"Transitioning" present tense, as in, "not transitioned," as in, "the boys are still downstairs." Until he/she/it is fully, ahem, modified, then he should be sensitive to others' discomfort with his abnormalities. And he is abnormal, by the strict definition; I'm not intentionally being rude.

Abnormal, adj.: not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard.

Nobody would see his "abnormalities", we use stalls.

Her driver's license states she is male. What was the officer supposed to do? Couldn't she have waited until she was done "transitioning" or at least take the initiative to change the designation on her license? Where does personal responsibility in any of this? Are we turning into a nation of victims?

"It was definitely humiliating, degrading," she said. "I felt like I was being discriminated against." I wonder if Parkland will be forced to pay out $3 million to $5 million to compensate for all of her suffering. C'mon, let's get a grip.

It IS a confusing world we live in!

My thoughts exactly Blake. That's why it scares me. I am not small, but a man is a man regardless if he is chopped down below or not. I am scared of the future. I don't use public bathrooms as it is, but this would surely keep me away. Rather wear diapers. I am that afraid and not exaggerating.

Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up muddled up, shook up world
Except for Lola, L-L-Lola

Well, I left home just a week before
And I'd never ever kissed a woman before
But Lola smiled and took me by the hand
And said, "Dear boy, I'm gonna make you a man"

Well, I'm not the world's most masculine man
But I know what I am and I'm glad I'm a man
And so is Lola, L-L-Lola, L-L-Lola
Lola, L-L-Lola, L-L-Lola

Rather wear diapers than possibly be in the same room with a wierdo who is minding its business? He/She was not staring or doing odd perverted things, so what's the point? Honestly, it sounds like you are the one with issues here Simms. Chances are you would never run into him, and you still go on about wearing a diaper. "A man is a man" Come on, not all men are out to stare at you or rape you. That is just plain insulting. There are very occasional exceptions, but can anyone here name any time a guy was hanging out in the women's room to be a perv? It just does not happen. That guy is odd, but most likely gay. Really, you are projecting your many fears on him, and blaming him for them. He might be odd, but you will never run into him, and I highly doubt he would ever be interested in even looking your way. So you would wear a diaper why?

And even if this were Europe, and there were occasional bathrooms for both genders, guys generally have zero interest in invading your privacy in the john. There is a big difference between being attracted to women and being a perv. Actually I am glad that guys and girls have different restrooms here. Not because I am concerned at all about most adult guys invading privacy, but because women would go nuts and accuse guys of things most would never do.

The guy is wierd, but show me where it says he is out to stare at you or worse. Would you rather have him dressed like that in the guys room? Either way, he is out of place. Either way, he is minding his business.

Women use the men's room all the time at concerts. Walking past all the urinals where guys are doing their business. Guess it only works one way.

And as Sarah says, it's all stalls in the ladies room.

@Hello, obviously! A gay man is not interested in a woman, but it just opens the door to perverted men everywhere. He is innocent, but some men are not. And the diaper thing was in reference to my fear of going to public bathrooms because they're gross enough already...with this addition, I really don't want to go to public restrooms.

@Rusty, true. But that should not be allowed either. It should go both ways.

He was issued a ticket for using the womens' bathroom? I use the womens' bathroom every I have to go and the mens' room is full. As long as there's no women in the bathroom... So what!?!

This is about issuing stupid tickets... NOT about some guy who likes to dress like a woman!

The South had nothing to do with this. HE is a man - i don't care what he wants, needs, or has. He is just lucky they did not do more with being in TEXAS. Maybe he should be embrassed more than discriminated against. This may be the 21st century but there still is a right and wrong and this is definitely WRONG

Really Stinkleton? Okay, listen to a stranger who just psycho-analyzed me over the internet. Great idea.

And what is "wrong" about it?

To all those who think she should have used the men's room until she got "the surgery":

In order to get gender reassignment surgery, one must spend a good deal of time (I believe it's at least a year, maybe longer) in a transitional period that is essentially gender purgatory. One must live as the gender they wish to become in order to get the surgery. Doctors do it to weed out people who may just be going through a phase and not actually have GID. I think it also helps with the time that the hormones someone must take in order to be reassigned do they job.

So no, she couldn't just use the men's room, not if she wants to fully transition.

@WMG-21 - referring to a person as "it" is intentionally rude and offensive.

All of you prudes need to get over yourselves and show some compassion. This person was only trying to pee. Not trying to look at or show off anyone's private business.

The ticket should be thrown out. The law specifically says "intentionally or knowingly lewd." There was no intention here.

Interesting mixedpie. This will be a tough subject for life. We had a radio personality named "Miss Tony" in Baltimore years ago before he died. He dressed as a woman, practically lived as one and was loved in the community by all. But one day his co-workers took him to the side and told him that it was okay to be gay without dressing as a woman, to face the world as a proud gay man and it changed his life. He stopped going as "Miss Tony" and started going as just "Tony"--an openly gay man. Changed his life and he had an epiphany. Not that it would work for everyone, but that was a very proud day in the community. He died though, so we never know where he would have been today. But what you said is very interesting.

@DawnP it will probably get thrown out in court. Even assault gets a PBJ so no worries here.

@wryview, yes, you are right. We're so concerned about civil and equal rights, but that is supposed to include everyone...they forget that it's not just about the transgendered or the minority populations, it's about everyone.

Just because a dude chooses to put on a dress - that doesn't make him a woman! Every freak would be putting on a dress if they thought it was a way to go into places he shouldn't be in.

When he is legally recognized as a woman - driver's license, body parts, etc. - then he who becomes a she is free to use women facilities.

But how is a woman to trust that the "man" in the women's room is really a transexual and NOT some perverted male who wants to see women in a restroom? Or that he is a rapist, hiding out in the women's room? Don't the rest of us have the right to be safe?

If you enter a restroom and feel uncomfortable with someone you see there, you're free to leave. Citations given to transgender persons won't stop rapists from doing whatever they want. Rape is already a felony. You think the threat of a ticket is going to make any difference?

Come to think of it, how do you know the WOMEN you see in the restroom aren't lesbians getting their own jollies? Oh, now I've done it. You're never going to be able to pee in a public restroom again, are you? :-)

Just because a dude chooses to put on a dress - that doesn't make him a woman!

That's what the doctor's note was for. As it indicated, he was *supposed* to live as a woman, *prior* to having his genitals altered. And that includes using the ladies' room.

@Dawn -- "it" is appropriate if the "transition" is incomplete, meaning the individual is neither male nor female at the time. As I don't know the status of the individual's efforts to modify his identity, I included the possibility that surgery is in-process-- i.e. healing prior to a final surgery or something similar. As I don't know the regimen required for gender reassignment surgery, whether its one, two or many surgeries to achieve the desired effect, I included the description of "it" as an alternative. Note that I also included "he" and "she" in the descriptor. I was covering the bases, so-to-speak.

@sarah, the abnormality is not limited to his genitalia, dear. The woman who reported the individual in this case wasn't peeking into the stall, was she? No. She knew something was wrong just by looking at them-- the abnormality of his appearance is obvious to anyone and is likely compounded by vocal register, gait and, of course, the massive Adam's Apple bobbing under the chin. Now, myself, I wouldn't have bothered reporting anything at all, DawnP definitely has it right that nothing intentionally lewd was occurring. Personally, I don't have any problem with unisex bathrooms as long as there are functioning (and robust) door locks.

Not sure i see what the "big deal" is......er...let me rephrase that.

Forcing a woman to view a man as a woman is no different than forcing a person to view another person as divine.

Religious fanatics are fanatics b/c they want you to believe that which is unscientific, i.e., the world is 6,000 years old etc. This is no different than some extremist telling you he is a woman b/c he had a medical procedure or 'legally' changed his gender to female.

There is science and there is philosophy. Whether you are a man or a woman is a question with a scientific answer. Whether the world is 6,000 years old is a question with a scientific answer.

For people to insist on an unscientific answer - you argue for subjective philosophy - personal belief system.

If you want to have your own personal beliefs - so be it. But don't try to impose those personal beliefs on others.

So if you don't want religious fanatics to impose their personal beliefs on you - you shouldn't force your personal beliefs on religious fanatics. The world is NOT 6,000 years old - it is much older. This man is NOT biologically a woman - he may be considered one legally or personally - but scientifically he is a man. So don't be a hypocrite by trying to force your personal belief system on others.

It wasn't the part about being a cross dressed transition dude. It was the fact that he stood there in the ladies room peeing in the sink that caused the complaint.

This problem is very simply solved.

MEN

WOMEN

OTHER

Simms, let me see if I get this. Allowing transgender people to use the restroom could encourage pervs to do the same, and then women's restrooms won't be safe anymore?!?! I suspect that even pervs would not want to be caught dead wearing women's clothing and going into the wrong restroom. I have been to a lot of public restrooms and have seen nothing like that.

From hearing people like you talk, it would seem that pervs are so common that you should just stay home and never go to the john. You are insulting guys. Most of us really don't care to constantly invade your privacy. You are severely out of touch with reality on this issue, that is why some have suggested you seek professional help. I will not go that far, but you have to realize that when you are that far away from reality, then it does look a little odd. IF I walked past someone that was drooling and talking to themself about being abducted by space aliens, I would probably thing they are nuts. Rational adults (who have no medical reasons to use diapers) do not really ever consider them as a realistic alternative to even public restrooms.

Either way, letting one or two transgender men use the women's restroom is NOT going to unleash a wave of pervs that will dress up as women to spy on you.

Men generally want to love women. That includes both the person and the body. Mindlessly spying on strangers in the john is honestly not what we want. Relationships where we connect body, mind, and soul, are what we want. Letting a transgender man in, does not change that. Even if there were only one restroom for both, that still would not change. Yes, many men like porn, but staring at women using the john, is just plain not what we are interested in. There are pervs sure, but come on, most guys are not out to harm you.

But, I can see that coming into the restroom with someone like that there would weird many guys or girls out. So, if that did happen, skip the diaper, and use another restroom. I would think that would be obvious.

"Woman" and "Man" are cultural constructs based on the way we identify and interact with the world around us. They are GENDER terms.

"Female" and "Male" are biological/legal terms based on what is in someone's pants and/or chromosomes. They are SEX terms.

It is entirely possible to be gender: WOMAN sex: MALE as they are two different things. Culturally we are just used to the correlation between woman/female and male/man. This isn't an issue in some other cultures, particularly ones who recognize the grey area that is gender.

Nobody wants you to recognize a man as a woman, merely a male as a woman. There is also plenty of research pertaining to the subject, as well as a recognized disorder in the DSM, which is more substantial than theology.

unlv702

I appreciate your analytical view on this. You're actually the first non-religious fanatic I've ever seen express such a view in a rational manner, without injecting hocus pokus nonsense.

One insight however (from my perspective), is that I feel you may be overlooking sexual identity, preference, gender, and the like.

What of those individuals that have very real (scientific) sexual disorders such as genetic conditions that are caused or affected by the loss or damage of sex chromosomes?

• Klinefelter's syndrome
• Turner syndrome
• XX gonadal dysgenesis
• XX male syndrome
• XXYY syndrome

Are we to tell all these individuals: "You are this" or "you are that"?

And why?

Why do we have that "right"?

If physical sexual disorders can easily occur in nature (see above), why on earth are we to believe they can't occur mentally ... why can't they occur within the psyche of the individual?

Just think about it. You are physically born a man ... but everything in your conscious being is telling you that you are a woman.

Is this a subjective choice? How/why? Please provide evidence to explain the contrary.

WMG,

Yeah, I don't find Adam's Apples to be abnormal.

Many public buildings have "family" bathrooms. (Similar to handicapped, so parents can take kids in and have enough room or a private changing table.) Why not use that one? It has both male and female icons on the sign, so he/she would be home free.

@sarah, the abnormality is not limited to his genitalia, dear. No. She knew something was wrong just by looking at them

Wow,

I guess anyone I consider abnormal looking is worthy of scorn and ridicule, eh?

You here that ugly people ... you're on notice!

"But Parkland police told her they have to go by what is on her license, Witherspoon said."

They have a license for taking a dump?

{hear} sic

@sarah

Yeah, I don't find Adam's Apples to be abnormal.

In and of themselves, I agree with you. They are not abnormal. But when appearing on the anatomy of a perceived female, you have abnormality. This would be similar to seeing a man with breasts. If you've seen the move "Fight Club" (or read the book) then you may find a parallel in the character of Robert Paulson.

@Chad

It's not that the individual is ugly, it's that they are improperly equipped. The individual's gender may be female, but their sex is male (or some transitional stage between the two). My point was that the person who reported it obviously felt something was amiss and it wasn't by staring at the individual's package. The individual's appearance was startling enough to illicit a negative response. There are plenty of ugly people out there, and I doubt that this woman goes around reporting them to the authorities. She correctly identified this individual as not-female. The individual's looks are secondary to the identification of sex.

B. Simms, your fear is clearly rational. After all, the only reason a person would go through major, invasive surgeries and years of transformation is so they can get into the ladies room to oggle at you.

dirp

Why did I know it just had to happen in the South ?

That's easy, because you're ignorant and guilty of demographic profiling, and more than likely just another liberal hypocrite. Hope that helps you to become a better person.

Well, Cheetah, it is Texas! Seriously, though, as the mother of a transgender young man, this is seriously effed up.

Let's see, Chad, you missed one: XXY, which is what my son is. The rest of you who are stuck on Adam's apples - check out Ann Coulter's, and she swears she's a girl. Looking at my hubby over the table, I note that his Adam's apple is not very pronounced at all. I think they come in all shapes and sizes, just like people do.

Again, let's remember that women use stalls in the bathroom; so, there should be no issue. To those of you who are adolescent enough to discuss beauty - remember the eye of the beholder.

And can we please leave gender off of drivers' licenses. That would solve the poor dumb police officer's problem.

There's a simple solution to this. Just have unisex bathrooms. Those who want to use the stalls use the stalls. Those who want to use the urinals use the urinals. It would certainly solve a lot of problems, including the ridiculous waiting lines we women face.

Hmmm... Well, not knowing the particulars of the case I'd say the police officer was probably out of line. I've always thought that it was kind of silly to have the bathrooms separated for male and female. Why not just have unisex bathrooms? Not that I agree with transgender people. Maybe if they have a chromosomal abnormality. However, you are still born with only one functioning set of gonads. I don't believe the majority of transgender individuals have abnormal chromosomes. It's probably a psychological phenomenon. A person is born one way or the other and I don't see how anyone can "feel" they are the wrong sex. They can't possibly know what it "feels" like to be another gender.

Howie CA - Your try for the lesbian analogy doesn't work. How many times have you heard of a lesbian RAPING another woman? I never have. So your so-called point is moot.

It's not that the individual is ugly, it's that they are improperly equipped. The individual's gender may be female, but their sex is male (or some transitional stage between the two).

See my comment at 1.33 and provide a rational response.

She correctly identified this individual as not-female. The individual's looks are secondary to the identification of sex.

Okay.

She was correct, this time. But what if she got it wrong?

Do you know how many times I've seen an individual in my life that I couldn't identify as one or the other? But what did I do about it? Well, come to think about it, I minded my own damn business.

I realize we are a social, pattern-seeking species. But the bigger-picture reality is that I don't get to judge the societal aesthetics of what constitutes a "normal" or "abnormal" human being. And neither do you.

Are there sexual deviants out there? Are there individuals with sexual perversions that would take advantage of such an open situation? You bet your ass.

But that goes without saying .... and it goes for every aspect of an open and free society (not just sexual orientation).

The problem occurs when we instill our own societal projections upon what we feel is normal ... and when we think we can superimpose that ideal upon an individual who has walked a mile in a very different pair of shoes than that of our own.

This is a different subject than that of our shared, societal ethics. Those can be universal within a certain spectrum.

This is case of understanding within the human condition.

These individuals don't deserve scorn. They deserve compassion.

Nuff said

Howie CA - Your try for the lesbian analogy doesn't work. How many times have you heard of a lesbian RAPING another woman? I never have. So your so-called point is moot.

wryview - perhaps I wasn't clear. That portion of my post was referring to the fear that the transgender person might actually be a man just trying to ogle women in the bathroom.

So I guess we need Transitional bathrooms then.. because in everyone's rush to protect the man/lady's right you are ready to trample on the rights of those who oppose this. As a man, I am not allowed in a women's restroom. What so hard to understand about that.

Pee before you got out, whatever. If anyone has to be inconvenienced here it should be the one who decided he did not like the gender cards HE was dealt.

This is not a transgender woman (at least not yet) maybe a transgender person. Splitting hairs here but the term woman has already been defined:

A woman (/ˈwʊmən/), pl: women (/ˈwɪmɨn/) is a female human. The term woman is usually reserved for an adult, with the term girl being the usual term for a female child or adolescent. However, the term woman is also sometimes used to identify a female human, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "Women's rights". Unlike men, women are typically capable of giving birth.

To all you Homophobic males. GET A GRIP. You all makes me sick. Leave the human being alone. How bout that

Because the determination of gender should remain a scientific one and not based on philosophical reasoning; if this person dies and years later they discovered the remains.. the scientists examining the bones would come to the conclusion that this is a .........man.

Based on bone structure size density no pelvic tilt for child birth...etc

A common way in which a pathologist and anthropologist might differentiate between male and female is quite simply bone size. This of course is not always accurate but for the most part male bones are larger in size to female bones and are so because of the addition muscle that may build up on the male body through adolescence and into adulthood.

The pelvis area is another good way of differentiating between the sexes. A female will have a larger sub-pubic angle to that of a man and this is obviously indicative of child bearing requirements in the female that are not required in the male of the species. This difference is noticeable across all species in nature where birth is from the womb. The male's sub-pubic area is less than ninety degrees whilst the female's is more.

@Chad comment 1.47

I disagree with nothing that you said, except for this:

I realize we are a social, pattern-seeking species. But the bigger-picture reality is that I don't get to judge the societal aesthetics of what constitutes a "normal" or "abnormal" human being. And neither do you.

...

and when we think we can superimpose that ideal upon an individual who has walked a mile in a very different pair of shoes than that of our own.

"Normal" is a cultivated, social status quo that is identifiable by virtue of group consensus. You say that you don't get to judge what is "normal," but that is factually inaccurate. By participating in the social structure, you become a judge whether you intend to be or not. The fact that you later state the individual has "walked... in a very different pair of shoes" suggests that you recognize this as something "different," something "abnormal," even if you choose to describe it with alternative vocabulary. In this culture, and pretty much every culture all over the globe, people who undergo transgender modifications are usually considered "taboo," most especially when the surgery is elective (i.e. not due to hermaphroditic birth, in which case doctors typically assign a gender based on the predominant sex characteristics, supposing, of course, that one is dominant over the other). They are considered "abnormal" when compared to the group status quo, because most people do not engage in this sort of surgical alteration. This, of course, is tied up with their psychological disorder, which, as the term disorder should point out, is not normal-- it is abnormal--because a "normal" human mind would not have the proclivity to deny their inborn sexual characteristics. Does that mean that it is unnatural? No. Obviously this is a byproduct of biology and all of the hiccups that a biological system is subject to. Biological structures are inherently imperfect, and these kinds of crossed wires, botched chromosome matches and other hijinks are all part of the system. I think this:

Well, come to think about it, I minded my own damn business.

is good advice for anyone. As I stated earlier, I wouldn't have reported anything. Unless the individual in question was doing something appalling, I couldn't care less. My statement from the beginning was that the individual ought to be mindful of others' discomfort with respect to their transgender nature, especially when "inbetween" sexes, so-to-speak. I think it is very unlikely that this ticket will stand-- I'm certain it will be thrown out-- but the Taboo is still there, as the woman's response to the situation clearly illustrates.

WMG

I think you could have started and ended it here:

Does that mean that it is unnatural? No. Obviously this is a byproduct of biology and all of the hiccups that a biological system is subject to. Biological structures are inherently imperfect, and these kinds of crossed wires, botched chromosome matches and other hijinks are all part of the system. I think this:

Arguing the semantical intricacies of "normalcy" is a moot point. Especially when overlaying cultural and societal implications.

It was once completely "normal" in our society to keep slaves. It was once completely "normal" in our society for women to abstain from legally voting.

"Normalcy", is a sliding spectrum based upon our shared human experience. That's why I separated ethical considerations from ones of sexual preference within my original post.

You are right, of course, within your descriptions of "taboo".

But my hunch is, in 100 years, this very conversation will be taboo. Once we learn more and more about this condition at the level of the brain, we will realize that the subjugation of these individuals is the real taboo.

My point is, lets get on with that process.

Why the heck was my comment collapsed? What is wrong with worrying about your safety? Fine. Go ahead & let some pervert pretend to be a woman & rape someone in a bathroom. It's on your heads, not mine.

Apparently a bunch of people agreed w/ me - there were at least 20 "likes".

@Rick, I didn't say a gay man (transgendered) would oogle me, I said pervs (straight). Not all straight men, just pervs.

@Hello, actually, I didn't say all males, I said pervs. And yes pervs have been caught in public libraries etc in dresses--look it up. It does give them the go-ahead. Born a male, born a woman, why not be satisfied? It just screws up the natural way of living. I could care less if you're gay, but to go that far is beyond me. And I don't use public restrooms anyway, but if I had to, I would be shocked to see a man in there.

And no, I don't need professional help just because I have a different opinion about a subject than you. I am well aware of my surroundings and reality. But thanks for caring.

Agreed, Chad. I think that really I've just identified what is presently "normal" (by social consensus) whereas you're looking ahead to what "normal" should be, based on the scientific examination of the issue. Both positions have merit.

After all, Tattoos were once extremely taboo-- in some circles, they still are-- but any walk around a college campus and you will see that this once frowned upon body-modification is extremely popular and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that would call getting a tattoo as "abnormal." It has become socially accepted. In time, transgender modifications may gain more acceptance, however, due to the extremely low percentage of population that actively pursues it, the road will be incredibly long. This isn't something that will become "normal" overnight, perhaps never-- the demographic is just so small that it may never be embraced by a majority as anything other than an aberration. But hey, the fact that there are doctors who will perform the surgery in the first place is no small feat. The medical community is often the first to identify "abnormal" social taboos as "normal" (at least medically), which eventually spreads to the society at large.

Let's see, Chad, you missed one: XXY, which is what my son is.

He did not miss it. XXY is better known as klinefelter's syndrome which he did list.

I would hardly refer him as a transgender because the second X, just like in females, is converted to a bar body and its expression is severely negated. The presence of the Y chromosome, more specifically the SRY region upon it, signals that you are male. Approximately one out of every 750 males that are born have klinefelter's syndrome but they hardly ever show symptoms.

Go ahead & let some pervert pretend to be a woman & rape someone in a bathroom. It's on your heads, not mine.

That's not particularly likely to happen, is it? Public restrooms don't usually provide enough privacy for long enough to actually commit a rape. And if it *is* a quiet, out of the way place, why would he bother dressing like a woman? He'd only dress like a woman if he wanted to avoid someone who sees him from realizing he's a man. But if anyone's likely to see him at all, it's not a very good place to commit a rape because they're just as likely to see him actually doing it.

Besides, like I said before, how's the threat of a citation going to prevent a rapist from doing *anything*? Is he going to say, "Boy, I'd love to dress like a woman and wait in a restroom to rape some woman, but man, I could get a *ticket*!" I really think not.

Had she/he been pissing in the sink there might have been a problem. I used to have to take my late wife to the restroom in public all the time due to her muscular dystrophy. Most times we looked for a family restroom. Sometimes there was none and she did not want to see guys taking a whiz in the urinals. Because face it we are pigs and not too bright and seeing a woman in a wheel chair going behind us is likely to get the guy's shoes next to us wet. So we went into the women's and used the handicapped stalls. In ten years we only had two issues. And we went out a lot. One in a Florida park and one in a Casino. Most of time women held the door, asked if they could help etc. No one ever got radical. I will say that women are far more dirty than men at graffiti and at peeing on the seat since they won't sit on it. They hover and miss quite often. It was bad for my wife as she often had to wait for me to clean the seat since she had to sit on it. And while most men would never think of using a handicapped stall for anything other than an emergency, women will make the disabled wait while they use it as a changing room! That is lower than low. I hope any women who has done that has a sudden burst of uncontrolled diarrhea as they are reading this. You deserve it you sow!

James,

I like how you roll.

I couldn't help but read your post with a grin.

I disagree on one thing however:

most men would never think of using a handicapped stall for anything other than an emergency

When I have "business" to attend, I'm usually delighted when the handicapped stall is unoccupied because it's usually the last stall at the end of the room, therefore the one with the most privacy! I can't stand using public restrooms ... I try and gain an edge on privacy as much as I can ;)

I wonder how many people would still be defending this man knowing the information that was NOT posted in this artical...

According to the Texas Public Sex Offender Registry, Witherspoon was convicted in 1990 for sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child involving sexual contact. Both victims were teenage girls.

Jeremy: What do you think you are? An investigative reporter? Don't you know that they don't exist anymore? They disappeared shortly after Watergate. Today, all reporters do is report what is handed them. Maybe you'll start a trend here. But, I think the "official" reporters aren't smart enough to catch on.

On the other hand, think how awkward he'd be looking and dressed like that, in the men's room. And a men's room down South at that :D

Then don't dress like that. Even if this guy feels that he's a woman, can't he still wear jeans and a t-shirt with no makeup? Last time I checked lot's of actual woman still do that. Even if he has an odd gender identity condition, it is not forcing him to wear a dress, lipstick, and pearls.

So long as there is a need for separate facilities for men and women, perhaps we should include a third one designated as "Other".

I assume you will volunteer to pay for "Other"....

Good idea dan. I'm all for people wanting to be who they are, but in this case, I would feel uncomfortable if I had to use the restroom with him (or someone like him/her) in there as well.

in thailand, in their schools, they do have public toilets for 'other'. gender identity is more gray then you think, just very oppressed in most places. if someone is using a cublcle, what is the difference? and if this man to woman went to a men's toilet? i've seen plenty of women that look a bit like men- and vice versa, and one should be allowed to use the toilet of one's outward appearance. did this woman think she would be molested by a transexual. amerikkka is so screwed up especially about homosexuality, and gender identity. get a grip on the real, please.

@lisa,

Your discomfort exists entirely within your own head. Maybe it is a lack of empathy or a lack of understanding of the transgender issue, or simply your own discomfort with your own sexual identity. But what you take your own personal "discomfort" and make it someone else's fault, you have created a no-win situation for yourself.

And you have most likely been in the restroom already with someone who is transgender. There are more men who identify as women simply because every fertilized egg begins life as female. In some people, some pre-natal switch does not get set properly or is set incorrectly. It isn't their fault, but rather just an accident of birth.

Taking exception to transgender people is a great deal like taking exception to someone born with similar physical difficulties, such as mental retardation, Downs Syndrome, congenital heart defects, etc.

The problem is that homophobia, and racism, and xenophobia, etc are all things that happen inside a person's own head, not in the larger world. So when people make remarks about their "discomfort" with others "not like them" they are not really making a statement about a transgender person, they are making a statement about their own insecurities.

Chris, he has a penis and belongs in the mens bathroom. When it changes fine, use the womans. His ID clearly states male. I cannot just go use the mens bathroom because the lines are shorter.

for lisa-3322183and others, Clearly you don't understand the transgender process. These people aren't homosexual, they believe that they are in the wrong body for how they feel emotionally and sexually.

Candidates for the procedures are required to see psychiatrists, get hormone therapy, and live for several years as their new sex to make certain that it's just not some passing phase before going for the final gender reassignment surgery.

Also this individual had a note from their doctor explaining the condition. That alone should have been enough for the cop. Maybe the judge will have more brains and simply dismiss the case.

Once again I'm amazed at the types of comments that would label a transgender person as "gay", "homo", or "pervert". It's no wonder that our country is in such terrible shape if this is the quality of critical thinking here.

Lisa.. there is a period of time before a doctor will do re-assignment surgery where you have to live fully as the gender you're transitioning to. She had a letter from the doctor! Let me tell you something else, I'm a gay female, and I've had kids say "There's a man in here!" about ME because I don't look all that female. It's really no different than a lesbian using the same bathroom as other women. We don't go in there to stare... we do what we have to and get out! This woman was no different. It's probably impossible for her to even slightly get excited about women anyway! Get a grip on your own fears and prejudices.

I didn't label "her" (technically still a HIM). I did not call her a homosexual. I could care less. The fact that technically she is still a man, she/he should use the mens restrooms. It's my opinion. Right, wrong or indifferent I am allowed to have my opinion.

Chris - That is real funny - If it is in Lisa's head...isn't also just in the transgenders head too, right.
I see, it's OK for one (the abnormal one) but not for the real normal one. The point is the FEMALES are uncomfortable with him in THEIR washroom. They all (most) females have to be uncomfortable for the abnormal one to feel "normal". Here's a flash - He/She will never feel normal, because they aren't.
Now you might deduce that I have prejudices, I don't, but we must call things what they are, and not make fantasies about what we all would like things to be. You can't make a deviant (deviate from the norm) normal by saying, wishing or hoping. That means they get no discrimination, but nothing special either.

The cop was just doing his job. You cannot expect the cop to judge right on the street. His Drivers License says male, he belongs in a male washroom. Once it says female, the cop should not (cannot) arrest "him". The cop was answering a legitimate complaint

Oh right women don't piss and shiit so others can hear. They are not embarrassed when a women hears em pinch one off but a man? Oh my heavens no! And if he's in the women's room he has to sit anyway and close the door. The only one who would know is the female pervert looking in other women's stalls!

Really? I would not be okay seeing him in the ladies room. I'd feel like I was about to get raped. I would be scared.

Yeah, I guess once the transition is done it would be better, but still looks like a man and is probably strong like one. I'm still fearful of those situations.

Well he LOOKS like a man in a dress so idk how comfortable women would be seeing him/her in the same bathroom their children might be in. Idk I think gender neutral, politcally correct bathrooms will be in all our futures soon

And her other option would have been to use the Men's and quite possibly get the crap kicked out of her.

Really B.simms? Raped? Do you have this reaction to all males or just those who wear dresses? What is with our society that we instantly go "worst case" when faced with anything new?

Remember the McDonald's beating? Well that was in my state and the transgendered and her 2 brothers are known locally as trouble makers. She goes around picking fights and then plays the "discriminated" card...If you look them up, they have each been in jail several times. Her (Him) and 2 brothers are criminals. But playing the transgendered card got old, and the last police officer and judge made it clear that enough was enough. Anyway...

@Steve, I have this reaction to men in the ladies room because why are they there?

@Kayla, I don't feel comfortable in public bathrooms, but if your children are with you, it's 10 times worse. I am not okay with it.

@Sarah, we didn't tell them to change their birth gender, that's the decision they have to make. Get beat up by men or get police reports by women...tough decision. But it makes me uncomfortable either way.

B,

Then go use a different restroom. You're the one who's uncomfortable, you're the one with the issue, you're the one who needs to solve it, not place the responsibility for it on someone else's shoulders.

This lady did nothing wrong and was no threat to you, in any way, shape, or form. She shouldn't be responsible for your comfort.

You seem awfully obsessed with being raped???

People really need to get over "looks." I'm sick of being called "sir." I'm female, born and raised. I just happen to be over six feet tall. I'm not the prettiest (or ugliest) person around, but that's the cards life dealt me. I usually dress in a feminine style, but that's my choice, too. This person is working on changing gender, which must be a very difficult thing to do. She is becoming who she is. Just because some of her features are more masculine, does not mean she isn't trying to be her best at being female.

People need to get over their gender-status worries. It's become more about them, and their lack of self esteem and recognition of self, than it is about others.

Best wishes to Paula. I hope all turns out well.

B.Simms, you have some serious issues going on there. I hope for your sake and your family's sake that you get yourself into therapy, and quick!

What happened in your past that makes you so afraid of the world around you?

weirdo

I just simply fear a man in the ladies room. Everyday I hear of stories and it's not okay. Quit trying to psycho-analyze a stranger over the internet. It's not that serious.

I have a right to be uncomfortable. And if he is a man by nature and is forced to go to men's jail, then he does not belong in the ladies room.

@Zapper, I knew 2 tall females in high school similar to you, but they weren't men. They didn't have deep raspy voices and they did not look like men. They simply were tall women. Look at the WNBA or Volley Ball or Models--tall women, some feminine, some not, but still women nonetheless.

b. simms, do you really think you would be raped by a man that was changing gender identity to be a woman? it doesn't make sense? don't entertain such perverse thoughts- you need help!

Sarah - "He" is STILL a "he", not a "she".

@B.Simms,

Choosing one's birth gender is an oxymoron at best and seriously falacious resoning at worst. About 1 in 5000 births have "ambiguous" genetalia and about 1 in 800 or so have some pre-natal sexual ambiguity. That's a lot. And physicians have made the situation worse by selecting a gender for infants, almost always male because that's how physicians are self-selected. When gender is forceably assigned, which is the usual case, the results can be devastating to the individual.

Now that we have fMRIs, we can see that transgender individuals' brains respond in the gender-specific way that they seek re-assignment to. It used to be that before gender reassignment took place, lots of psychological interviews and so on had to be done to see if it was the "right" thing. Now a quick, simple fMRI can do the trick with a good degree of certainty. There are certain types of thought process that are very different between men and women.

Your fear of a "man" in the ladies' room that could well be more feminine than you yourself are is an irrational thought process. Maybe you should discuss your "discomfort" with a therapist.

She's not a man in the ladies room. She's a woman in the ladies room, she's just not physically FEMALE yet.

GID is a lot more than just some wacky person wanting an expensive and painful surgery.

Wry,

I still don't give a flying phazoo. She has no effect on my life. She's not there to harrass me in the bathroom. It's none of my business.

@B. Simms--so what if a tall woman does have a deep voice? What if she isn't all that feminine? Does that in anyway diminish her or her gender? Personally, I'm tired of being called "sir," when the person saying it has not even really looked at me. A judgment was made entirely on first impression of size. Should I call small-sized men ma'am, because I'm too distracted to take notice of who they are?

To JUDGE others simply because of their beauty status, height ratio, skin tone, gender identity, etc. (male and female alike) shows what little regard we have for a person. We simply must get beyond this, as it makes no real difference as to how it affects our personal lives.

I would draw a chamber into the Glock if I saw this wack job

Really? You're that afraid of people who are different from you that you'd arm yourself? For what purpose? Have you actually ever shot someone, or are you just shooting off your mouth?

I have a right to be uncomfortable.

Yes, you do -- but you do not have the right to expect the rest of the world to accommodate YOU and your issues. Most likely, if you saw this person (or someone like her), you would never have known that she was a transgender; you probably would have thought it was just a very masculine-looking woman (there are many). And since there are stalls in ladies' restrooms, you would not have seen anything to make you think otherwise.

@ B. Simms - you have serious mental issues and should seek professional help. Seriously.

@Stefan and Chris, you totally missed my point. No gay man will go after a woman. That doesn't make any logical sense. I said pervs (who happen to be straight in the point I made) could use this as a chance to practice their sickness on women. And have done it in the past. It's been in the news before. Read my statement before replying to it. Geesh.

I actually said earlier that this person will probably get off and not go to jail. But this creates an interesting dynamic in the world. Changing themselves has changed a lot of people in the world. It's all interesting to me. Don't get the point, don't want to be around them, but am forced to live with it. Interesting to me.

Simms, you have a right to feel how you wish but I'm just curious, if a woman HAS to use the bathroom and has kids (I mean young kids 8yrs-under), what should the parents do with them then? Leave them outside for some pedophile to take lol? It sounds like you have some issues with public bathrooms, maybe you are the one who should stay out while normal folks do their business.

Kids, parents, transvestites, transgenders, and everyone else has a right to that public bathroom just like you. One person's 'comfort' doesn't trump the needs/rights of everyone else.

@B. Simms I totally agree with you. Men do not belong in women's bathrooms, period. Even if they're wearing a dress. In this case, it was a sexual predator dressed as a woman and if it happened once, it has and will happen again. If I saw a man in the women's bathroom, I would start screaming and pointing and letting EVERYONE in the room know there was an intruder in there, Invasion of the Body Snatchers style.

@Sarah, you seriously think that if a woman is uncomfortable with a man being in the women's bathroom, SHE should leave instead of HIM? How ludicrous! Especially since this guy is on the Sex Offender's list. Turns out the real woman in the bathroom had every reason to be uncomfortable! Go ahead and live in your shell where you think no stranger will ever want to hurt you; I hope it works out that way in the end. But dismissing danger is ill-advised for the rest of us.

@mixedpie, you can call it a "she" all you want, but a man with a penis is a man, period. For that matter, a man with a fake vagina is also still a man. I have every right to be uncomfortable with a man in the women's bathroom, as do all the other real women out there. Men are larger, stronger, and still think like men, fake breasts and hormone injections or no. And the reason for separate bathrooms is for privacy from the opposite sex, which this GUY obviously is.

Even with XXY folks, they are still men but possess an extra chromosome that rarely, if ever, causes a physical abnormality in adulthood. It certainly doesn't cause a mental abnormality or an innate dissatisfaction with one's gender. That comes from the person's mind, no matter how many or which chromosomes they were born with.

I wonder what impact his sexual offenses had on his decision to cut off his own manhood? Perhaps he's worried he can't be a responsible penis owner? I hear they're the darndest things to control...

Using the toilet in a bathroom is not engaging in perverted practices.

You never know what someone is going to do. I'd rather be in there with a lesbian that a man. The lesbian likes girls and I'm not threatened. He likes men, yet I feel threatened. It just gives a free pass is all I'm saying. He may be innocent, but it gives a free pass to the truly perverted people out there.

@B.Simms,

Your logic is like saying that someone with dwarfism should not be given a drivers license because they are the size of a child and it would cause you to be uncomfortable to see a child driving a car. There simply is no logic there. This speaks volumes about your own sexual orientation, or lack thereof.

Normal. well-adjusted people, are not caused mental anguish or even discomfort by non-threatening people. I would not feel threatened by a transgender person using the mens' room, simply because everyone has a right to the "call of nature." But as a man, I constantly see other men in mens' rooms who are "piss shy" and have lots of trouble starting their urine stream. They are a concern because they always seem to be in front of me at halftime when I really have to go. But the fact that it is an indicator of homosexual tendencies does not threaten me.

Using the toilet isn't perverted. If someone is taking upskirt pictures in a restroom or something then that is a problem, no matter what is in someone's pants.

Also, she doesn't necessarily like men. She might be into girls, therefore you shouldn't feel threatened by your own logic since she'd be a lesbian.

I don't think these guys should hide in the women's bathroom just because they're afraid they'll get beat up in the men's. That's their problem, not the gals in the women's bathroom problem. I don't care if he's only peeing or not, he doesn't belong in there, period.

@mixedpie, the women in the bathroom don't know the difference between a TG man and a male perv in a dress. Pretty simple to understand why they all get thrown in the same pile together. Simple solution: all men stay out of the women's bathroom.

What does the DOI have to do with this?

It's just the reference for the term "Laws of Nature". People on this discussion page like to see references.

I think it is funny the MSNBC showed this as a news story on their front page, but they did not show Dan Savage bullying kids at an anti bullying speech.

Except for the part about, you know, the period. Period.

Chris: So women who've had a hysterectomy aren't women?

She had the proper paperwork. She was not there for lewd and unlawful purposes, ergo she did not break the law.

She had the proper paperwork.

That's the thing, though. He didn't. He is still legally a man. So the officer may be in the clear on this... a doctor's note doesn't automatically supersede state law, you know.

SHE still has a penis between her legs..

SHE is a HE...

SHE will be a HE even after a doctor cuts it off.. Nature made him a HE.. just because we have the medical know how to cut it off, make an artifical vagina, and fill him up with all kinds of hormone replacement treatments, does NOT make HIM a SHE..

End of Story.

Linda from CT - DNA says otherwise.

The paperwork showed that she was not using the ladies' bathroom for lewd or unlawful purposes, therefore she did not break the law. Your opinions on how she should be classified don't matter.

Jaimie - How was the woman who reported HIM (and yes, he is still a him) supposed to know that? And what about her feelings of safety?

perhaps in your very misguided world Linda but in society he is male and will always be male regardless if he takes estrogen or gets his wiener chopped off. he need psychiatric help not a surgeon.

Apparently, Uncle Henry, you and many others did not read the article: Paula Witherspoon has been receiving psychological counseling for some years now on this gender reassignment issue.

Perhaps YOU are the one in need of psychiatric help.

Yeah, except in this case he's a rapist on the sex offender list. Victim, indeed.

@Raymond,

Nice hate speech there? So, what are you doing about your feelings of insecurity with your own sexual orientation? As Shakespeare sowisely observed, you doth protest a bit too much. When a person makes that sort of incorrect, inappropriate, and homophobic remarks, especially when homosexuality is not in any way related, it tells volumes about your concerns about your own sexual feelings.

My wife (a PhD psychologist) calls it the "Craig-Foley Effect" after the Congressmen who were both closeted gays and the authors of some of the most homophobic legislation ever. They, like you, tried to distract attention from their own sexual insecurity by ranting against homosexuals.

Transgender folks are NOT homosexuals. Period.

That's right, raymond. Listen to Chris: he's not a homosexual, he's a man getting an artificial hole...which he'll use to have sex with other men. That's not homosexual AT ALL, lol!

psychiatrist don't want to tell these people they are mentally ill....it's not pc....

Or, you know, THEY'RE NOT. I love how some people, when confronted with something that doesn't support their preconceived notions, be it science or media, automatically assume it's the science or the media that's wrong.

Um, no. If something doesn't back up what you believe, it's most likely because YOU or YOU'RE BELIEF, is wrong. That's what we call education. You know, testing and investigating our notions to see which are correct and which aren't.

They use to tell them they were mentally ill, but now it has been driven out of the DSM. Soon Pedophilia will be as well. This is due to the fact that liberals always preach tolerance of everything (except religion).

Sarah.....if you believe that this is normal behavior.....there is something wrong with you....sorry.....

Thanks, Doctor. Since I'm sure you're the be-all, end-all, authority on this. You know, just the mere beliefs and prejudices of NYCGUY, are more then enough to explain all the world's mysteries. Don't know the answer to something, well NYCGUY will tell you what he believes and that will end the confusion.

Sarah, your post can say the same about you.

Lisa,

Really, how so? Where did I claim to know anything, beyond a shadow of a doubt? Because I'm banking on what the vast majority of the credible, scientific, and medical community says about homosexuality as not a mental illness? That's called education an studying, not belief. Belief is what you have without the education/studying. Now, if the education and studying don't prove your belief true, it isn't the education and studying that's the issue.

It would be the same, if that vast medical community was saying it was an illness, and I was saying it wasn't, because that's what I wanted to believe. You know, the conspiracy theory mindset. "I want this to be true regardless of how many people show me it isn't."

Nice try. Did this make it any easier for you?

Oh yes, thank you so much Sarah for your enlightenment. I will sleep much better tonight.

Anytime, dear. Anytime.

1) Homosexuality is not a mental illness. Period. It is not a choice. In fact, exclusive homosexual orientation, like exclusive heterosexual orientation, is a theoretical construct that does not exist in nature. Sexuality is a continuum, not an absolute. And transgender people are NOT homosexuals.

2) Gender re-assignment to some degree is vastly more common than people think. It is most often done by pediatricians who try to surgically tamper with something that is ambiguous and the results are disastrous. Children should be left along until at least age 6 or 7 whan an fMRI can be run to determine gender (not sexual) orientation.

3) People don't seem to understand that the gender assignment issue it pretty well understood, both physically and psychologically. Every fertilized egg starts as a female. But at one specific division the die is cast and almost half change to being male. Sometimes this physical change does not take place just right and the external genetalia are either ambiguous or do not match the psychological gender which developed normally. But the bottom line is that the psychological development took place correctly, with the wrong gender assignment by society being the result of ignorance.

It may be that trying to think about sexuality is very taxing to some people because of their own insecurities. Those with the loudest voices in protest are the most likely to have their own sexual identity problems.

Can't we all just get along?

John,

No. You must be new. ;)

Well, there you go, Sarah and Chris think this is perfectly normal and anyone who doesn't like it is wrong.......they even checked with all the gay and transgendered psychiatrists to make sure ....nothing to see here, please move along.....

NYC,

Thanks for finally admitting it. Science is more credible then your belief.

Sorry, but no, Sarah.....the science is still out on this being a mental illness....you cannot just take the homosexual psychiatrists word that these are normal people....

NYC,

Oh really?? Just homosexual doctors. Please find me homosexuality in the DSM-IV. That's the diagnostic manuel used by CREDIBLE doctors.

Unless of course, you're implying that the vast majority of the scientific and medical community is in on some big conspiracy???

Which brings us right back to my original point.

Sarah....it was always considered a mental illness until the homosexuals took over the psychiatric business and conspired to influence a change a few years back......most of America knows better and are not as naive as you.....

Unless of course, you're implying that the vast majority of the scientific and medical community is in on some big conspiracy???

So the answer is yes. You are implying that.

And you are wrong...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/Americans-Acceptance-Gay-Relations-Crosses-Threshold.aspx

And that's from Gallup, which tends to lean right.

it was always considered a mental illness until the homosexuals took over the psychiatric business and conspired to influence a change a few years back

When did the homosexuals "take over the psychiatric business and conspire to influence a change"?

Homosexuality was removed from the DSM because the member doctors discovered, among other things, that there was never any evidence to warrant its inclusion in the first place.

the science is still out on this being a mental illness

WRONG. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Royal College of Psychiatry, Royal Australian College of Psychiatry, and American Medical Association have ALL stated that sexual orientation -- whether one is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual -- is not a mental illness, but is inborn and immutable.

you cannot just take the homosexual psychiatrists word that these are normal people....

Which "homosexual psychiatrists" are you referring to?

Wouldn't it be lovely if people like nycguy could actually, you know, prove anything?

It goes over you people's heads. I did not say he is perverted, but a straight man who is a perv may get a few ideas. Using the toilet is not perverted, no one said it was.

@Chris, a little person is still a man or woman, what does child have to do with anything? That doesn't make sense.

...the board of psychiatrists whose politically motivated change from homosexuality being a mental illness to it not being a mental illness was accomplished in the mid seventies by stacking the board with homosexual psychiatrists and was a very controversial change disputed by many psychiatrists at the time......they have decided it would be better for their careers to go along to get along and the PC crowd rode the wave....

.the board of psychiatrists whose politically motivated change from homosexuality being a mental illness to it not being a mental illness was accomplished in the mid seventies by stacking the board with homosexual psychiatrists and was a very controversial change disputed by many psychiatrists at the time

Really? And you have the citations to prove this? Because yes, the vote of the board of the American Psychiatric Association was disputed by the members as a group, but when the vote was put to the entire membership, they voted overwhelmingly to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM -- because they realized that there was no evidence to warrant its inclusion in the first place, among other reasons.

...psychiatry not being an exact science, is full of errors, opinions and theories.....when they say only 3% of the male population is homosexual and it is not a mental illness, they are rendering only an opinion, it is not fact or science.....

Psychiatry -- or any other science -- is not an "exact science" if it doesn't conform to your own beliefs and opinions; otherwise, I'm sure you'd be quoting it chapter and verse.

Like this:

Is Homosexuality A Mental Disorder?
No. All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness.

http://www.healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx

That hardly sounds like an "opinion," nycguy; that sounds more like a fact-based conclusion.

Yes erin because everything docters say is true. Cough Cough.

Yes, TheWhiteJudge, and I notice YOU have nothing to disprove what I've posted, either.

*Guffaw*

Still waiting for you to provide any proof to your conspiracy theories, nycguy.

Right on the money, ErinNJ, as always.

Hey, allswell, if you want to laugh (or cry), you should read this guy's bull@!$%# -- he's quite a piece of work! Seems he's the expert on everything (without factual data to back it up, of course), and the rest of us are too stupid to live.

All your wishing in the world doesn't make your theory on homosexuality fact......you have no science to back it up and therefore should realize that psychiatry has never cured anything and is at best a guess with political correctness applied.....

All your pandering to the lower forms of human tolerance doesn't mask the fact that your position is a leftover residue of a generation that's long past you by.

This entire debate is really quite boring, actually. Homosexuality as a "mental illness" ... really?

Ahh, the relics of our past.

Every generation must cope with such nonsense in some form or another. You're really no different than the generation that told us all how un-pure interracial relationships were (and legislated to have them banned). Bigots of that era are more than welcome to masquerade as the bigots of today, just don't be surprised once you finally escape your haze to find the rest of us have gone about the business of progressing the next generation forward.

Homosexuality ... heterosexuality ..... people who like boobies! .... yawn.

What else is on?

I know, ErinNJ, I know. Its sad and somewhat frightening in its feverency.

nycguy, all the detractions and distractions in the world won't pull us away from knowing you haven't supported anything you've said with a single source, while ErinNJ has.

....don't worry guys, your mental illness is tolerated by almost everyone in today's society and just because you think you are like the other 97% of the population, you are not.......no man looks at another man's hairy hindquarters and gets exited unless you are mentally ill.......deal with it and accept it....not everyone is amused by your perversions....

Sorry bud, heterosexual male here. Just one who believes in rights and equality..and the fact that homosexuality exists in over 1500 species in nature.

You "logic" (which is merely your opinion presented as logic) doesn't signify, as it has zero understanding of human psychology, physiology, genetics, or sociology.

nycguy

eh ... er .... perhaps I should mention I'm a heterosexual, happily married man.

not everyone is amused by your perversions

The best part of this entire conversation is that I would bet a million bucks the skeletons in your bedroom closet trump that of everyone else on this thread. That's why you're so obsessed with the concept.

How's it feel to know you spend more time in the day thinking about penis than the homosexuals posting on this thread do?

allswell.....nice b.s. you spout there, when you find a psychiatrist that has ever cured anything.....let me know and I may entertain your hope that homosexual thinking has any hint of normalcy...

Chad....I knew sooner or later, you would prove your stupidity.....thanks....too bad you don't have the million bucks I'd be happy to take it from you.....

Whatever you gay ... I mean say.

Sorry ... just a little freudian slip there. Like you, I just can't stop thing about it.

:)

Chad....your name is so gay.....and I'm sure your boyfriend will help you with your man arse dreams.....

Chad....your name is so gay

.............^...... really? ............^........

You sir, are really awesome.

I so wish we were buds so I could constantly hear your witty comebacks and clever banter.

...Sorry Chad..........I can't say the same about you......

nycguy, good job crossing the CoH line. Should be fun to see the result.

And your continuous commentary on "normalcy" doesn't signify, as normal is a subjective state of commonality. Its not objective, and therefore nothing more than an opinion.

Yes, TheWhiteJudge, and I notice YOU have nothing to disprove what I've posted, either

I wasn't trying to disprove you. I was just saying that every docter has to lie about something.

I wasn't trying to disprove you. I was just saying that every docter has to lie about something.

And the proof of this is? Its just insulting to doctors in general.

don't worry guys, your mental illness is tolerated by almost everyone in today's society and just because you think you are like the other 97% of the population, you are not.

I'm a straight, married woman -- actually, nycguy, YOU are the most likely homosexual in this thread. Time to come out of the closet. You can open the door slowly.

@Nycguy

no man looks at another man's hairy hindquarters and gets exited unless you are mentally ill

Well now we all know how you were taught. Anyways I'm not mentally ill and I can get exited from it but with me being bisexual I guess you'll just say I am sick. Just because you try and post something false and get mad whenever someone proves you wrong shouldn't you just shut up then. Homosexuality is a way of life we take in at birth and it just fits in to us as we age. It's no choice. Just something inevitable.

Erin.....lol.... and your husband probably married you because of his attraction to your heavily bearded clam......

Great job providing more ammo for the mods, nycguy. Feel free to keep making personal insults to people, we'll be laughing when you get yourself banned.

.....I'm only defending myself from the insults of those whose tired tactic is to try and silence any dissent from those who disagree......homosexuality was always considered a mental illness until homosexual psychiatrists stacked a voting board to change it without any medical evidence that they were right.......today, we are so PC that no one has the guts to call them out and make them prove their outrageous claim........

homosexual psychiatrists stacked a voting board to change it without any medical evidence that they were right.

A claim you have been repeatedly asked to prove, without any evidence presented. Please prove that "homosexual psychiatrists" managed to "stacked a voting board" and that it was "without any medical evidence".

The conspiracy is tiresome. What's more, you are not defending yourself from anything. You are outright insulting individuals who have called you out on the unfounded nonsense you have been spewing. If you consider what ErinNJ said to be an insult (calling you a likely homosexual) then you have not been keeping tabs on recent studies showing a distinct connection between homophobia and closeted homosexuality.

allswell....I have known about this for more than thirty years and since you have a computer and want to learn more about it.....be my guest and look it up....it's all out there for you to read about if you have the interest....it is not a secret and I'm not the only one who is aware of what happened in the mid-seventies......as for Erin....she started with the insults, so I responded in kind......I guess to guys like you, if your not walking around with someones appendage in your mouth, you're a homophobe......good luck...

it's all out there for you to read about if you have the interest....it is not a secret and I'm not the only one who is aware of what happened in the mid-seventies

"An essential criterion for making the diagnosis of paraphilia is that the behavior, urges, or fantasies cause distress or dysfunction. These two symptoms will be analyzed separately....

"The “B” criterion allows for the diagnosis if there is, “…impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" (APA, 2000, p. 566). The implication is that the dysfunction results from the paraphilia per se, rather than social reactions to the sexuality.

"Suppose an individual is functioning in society without difficulty and also has an interest in a Paraphilia, thereby satisfying the “A” but not the “B” criterion. Theoretically, that person would not be diagnosed with a Paraphilia."

- DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal

So you know, paraphilias also included "excessive masturbation (more than the the observer).

The removal of homosexuality and many other paraphilias from the DSM was the result of research into the damaging effects of such activities being listed as disorders in the first place, causing stigmatization and providing a means for people to control the activities of others. The above paper was written to the organization as an attempt in 2005 to get them to agree that all paraphilias should have been removed, based on the same reasoning homosexuality was removed.

....yes, your post was a perfect picture of making these rulings for politically correct purposes......no one wants to upset the potentially "stigmatized" subject, but it certainly does not explain the causes for anyone to be that way in the first place....it could be any number of reasons including mental illness.....

Where, exactly, were you insulted, nycguy? I see a lot of posts of you calling people "stupid," and saying Chad's name is "so gay," etc., but I don't see anyone insulting you.

Perhaps you'd like some cheese with that whine...

You post nothing to support your statements, and belittle evidence that supports our side of the argument (which all of the credible evidence does). Of course, since none of the evidence proves your absurd claims, it all adds up to "political correctness". Time to put your money where your oh-so-big mouth is, put on your big-boy pants, and support your claims.

Oh, that's right -- you can't. There is nothing that does.

....yes, your post was a perfect picture of making these rulings for politically correct purposes......no one wants to upset the potentially "stigmatized" subject, but it certainly does not explain the causes for anyone to be that way in the first place....it could be any number of reasons including mental illness.....

And at the same time it demonstrates that there was no reason for them to be in the DSM in the first place. Try reading the article and educate yourself.

Hey Erin....I guess you are too stupid to realize calling a straight man gay is an insult......the facts are clear....you don't wish to check them out, so keep believing your fairy tales.....homosexuals were always considered mentally ill and it was only overturned when the APA got enough homosexuals on their board to politicly vote to change it.....they had no scientific evidence to change it and like a lemming, people of your ilk never questioned it....check a history book, please.....

Hey Erin....I guess you are too stupid to realize calling a straight man gay is an insult

It's only an insult when you have deep-seeded, homosexual tendencies of your own to contend with (as I've already pointed out).

I'm a straight man. I have no sexual attraction to men, whatsoever. That's why I could care less about other men who do. There's no piece of my internal being that I need to wrestle with every night. Hence, there is no need for me to project that hatred upon those who are open about it.

It's the same thing we see day-in and day-out. How many times do we see ultra-conservatives and the religious right get caught up in their own gay scandals. Almost every single "gay" sex scandal to ever hit the airwaves comes entirely through those individuals who have spent their entire life's work rallying against it. This is psychology 101, it's checkers -- not chess.

....Hey Chad.......do me a favor and go to your nearest gym, walk over to the first guy you see and call him gay.......then get yourself to the dentist and have your new bridge made.....you leftists really are missing more than a few brain cells.....lol....

Why does everything have to go back to violence with you? I made a couple of observations, none of which you felt the need to address ... you're just fixated on dudes at the gym. I wonder why that is?

Speaking on political correctness, I'd actually be in agreement with you. I don't think people should be "offended" by half the @!$%# they are offended by.

Call me a cracker? Meh, so what ... I am a white guy. Call me gay? Meh, so what. I'm not, but I understand people are born that way. So why would I take offense to something people are naturally born into? It would be like someone calling me Irish (although I'm German) and getting offended by it.

Why?

Why do you get offended? I know the answer ... I know you merely think it's a sexual choice ... a sexual perversion. But why?

Just once in your life, lets try and use a little rational thought instead of empty threats, shall we?

Why would people "choose" to be something that will instantly bring them ridicule and contempt? Why the hell would you do that to yourself? How about the kids who kill themselves over it .... they would rather choose death over simply choosing to like gils?

Do you remember the day you "chose" to be straight? I sure don't ... I just always loved the ladies. You think these men and women aren't the same as you or I?

Why?

homosexuals were always considered mentally ill and it was only overturned when the APA got enough homosexuals on their board to politicly vote to change it

Still waiting for you to provide proof. Haven't seen anything about that except religious nut conspiracy sites.

Nycguy is too busy trying to "prove" he's not gay, but chances are he is:

New Study Links Homophobia with Homosexual Arousal

August 1996 Press Release

WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.

Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.

Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'

Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.

When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm

Gee, nycguy, if I've insulted you again...deal with it. Get over yourself.

You provide nothing to support your claims, but then I guess it would be difficult to cite the encyclopedia of your ass.

Erin...I'm just as gay as your husband is.... and I gave you enough information to check what happened with the APA thirty five years ago, but I guess if someone doesn't feed it to you on a plate, you deny it......just remember, no psychiatrist has ever explained with any scientific proof whatsoever that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness....I can't help it if that sticks in your craw........

Chad.....only 3% of men are homosexual.....that is not a "choice"....it is a mental illness and they can't control it.....just ask them.....or check your mirror.....

no psychiatrist has ever explained with any scientific proof whatsoever that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness

And the proof that a psychiatrist ever explained with any scientific proof whatsoever that homosexuality is a mental illness is...?

Oh right, there is none.

I already looked up your conspiracy theory, nycguy. It's just that: a conspiracy theory.

.....kleptomaniacs cannot control their need to steal......homosexuals cannot control their attraction to other men......homosexuals are only 3% of the population, if that, and they are both deviations from the norm.....hence, varying degrees of mental illness, not necessarily dangerous or something that renders one non- functional, but it is illness nonetheless... and no APA study has ever proved that theory false.....don't blame me for it.....just sayin'.....

nycguy,

Still arguing over penis, eh?

Can't say I'm surprised.

For some reason I can't read your posts without thinking:

"It puts the lotion in the basket else it gets the hose again."

.....kleptomaniacs cannot control their need to steal......homosexuals cannot control their attraction to other men......

Heterosexuals cannot control their attraction to women...

Deviation from the norm has never been the basis for mental illness, and if that's seriously your logic, there's something fundamentally wrong with you.

and no APA study has ever proved that theory false

And no APA study supporting your theory in the first place.

Seriously, nycguy, try and stop lying for one second. You might like it.

Chad and Allswell.....you two fellas need to get a room together...your obsession that gay is normal is ridiculous and not believed or scientifically provable to the vast majority of America....happy spooning!......

Its sad that such comments are all you have left to "defend" yourself, nycguy.

Its really, really sad. Pity party time!

Nycguy the vast majority of America thinks homosexuality is an abomination. You've made your point that you know nothing of what you speak about and should just leave before you make yourself look like more of an idiot. And Allswell here's some proof on this. Christianity. And if there's one person in the world who has never lied about something please tell me. I stick with my "Every doctor has lied about something" speech if you can not provide me with a name.

Allswell......defend myself????....I have nothing that I must defend myself for and what is truly sad is guys like you who think that a man putting his penis in the buttocks of another man is "normal".......but, no psychiatrists can cure you sickies.....so you must live with your sick obsession.....very sad......

nycguy

I have a hard time believing that you wrote that without getting aroused ... naughty.

[L]esbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

Is homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem. Much objective scientific research over the past 35 years shows us that homosexual orientation, in and of itself, is not associated with emotional or social problems.

Homosexuality was thought to be a mental illness in the past because mental health professionals and society had biased information about homosexuality since most studies only involved lesbians and gay men in therapy. When researchers examined data about gay people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new research by removing the term "homosexuality" from the official manual that lists all mental and emotional disorders. In 1975 the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this action. Both associations urge all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation. Since the original declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, this decision has subsequently been reaffirmed by additional research findings and both associations.

http://affirmation.org/youth/youth_faq.shtml

In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

I have a hard time believing that you wrote that without getting aroused

And he did it with such detail I barely contained my excitement.

Allswell......defend myself????....I have nothing that I must defend myself for and what is truly sad is guys like you who think that a man putting his penis in the buttocks of another man is "normal".......but, no psychiatrists can cure you sickies.....so you must live with your sick obsession.....very sad......

I see the difference between "normal" and "natural" still eludes you. Might want to go back to school.

I'll go back to school when psychiatry and psychology use actual scientific evidence instead of a board opinion and the word of a guy named Gonsiorek who along with his gay colleagues have a huge ax to grind in their annoyment that homosexuality stigmatized a group of people that they didn't want to upset.

Poor kid. So psychiatry and psychology only apply when they agree with what you think, eh?

Considering you have zero scientific evidence to support homosexuality being a disorder or defect in the first place, I'd say you're pretty damned lost.

But, ignorance is your prerogative.

Thank God, the end of the pissing match. I almost died of boredom for a minute there.

Talk about being tardy to the party. Try contributing.

Really Raymond??? They'll find away regardless. I don't think punishing gay men and transexuals for what STRAIGHT men do, is quite fair, is it now?

Sarah-3043284, Through a carefully crafted, decades-old propaganda campaign, homosexual activists have successfully cast homosexuals — many of whom enjoy positions of influence and affluence — as a disadvantaged minority. They have repackaged and sold to the public behaviors which thousands of years of history, every major world religion and uncompromising human biology have long identified as immoral and sexually deviant.

As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the "gay agenda." At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are "equal." If it feels good, do it.

Ultimately, the homosexual lobby's primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God's natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.

This creates cultural and moral anarchy.

Raymond,

Good God, man, get over yourself. Luckily we live in a nation where I'm completely free from YOUR morals. You don't like gay people, that's fine, but your likes are pretty much valueless to anyone but you, as is your concept of morality. Not to mention you sound a little threatened in your own sexuality. Somebody could make you change or sexual orientation? Really?

Here, a gay friend of mine gave me a copy of his "agenda"...

1. Be born.

2. Go to school.

3. Fall in love.

4. Build a career.

5. Have a family.

6. Retire.

7. Die.

I'll leave you with this, NEENER, NEENER, NEENER, YOUR GOD DOESN'T MATTER!

Sarah-3043284, Ironically, sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct — by force of law — through federal edicts such as "hate crimes" legislation, the so-called "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA) and by imposing government sanctioned "same-sex marriage." All such government mandates grant special protected "minority" status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.

Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be "tolerated," but celebrated. (That's what the euphemistic slogan "celebrate diversity" supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of "tolerance" and "diversity."

Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded "homophobic," "hateful" or "discriminatory." They are to be silenced by all means possible.

This is not a woman. This is a man who thinks he wants to be a woman. Look at him. It's clearly a man with lipstick on. No matter how many times activists like to use "she" to define this person, it doesn't change the fact that it's a manly man with male genitalia.

In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby's blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the "gay" agenda.

They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.

Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:

• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
• Make gays look good.
• Make victimizers look bad.

Sarah-3043284, Genetic determinism — Genes determine human choices and the trajectory of human development, we are told. This means that the gay is a programmed automaton and has no choice but to perform those sexual acts which the genes dictate. A full menu of sexual perversions are written into the genes and require only the right opportunity and stimulation to express themselves. This is nonsense, of course. Gays have free will and choice, as do every human being. Sexual perversions must be learned through some combination of experimentation and instruction.

At present, there seems to be no scientific evidence linking particular genes to particular sexual practices. But there is scientific evidence to the contrary. A sample of 90,000 identical twins (who have the same genes) shows no meaningful correlation of the sexual preference for twins raised apart. Fraternal twins had a higher correlation. If genetic determinism was true, there should be 100% correlation. (Source: Bearman & Bruckner, American Journal of Sociology, Vol 107, No 5, 2002)

The Journal of Homosexuality, a gay publication, reports that certain gay-gene studies and gay-brain studies do not stand up to critical analysis. Many gays want the truth instead of the big lie. Others prefer the big lie. The author of one of the criticized gay-gene studies is under investigation for science fraud by the National Institutes of Health for Science Fraud.

Your presentation of handpicked parts of handpicked studies, out of context, and posted on the web, aren't evidence. If there was any valid evidence either way, we wouldn't be hearing about it from Raymond on Newsvine.

For each bit and piece you can post, someone else can post one that says the opposite.

Sarah, "Luckily we live in a nation where I'm completely free from YOUR morals." That's the thing, liberals get to ignore/denigrate our morals, but we are forced to accept yours. Arrogant and hypocritical.

Sarah-3043284, The truth is there for anyone to see. Open your brainwashed mind. Do the research.

JC,

Please quote me where I said you or Raymond, or anyone HAD to accept homosexuality. Perhaps I would have nothing to say about your "morals" if you weren't using them to degrade and judge my fellow citizens?

Raymond,

Yes, I'm brainwashed. Obviously, otherwise I would believe in your Bible and everything you posted, automatically.

Sarah, you appear to think of yourself as forward thinking and enlightened. But if someone disagrees with your opinion you resort to name calling, insulting and "neener, neener" "muhaha". You refuse to consider other's opinions and sensabilities. So who does that make intolerant, abrasive, and unable to have intelligent discourse with? Are you truly thinking for yourself or just jumping on the latest popular, politically correct bandwagon?

Yeah Sarah - It's great to be free from the Bible .... until you die & go to hell.

Sarah-3043284, Its people like you who want to take behaviors which thousands of years of history, every major world religion and uncompromising human biology have long identified as immoral and sexually deviant. For you this has no value. You believe only what you want to believe. This creates cultural and moral anarchy.

Paramed,

I would have nothing to say about their Bibles, religion, morals... UNLESS THEY USE THEM TO DEGRADE AND JUDGE MY FELLOW CITIZENS. Then yes, we have a right to tell them to shove their Bibles where the sun doesn't shine, because they mean nothing in our society.

But for Raymond attempting to preach to me about his morals, did I say anything mean? Look at my first post to him, I simply disagreed. Then he came back with the holier-than-thou, faux science crap, at which point I have everyright to point out how ridiculous I think he sounds. He's preaching to me, after all.

I love how some of you think that you're not only entitled to post whatever judmental crap you want, but you're entitled to NOT be called out on it. God, some of you are whiney.

If they don't want to hear what people think about your religion or Bibles, then don't use them as weapons against other human beings who haven't done anything to you.

Raymond,

Again, just because you say something doesn't make it true. I judge behavior on the effect it has on society and me.

Your judgemental attitude is way more immoral and harmful to me, then a what a gay person does in the privacy of their own home.

Wry,

I'm scared. So. scared.

hello all sarah is not a woman, it just has a picture of one to try to throw everyone off. it wants us to cheer as they drag us to hell just like SODOM. Thank GOD it doesn't matter just like the phony woman posting named sarah

Sarah
Said "I would have nothing to say about their Bibles, religion, morals... UNLESS THEY USE THEM TO DEGRADE AND JUDGE MY FELLOW CITIZENS. Then yes, we have a right to tell them to shove their Bibles where the sun doesn't shine, because they mean nothing in our society."

So when you use Gay relationships as a issue in politics, and as a way to scream about the evils of the Bible or religion your not degrading citizens? I think there are more Citizens that follow the bible than there are not so by definition you're attacking more people with your "morals".

Casey,

Oh shucks, you figured me out. Thank GOD, your GOD, doesn't matter in OUR country. Please, prove to me that Sodom existed, and isn't that in Leviticus??? Well then, riddle me this...

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge
with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of
God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They
claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I
tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2.
The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.
How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable
expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

So when you use Gay relationships as a issue in politics, and as a way to scream about the evils of the Bible or religion your not degrading citizens?

We don't USE gay relationships as an issue in politics, the right does. We advocate for NOT using them, NOT caring, NOT legislating based on sexual orientation. As in treating them the same as straight people.

In order to stop us from doing that. In order to stop us from repealing laws that SPECIFICALLY make an issue out of being gay or not, the right uses they're Bibles, morals, and religions. When, quite clearly, in our nation, those things have no standing.

It was the right that legislated homosexuality. DADT, DOMA, sodomy laws... It is the right that's fighting to keep legislating homosexuality. They need to stop using it as a political issue, and we will then cease to say anything about their methods and how they go about using it or defending it.

For those who keep trying to inject religion into what is essentially only their own feelings of insecurity: You actually deserve to spend an eterinity with a mean-spirited, vindictive, hateful God who couldn't even give 100%. I mean, the Big Guy rested ater six day's work. He is just an 86% God. Think about how much better life would be is God had given 100%. Maybe we wouldn't have cancer or war or people like you!

Raymond, unelss you were 1) a virgin on your wedding night and 2) NEVER had sex with anyone other than your lawfully wedded wife, I'm afraid you are NOT qualified to complain about someone else's morals.

Sara-3043284

How nice it must be to know you are now ranked as the entitlement queen of the Internet.

Of course you'd have to be queen as your the only one entitled to an opinion.

Vietnam,

So I DIDN'T say this...

Post 21.9 :

You can post all the paranoid crap you want, IT DOESN'T MATTER. It's your personal beliefs and nothing else. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to tell you how ridiculous it I think it is.

Post 21.5:

You don't like gay people, that's fine,

You're confusing being entitled to your opinion, and being entitled to acceptance of your opinion.

Sarah-3043284, Repeatedly identifying the homosexuality or "gender identity" of individuals while extolling their good qualities serves irrationally to shape people's view of the morality of homosexual and transgender behavior, particularly in those who are not in the habit of thinking critically, especially children.

If homosexuals or "transgenders" have contributed something noteworthy in the field of science, mathematics, art, or history, those achievements should be noted, but the identification of their homosexuality or "gender identity" should be prohibited in public schools. Homosexuality and gender confusion are irrelevant to achievement and are irrelevant to the possession of desirable character traits.

The reason homosexualists seek to include this information is the very reason, traditionalists must oppose it. They are seeking to transform cultural views on homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder by irrationally, fallaciously associating them with something positive.

The logic implicit in sympathetic portrayals of homosexual people or characters is a kind of inversion of the principle of "guilt by association." Instead, we find innocence by association.

In fact, in the book After the Ball, which was the blueprint or "manifesto" for changing the culture, the homosexual authors recommend using the "rules of Associative Conditioning (which is the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one's feelings about one thing are transferred to the other)."

Raymond,

Again, your opinions and opinions on books, or what you took their meaning as means nothing. Your word, interpretations, and opinions don't prove anything.

When homosexuals are seen as kind, creative, generous, charming, funny, intelligent, or industrious, homosexuality becomes, by association, good. The underlying fallacious syllogism is as follows: 1. Sensitivity and compassion are good. 2. Homosexuals are sensitive and compassionate. 3. Therefore, homosexuality is good.

The syllogism is flawed, and the conclusion is invalid.

Children and adolescents are especially vulnerable to this kind of emotional manipulation, so limiting exposure and explaining the underlying flawed logic is critical.

In addition to the stories of achievements, public schools are having homosexuals and "transgenders" — including teens — share their stories of suffering with students. The stories of suffering told by homosexuals not only increase awareness of these students' feelings but also result in student self-censorship: these stories compel others to feel, illegitimately, that their sound moral judgments are, in fact, the problem.

Absent clear thinking, similar effects blur the distinction between different causes. In other words, when homosexuals feel bad when harassed and alsofeel bad in the presence of moral disapproval, students mistakenly assume that harassment and moral disapproval are equally wrong. The similar effects of hurt feelings obscure the difference between abuse and principled moral objection.

Repeated, uncritical exposure to sympathetic homosexual speakers who share poignant stories of suffering, leads many students to become understandably reluctant to increase the suffering of homosexuals. Decades ago, homosexual activists (either the National Gay Task Force or Kirk and Madsen) recognized the strategic importance of desensitization and sympathy in transforming public opinion. Their explicit plans included the following:

1. Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to it enough.
2. Portray gays as victims. In any campaign to win over the public we must be cast as victims in need of protection, so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of the protector.

The problem is that even adults often do not make the distinction and children often cannot make the distinction between suffering brought about by cruelty, and discomfort caused by hearing a hard truth.

Raymond,

Here, let me show you how this works...

Repeatedly identifying the homosexuality or "gender identity" of individuals while extolling their good qualities serves irrationally to shape people's view of the morality of homosexual and transgender behavior, particularly in those who are not in the habit of thinking critically, especially children.

This is your BELIEF. You've done nothing but state, what you think "repeatedly identifying the homosexuality or 'gender identity' of individuals while extolling their good qualities" does. You believe that it irrationally shapes people's views of morality. The biggest problem here, is that MORALITY or MORALS, are individual and personal, ergo you have no place stating anything about morality or morals, except to state your own. No one is required to conform to what you think is moral.

If homosexuals or "transgenders" have contributed something noteworthy in the field of science, mathematics, art, or history, those achievements should be noted, but the identification of their homosexuality or "gender identity" should be prohibited in public schools. Homosexuality and gender confusion are irrelevant to achievement and are irrelevant to the possession of desirable character traits.

Says you. Again, this is your opinion. Your opinion isn't universal, or necessarily correct, and no one else has to accept it. I'm entitled to mine that believes the context of "being persecuted" does add relevancy to someone's accomplishments. We can argue our points all day, but neither of us, THAT MEANS YOU TO, will ever be proven right or wrong, because bottomline, these are opinions. No one, at least no one with half a brain, swallows a strangers opinion and blanketly accepts it. It's your's and your's alone. We are free from your opinions, just as you are free to express them.

The reason homosexualists seek to include this information is the very reason, traditionalists must oppose it. They are seeking to transform cultural views on homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder by irrationally, fallaciously associating them with something positive.

This is what you THINK homosexuals are seeking. There is no real proof of this. The vast medical and scientific community disagrees with you. It doesn't mean YOU can't believe this, but until you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, in a court of law, none of us have to take this as anything more then your thoughts on the matter. And, as I said above, if proving this was possible, it sure wouldn't happen by Random Raymond on Newsvine.

The logic implicit in sympathetic portrayals of homosexual people or characters is a kind of inversion of the principle of "guilt by association." Instead, we find innocence by association.

In fact, in the book After the Ball, which was the blueprint or "manifesto" for changing the culture, the homosexual authors recommend using the "rules of Associative Conditioning (which is the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one's feelings about one thing are transferred to the other)."

Again, this is nothing but YOUR interpretation of the book. 80 different people can read the same book and interpret it 80 different ways. Your interpretation is only right for you and those who agree with you.

So, now that we see the fallacy of proof by assertion, clearly evident in your posts, all I can say, you're entitled to that, and you can post them all day long, but NO ONE ELSE, has to take you for anything more then what we each see you as. Your opinions aren't law. They aren't evidence. They aren't science. And they aren't legally sound. They're yours only.

Regardless of how long, or how intelligent you attempt to make them sound, they ALL boil down to the same thing. YOUR BELIEFS.

Sarah - You should be scared.

Then nothing is true, and everything chaos.

Which pretty much sums up the society we are becoming

Wry,

Oh, don't worry, I am. I'm just wondering, can he turn me into crushed red pepper, instead of salt??? I'm trying to be more health conscience.

Raymond never has any facts to support his claims -- only "studies" conducted by anti-gay activists who are determined to promote the anti-gay agenda.

US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics

• McClatchy newspapers
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 December 2008 13.14 EST

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California's recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys", suggesting homosexuality would then spread.

Some scientists say the political and moral debate over same-sex marriage frequently strayed from established scientific evidence, including comments by Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin that homosexuality is "a choice" and "a decision".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Symmetry Of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds

ScienceDaily (June 17, 2008) — Swedish researchers have found that some physical attributes of the homosexual brain resemble those found in the opposite sex, according to an article published online (June 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Some psychological tests have shown differences between men and women in the extent to which they employ the brain’s hemispheres in verbal tasks. Other research has hinted that homosexuals may exhibit the tendencies of the opposite sex in brain behavior unrelated to sexual activity.

Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, now report that the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women are slightly asymmetric—the right hemisphere is larger than the left—and the brains of gay men and straight women are not.

Positron emission tomography (PET) scans taken by the researchers also show that in connectivity of the amygdala (which is important for emotional learning), lesbians resemble straight men, and gay men resemble straight women. The researchers analyzed the brains of 90 subjects, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to assess brain volume and PET data partly gleaned from previous olfactory studies.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm

Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors
Published: Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 17:21 in Psychology & Sociology

Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins. Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

In 1994, the APA finally stated, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality"

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html, citing the American Psychological Association and the removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Disorders in 1973

In a hugely significant development, the American Psychological Association is now admitting that there is no "gay" gene, after touting its existence in published materials since 1998.

Since 1998, the APA has said that "considerable recent evidence" suggests a biological role in shaping an individual's sexuality.

Now, however, in its most recent publication the APA says, "There is no consensus among scientists" about a genetic or hormonal cause of homosexuality. It adds, "[N]o findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

The new brochure no longer refers readers to homosexual advocacy organizations such the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force for readers wanting further information.

Now that the "gay gene" claim seems to be disappearing into the ashbin of medical science, it's time once again to focus on the nature of homosexual behavior itself and to ask whether its obvious health risks make it a lifestyle any sane society should endorse, legitimize and support. The answer to that question is a clear and unequivocal "No."

Raymond, What you state is absolutely true. The homosexual advocacy organizations and people like Sarah wishful thinking.

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers

In 1994, the APA finally stated, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality"

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html, citing the American Psychological Association and the removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Disorders in 1973

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.

American Academy of Pediatrics

US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics

• McClatchy newspapers
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 December 2008 13.14 EST

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California's recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys", suggesting homosexuality would then spread.

Some scientists say the political and moral debate over same-sex marriage frequently strayed from established scientific evidence, including comments by Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin that homosexuality is "a choice" and "a decision".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors
Published: Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 17:21 in Psychology & Sociology

Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins. Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

The team led by Dr Niklas Långström at Karolinska Institutet conducted the first truly population-based survey of all adult (20-47 years old) twins in Sweden. Studies of identical twins and non-identical, or fraternal, twins are often used to untangle the genetic and environmental factors responsible for a trait. While identical twins share all of their genes and their entire environment, fraternal twins share only half of their genes and their entire environment. Therefore, greater similarity in a trait between identical twins compared to fraternal twins shows that genetic factors are partly responsible for the trait.

This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour (that is, that some men have no same sex partners, and some have one or more) is accounted for by genetics.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

BTW, Raymond, those "gay gene thing" articles are from 2008, so your claims about that going into the "ashbin of medical science" seem to be going to that same "ashbin" -- where they belong.

Facts are facts. What Raymond has stated is solid scientific fact.

And yet, neither you, Raymond, nor Scientist1 can provide any substantiation for any of your so-called "facts".

Try looking at this REAL scientific evidence:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers

In 1994, the APA finally stated, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality"

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html, citing the American Psychological Association and the removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Disorders in 1973.

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

Royal College of Psychiatrists

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.

American Academy of Pediatrics

Sarah - God won't turn you into anything. You'll just burn in the lake of fire for all eternity. You still have time to be saved.

Wryview, repeating your bull@!$%# will not make it true. Everyone does not believe in any "god" or any "bible," and that is our right. If YOU want to believe in fairy tales, that's your choice and your right -- but your rights end where my rights (and Sarah's) begin.

Scientific fact based on faulty science is not factual. This science is influenced in either direction by scientists biased one way or another from flawed social constructs. Studies and research that are "labeled" as pure fact have been classified as such so, as to try to distract from any further "real" research that might change the general public's own perceptions in an area that is so extremely controversial and so "uncomfortable." To a society insecure enough to actually perceive and believe all the so-called negative publicity or as you (scientists?) god-fearing citizens call it (fact) biblical edict, this means every homosexual, bi-sexual, or Transsexual person is a sexually deviant creature with absolutely no human rights whatsoever, that need to be treated with disdain and monitored 24 hours a day. So they don't make the assumption, that if their own Dr. tells them they have a right to use the gender appropriate restrooms for their transition should we have armed guards checking the contents in our pants so they can direct us to a safe "appropriate" place to pee? Should we jail all the gender-confused "deviants"(for this is all you Narrow Minded people will ever see a trans-person, or homosexual, or bi-sexual as) so people can feel comfortable in a stall with their pants around their ankles? REALLY? Are you people what pass for intelligent? WOW!!! the only people making any sense here are the ones that can argue without interjecting their RELIGION or their FLAWED POLITICS. They're not even YOUR OWN ideas. Just reheated paranoia's of days long-passed. Something acidic that has been eating away at your own pathetic consciences for so long that it must be true! You "read" something somewhere so it must be true! There are very FEW forward thinkers on this thread. Remember how the German forward thinkers of the early 20th century thought "MIEN KAMPF" was forward thinking? Very little has changed since those days, with all the world, stagnant in this same go-nowhere thinking. Keep your POISONOUS attitudes from infecting discussion threads that should merit lively "REAL" scientific debate for solutions, instead of spewing HATE in whatever context you CHOOSE to "label" it as. YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE! BE GONE! BEFORE SOMEONE DROPS A HOUSE ON YOU!!

Lana214, Gay ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, and the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism.

Such special rights will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of broader society.

Among all the liberal belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish.

Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive Crafting "Gay" Children, reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the "zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality. And that these formed the "Gay Academic Union," (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings.

This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called After the Ball, by gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:

"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."

Focus on the Family provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:

1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." (They use late night air waves and special channels, as well as their right to peacefully assemble to do so.)
2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
4. "Make gays look good."
5. "Make the victimizers look bad."
6. "Get funds from corporate America."

ROFLMAO! Judith A. Reisman is a consultant for World Nut Daily, a known anti-gay website. Her "studies" and allegations have been debunked and refuted by the mainstream medical and scientific bodies; in short, she's a quack -- and the fact that you rely on her "research" shows how desperate you are.

Focus on the Family is an anti-gay hate group, with only their own intolerant and homophobic agenda to promote. Your desperation level is sinking even further.

At least try to get some credible, unbiased data to support your claims -- oh, that's right, there is none.

Try and provide facts that you can support with actual links, dudes.

And try to remember that the credibility of your sources means everything. Until you can prove objectively anything you've said, you're just pissing in the wind.

@Erin - I'll pray for you, as well as Sarah. The reverse is also true - your right to your belief also ends where mine begins. People like you don't trump people like me. I didn't call YOUR beliefs a name that can't be actually used in this forum. I stated my beliefs, but did not belittle yours. Why is it necessary to belittle my beliefs? Are you threatened, that it might actually be TRUE?

Wry,

No one wants to trump you. We just want you to keep your perversions of what would otherwise be a beautiful sentiment, out of our lives. Pray for me all you want, if it makes you feel better. When you start preaching to me, I'm going to tell you to shove it.

If there is a God, I'm guessing he has better sh** to do. Maybe that's why YOU'RE passing judgment for him. Is that it? He doesn't have the time, so he put you in charge???

I'm gonna go fry in my lake of fire now.

I stated my beliefs, but did not belittle yours. Why is it necessary to belittle my beliefs?

When are people going to understand that beliefs aren't separate from anything else within the human condition and are subject to the same scrutiny and analytical observation as anything else?

Say someone doesn't believe the Holocaust ever happened (there are millions of people out there who don't). Am I admonished to respect their "beliefs"?

Nope, I'll let them know they are bat@!$%# ... and I'll even do it with a grin and a little jig if you're lucky.

No ones saying you can't believe whatever the hell you want. Just don't get offended when you have silly beliefs and people call you out for it.

You believe in a supreme creator of the universe ... an all-knowing, all-powerful, master of the cosmos.

Okay.

But he cares if your bud gives your undercarriage a little How's ya father?

Hey Sarah, if you don't need them, can I have his prayers for you? I'm hungry. :(

Sarah - God exists whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

People are saying that their belief "trumps" mine because they are telling me that no one cares (which is ridiculous, because I am not the only one on here saying the same thing). I have not belittled, made fun of, or otherwise denigrated anyone's opinion with cursing or name-calling.

There is a difference between judgement and informing. People who don't want to believe what the Bible says always call it judgement when people are merely informing others of what the Bible says.

@Chad- How dare you call my beliefs "silly". I don't call yours "stupid".

God exists whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

No proof of this, either, except that book of fairy tales you like to reference.

Jaslam,

There are protections against someone acting inappropriately in a restroom. As the article mentioned, this person was cited for disorderly conduct. According to Texas law that requires intent to act in a lewd or unlawful manner. From the information given in this article, the issuing of this citation was inappropriate and, more than likely, will be thrown out in court.

I have personally never seen "women pretending to be men" in men's restrooms. However, I have seen women pretending to be women in men's restrooms at concerts and sporting events. When the women's room is full they stand in the line with the men to use our stalls. I've even seen them push themselves to the front of the line stating it's okay because we "don't need stalls." I actually find that behavior more inappropriate than a transsexual person using a restroom in a respectful manner.

There is no way for the real women in the bathroom to know if it's a TG man, or a perv in a dress. Keep all the men out of the women's restrooms, I say. Even the ones who think they're really women.

It was a ticketing, not an arrest.

WOW I have never seen so many pervs wanting to get into womens bathrooms to do what?.............. I dunno, watch em pee? Is there a secret organization of women pee watchers out there?

Between the religious nut jobs, spouting quotes from some ridiculous old tome written by old, fat white guys, to the paranoids who won't pee in a public bathroom, and just the plain old ignorant half-wits, I can see why we have so many problems in this country.

Apparently the only normal person on here is Sara, who the religious, paranoid nut-jobs keep spouting off to, as her posts actually make sense. I am guessing that Raymond can't answer Sara's "Dr. Laura's 10 questions" because it would reveal that his whole lifetime worshipping a false God would be blown out of the water.

Sara-keep up the good work! The intelligent people on here do appreciate your well thought out answers, and can see the obvious wackos for what they are. If any of you crazies want to respond, please do.

Since you seem to consider yourself an expert on gender determinations Lonesome Rhoades-2738573, you might hang out a shingle offering to divine the gender (for legal purposes) of hermaphrodites and any others with ambiguous gender issues.

How many such examinations have you done? Was your "education" scientific or do you rely mostly on "spiritual" revelation?

BTW---a cursory review of your comment history reveals a consistent and obsessive homophobia. Given that everyone (thank God) is not similarly obsessed, can you say when your fascination began and what (events and/or influences) accounts for it? Finally, when did you attain your current state of physical and spiritual perfection?

Yes, it's definitely no surprise this occurred in Texas.