Mayor's attempt to serve ridiculously overbroad subpoenas on Houston pastors opposed to the ordinance. Not part of the ordinance but certainly overreach.
Click to expand...

Ah, so the opposition made something up as a scare tactic for conversatives. The ordinance defines public accommodation and bathrooms aren't mentioned.
 
Napoleon said:
Ah, so the opposition made something up as a scare tactic for conversatives. The ordinance defines public accommodation and bathrooms aren't mentioned.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any of the supporters of the ordinance denying that it would give trannies access to the girl's room. They insisted on putting that in the ordinance and it killed the whole thing. The ordinance doesn't specifically say that men would have the right to use women's bathrooms, but that is the way it would be used.
 
Napoleon said:
Ah, so the opposition made something up as a scare tactic for conversatives. The ordinance defines public accommodation and bathrooms aren't mentioned.
Click to expand...

thats actually true. even liberals can be bitches sometimes, and the texas population in general reacts against that, regardless of how "progresive a city might be, and yes, houston is pretty progressive
 
LowDown said:
I haven't seen any of the supporters of the ordinance denying that it would give trannies access to the girl's room. They insisted on putting that in the ordinance and it killed the whole thing. The ordinance doesn't specifically say that men would have the right to use women's bathrooms, but that is the way it would be used.
Click to expand...

There is nothing about bathrooms in the ordinance or anything in the ordinance even implying that it could be applied to bathrooms.
 
Napoleon said:
There is nothing about bathrooms in the ordinance or anything in the ordinance even implying that it could be applied to bathrooms.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but why didn't advocates of the measure make that clear? They were dodging all around that issue. Parker's defense was that attacks are illegal before the ordinance was passed and they are illegal after it is passed. Like, such attacks won't happen if men are given the right to use women's bathrooms. The naivety expressed here is rather astonishing. The lack of sensitivity about people's anxieties, especially women's anxieties, is pretty telling.

People are right to be concerned about these social engineering experiments. Parker, et al., have no effing idea what they are doing.

You know who opposed this with the intensity of a thousand suns? Black women. Yeah, they were very certain that letting men use women's bathrooms was a damned crazy idea.

We in Houston really needed a mayor who could finally get the roads fixed. Our roads are in horrible shape. Instead we got this damned social justice warrior who gets us all caught up in this bull****.
 
LowDown said:
If they had proposed a straight up equal rights law it would have passed. But they larded it up with all sorts of overreaching nonsense.
Click to expand...

I think they included too many "protected" classifications as well..... which truly opens up private businesses to a slew of new lawsuits.

it's not a particularly well thought out ordinance.... it's simply a hot button issue for a Mayor who doesn't seem to be very interested in actually addressing the city's known problem areas ( roads,traffic, budgets, etc..)
 
LowDown said:
Sorry, but why didn't advocates of the measure make that clear? They were dodging all around that issue. Parker's defense was that attacks are illegal before the ordinance was passed and they are illegal after it is passed. Like, such attacks won't happen if men are given the right to use women's bathrooms. The naivety expressed here is rather astonishing. The lack of sensitivity about people's anxieties, especially women's anxieties, is pretty telling.

People are right to be concerned about these social engineering experiments. Parker, et al., have no effing idea what they are doing.

You know who opposed this with the intensity of a thousand suns? Black women. Yeah, they were very certain that letting men use women's bathrooms was a damned crazy idea.

We in Houston really needed a mayor who could finally get the roads fixed. Our roads are in horrible shape. Instead we got this damned social justice warrior who gets us all caught up in this bull****.
Click to expand...

Parker is correct. If someone is intent on raping people then do you really believe they take time to think 'well golly-gee-wilikers, I better not break the law by walking into a woman's bathroom.' Anyone with an ounce of grey matter should know how absurd the notion is that this ordinance would impact whether or not people are raped in bathrooms. As to why it wasn't mentioned; I don't know if it was or not, but its stunning that people care more about where someone takes a dump than the common decency of not denying housing, employment, and goods and services for no reason other than sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.
 
Napoleon said:
Parker is correct. If someone is intent on raping people then do you really believe they take time to think 'well golly-gee-wilikers, I better not break the law by walking into a woman's bathroom.' Anyone with an ounce of grey matter should know how absurd the notion is that this ordinance would impact whether or not people are raped in bathrooms. As to why it wasn't mentioned; I don't know if it was or not, but its stunning that people care more about where someone takes a dump than the common decency of not denying housing, employment, and goods and services for no reason other than sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.
Click to expand...

What is stunning is that LBGT advocates were so full of themselves that they thought that they could shove a deeply radical ordinance in people's faces. It offends people on a visceral level, and the outcome was predictable. Next time they should propose a measure that covers fairness in jobs, housing, etc., and leave bathrooms out of it.
 
LowDown said:
What is stunning is that LBGT advocates were so full of themselves that they thought that they could shove a deeply radical ordinance in people's faces. It offends people on a visceral level, and the outcome was predictable. Next time they should propose a measure that covers fairness in jobs, housing, etc., and leave bathrooms out of it.
Click to expand...

Bathrooms appear nowhere in the ordinance. Housing, employment, and public accommodation for goods and services did.
 
What does exist is the voting tally. Houston said no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom