• 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!

Following North Carolina's lead, Texas GOP unveils so-called “bathroom bill"

LowDown said:
Ah, so your philosophy is better my daughter than your son.

I object to exposing girls to risk needlessly and on the basis of bogus, idiotic sanctimony.
Click to expand...

No, my philosophy is that being transgender doesn't make you a child molester.

And child molesters don't give a **** what sign you put on the door.
 
LowDown said:
Ah, so your philosophy is better my daughter than your son.

I object to exposing girls to risk needlessly and on the basis of bogus, idiotic sanctimony.
Click to expand...

So you would rather a FtM looking like a steroidal biker goes into the bathroom with your daughter, got it
 
Deuce said:
No, my philosophy is that being transgender doesn't make you a child molester.

And child molesters don't give a **** what sign you put on the door.
Click to expand...

A man entering a woman's bathroom would be a clue.
 
chromium said:
So you would rather a FtM looking like a steroidal biker goes into the bathroom with your daughter, got it
Click to expand...

Given that's pretty uncommon, yes, that would be preferable.

You guys seem to be determined not to make sense.
 
LowDown said:
A man entering a woman's bathroom would be a clue.
Click to expand...

And what about a man entering the mens' room? What, little boys don't get to be protected from those terrible, dangerous men?


According to the law you're defending, this person
67212104-following-north-carolinas-lead-texas-gop-unveils-so-called-bathroom-bill-img_0537-jpg


Must use the womens' room.
 
LowDown said:
Given that's pretty uncommon, yes, that would be preferable.

You guys seem to be determined not to make sense.
Click to expand...

If everyone who is transgender followed this law, it would be as common as there are trans men

In contrast, if this law was never passed, it would never happen
 
LowDown said:
Wow that's the most dishonest post I have seen today. Period. Ha Ha!
Click to expand...

Glad you agree that your post was dishonest and imbeclic. Unless of course you can prove where he said "better your daughter than his son." Anything other than that and you end up with **** on your boots. :)
 
chromium said:
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/01/05/texas-lt-gov-dan-patrick-unveils-so-called-bathroo/

"Texas Republicans on Thursday unveiled Senate Bill 6, which would require transgender people to use bathrooms in public schools, government buildings and public universities based on “biological sex.”


Actual text of the bill - https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB6/id/1445418

Again, the "biological sex" is based on birth certificate


I was reading if the fallout is similar to north carolina, it will cost texas $8.5 billion along with 185,000 jobs, the governor's seat, and the basketball final four. However, there is one key difference: This bill does not ban cities, like Dallas, from banning employment and housing discrimination, or from establishing their own minimum wage

But does anyone really think this nonsense should continue?
Click to expand...

It's going to spread to at least 15 states.
 
calamity said:
It's going to spread to at least 15 states.
Click to expand...

i highly doubt it, since the courts will ban these laws within the year, but that would only tell me republicans have no idea how to govern, how to actually improve the lives of their base (except the 1%), or anyone else. They only know how to cater to prejudices, using their WMDs (weapons of mass distraction)
 
chromium said:
i highly doubt it, since the courts will ban these laws within the year, but that would only tell me republicans have no idea how to govern, how to actually improve the lives of their base (except the 1%), or anyone else. They only know how to cater to prejudices, using their WMDs (weapons of mass distraction)
Click to expand...

Wait until Jeff Sessions get a hold of the DOJ. Hate will be the new normal.
 
calamity said:
Wait until Jeff Sessions get a hold of the DOJ. Hate will be the new normal.
Click to expand...

Again, no, because the courts have already and will continue to **** on anything they try. We have the ACLU and private lawyers galore willing to take up these causes and enforce equal protection
 
chromium said:
Again, no, because the courts have already and will continue to **** on anything they try. We have the ACLU and private lawyers galore willing to take up these causes and enforce equal protection
Click to expand...

I don't see it. It's going to be all out war, and the Trumpies hold the high ground. Not to mention, they alo have free reign in picking all the judges the need to win whatever they want.

You may not realize just how much power the crazies have right now.
 
calamity said:
I don't see it. It's going to be all out war, and the Trumpies hold the high ground. Not to mention, they alo have free reign in picking all the judges the need to win whatever they want.

You may not realize just how much power the crazies have right now.
Click to expand...

lol no, they have nothing, because they're up against the constitution. How many states tried to ban sodomy and gay marriage? Who was president when lawrence v texas was overturned? It won't be "all out war" either because even the rednecks in north carolina did away with their governor
 
LaylaWindu said:
Glad you agree that your post was dishonest and imbeclic. Unless of course you can prove where he said "better your daughter than his son." Anything other than that and you end up with **** on your boots. :)
Click to expand...

To be clear, I was referring to his reply.

And I still prefer that any male share the john with his son rather than my daughter, not the other way around, as he seems to prefer.

Men's rooms are for men. Women's rooms are for women. It's a pretty straightforward concept until mental illness gets involved.

Nevertheless, the government should not be passing a law on this.
 
LowDown said:
To be clear, I was referring to his reply.

And I still prefer that any male share the john with his son rather than my daughter, not the other way around, as he seems to prefer.

Men's rooms are for men. Women's rooms are for women. It's a pretty straightforward concept until mental illness gets involved.

Nevertheless, the government should not be passing a law on this.
Click to expand...

So he didn't say that, it some complete BS you made up just like I said. Thanks for confirming.
 
chromium said:
lol no, they have nothing, because they're up against the constitution. How many states tried to ban sodomy and gay marriage? Who was president when lawrence v texas was overturned? It won't be "all out war" either because even the rednecks in north carolina did away with their governor
Click to expand...

I am far less optimistic than you on this matter. In fact, I pretty much see a return to the 1950's on a lot of things relating to civil rights.
 
calamity said:
I am far less optimistic than you on this matter. In fact, I pretty much see a return to the 1950's on a lot of things relating to civil rights.
Click to expand...

knowing your history on this subject, that thought probably makes you optimistic and you're here to instill doubt in us...which isn't going to work, because we know your history
 
chromium said:
knowing your history on this subject, that thought probably makes you optimistic and you're here to instill doubt in us...which isn't going to work, because we know your history
Click to expand...

My history on bashing the Far Right or the one where you think I have something against gays because I happen to be a realist?
 
Deuce said:
And what about a man entering the mens' room? What, little boys don't get to be protected from those terrible, dangerous men?


According to the law you're defending, this person
67212104-following-north-carolinas-lead-texas-gop-unveils-so-called-bathroom-bill-img_0537-jpg


Must use the womens' room.
Click to expand...

Someone that takes pictures in the restroom like that person is doing should be banned from restrooms since they can't grasp why you don't take pictures in the restroom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom