La lis blance de Arizona

How does this make y'all feel?

I asked a question about a public forum statement that I want to make and one of the answers that I recieved said that men likely won't care about trans men in the men's restroom but that women have a major privacy issue. That they feel their privacy is invaded when a tranny tries to use the restroom.

I understand that most men will not care about a women in their bathroom, in fact a trans man is in more danger than the genetic men. As for the women's restroom, I think that it is important to remember that the sexes are equal and what applies to one applies to the other unless biology prohibits it. It is true that men are more likely to be the perpetrators in crimes but when it comes to transgender issues, women are just as guilty. We must also remember that there are trans women both pre and post operation. Do we allow only the post op women to use the women's restroom? There are two issues with that. First, how do we know who is pre op and who is post op? We cannot ask to see proof of genitalia, that would be an invasion of privacy and we would have to do it to everyone; even non trans people. I am hard pressed to think that women would be okay with showing documentation that they have a vagina or two x chromosomes. Second, if we force pre op trans women to use the men's restroom or even post op trans women then we are exposing them to guaranteed harassment and violence. This also violates their right to safety. So if we can't allow "those evil trannys" into the restrooms that correspond with their gender and we can't force them to use the restroom that corresponds their biological sex or their chromosomes and we can't tell them, "Sorry you're a freak so your kind can't use the bathroom," what do we do?

What are your reactions to these arguements?

I asked a question about a public forum statement that I want to make and one of the answers that I recieved said that men likely won't care about trans men in the men's restroom but that women have a major privacy issue. That they feel their privacy is invaded when a tranny tries to use the restroom.

I understand that most men will not care about a women in their bathroom, in fact a trans man is in more danger than the genetic men. As for the women's restroom, I think that it is important to remember that the sexes are equal and what applies to one applies to the other unless biology prohibits it. It is true that men are more likely to be the perpetrators in crimes but we must also remember that there are trans women both pre and post operation. Do we allow only the post op women to use the women's restroom? There are two issues with that. First, how do we know who is pre op and who is post op? We cannot ask to see proof of genitalia, that would be an invasion of privacy and we would have to do it to everyone; even non trans people. I am hard pressed to think that women would be okay with showing documentation that they have a vagina or two x chromosomes. Second, if we force pre op trans women to use the men's restroom or even post op trans women then we are exposing them to guaranteed harassment and violence. This also violates their right to safety. So if we can't allow "those evil trannys" into the restrooms that correspond with their gender and we can't force them to use the restroom that corresponds their biological sex or their chromosomes and we can't tell them, "Sorry you're a freak so your kind can't use the bathroom," what do we do?

Reactions anyone?

I have come across a conundrum that I would like your input on?

I asked a question about a public forum statement that I want to make and one of the answers that I recieved said that men likely won't care about trans men in the men's restroom but that women have a major privacy issue. That they feel their privacy is invaded when a tranny tries to use the restroom.

I understand that most men will not care about a women in their bathroom, in fact a trans man is in more danger than the genetic men. As for the women's restroom, I think that it is important to remember that the sexes are equal and what applies to one applies to the other unless biology prohibits it. It is true that men are more likely to be the perpetrators in crimes but we must also remember that there are trans women both pre and post operation. Do we allow only the post op women to use the women's restroom? There are two issues with that. First, how do we know who is pre op and who is post op? We cannot ask to see proof of genitalia, that would be an invasion of privacy and we would have to do it to everyone; even non trans people. I am hard pressed to think that women would be okay with showing documentation that they have a vagina or two x chromosomes. Second, if we force pre op trans women to use the men's restroom or even post op trans women then we are exposing them to guaranteed harassment and violence. This also violates their right to safety. So if we can't allow "those evil trannys" into the restrooms that correspond with their gender and we can't force them to use the restroom that corresponds their biological sex or their chromosomes and we can't tell them, "Sorry you're a freak so your kind can't use the bathroom," what do we do?

Reactions anyone?

I have come across a conundrum that I would like your input on?

I asked a question about a public forum statement that I want to make and one of the answers that I recieved said that men likely won't care about trans men in the men's restroom but that women have a major privacy issue. That they feel their privacy is invaded when a tranny tries to use the restroom.

I understand that most men will not care about a women in their bathroom, in fact a trans man is in more danger than the genetic men. As for the women's restroom, I think that it is important to remember that the sexes are equal and what applies to one applies to the other unless biology prohibits it. It is true that men are more likely to be the perpetrators in crimes but we must also remember that there are trans women both pre and post operation. Do we allow only the post op women to use the women's restroom? There are two issues with that. First, how do we know who is pre op and who is post op? We cannot ask to see proof of genitalia, that would be an invasion of privacy and we would have to do it to everyone; even non trans people. I am hard pressed to think that women would be okay with showing documentation that they have a vagina or two x chromosomes. Second, if we force pre op trans women to use the men's restroom or even post op trans women then we are exposing them to guaranteed harassment and violence. This also violates their right to safety. So if we can't allow "those evil trannys" into the restrooms that correspond with their gender and we can't force them to use the restroom that corresponds their biological sex or their chromosomes and we can't tell them, "Sorry you're a freak so your kind can't use the bathroom," what do we do?

Reactions anyone?

I asked a question about a public forum statement that I want to make and one of the answers that I recieved said that men likely won't care about trans men in the men's restroom but that women have a major privacy issue. That they feel their privacy is invaded when a tranny tries to use the restroom.

I understand that most men will not care about a women in their bathroom, in fact a trans man is in more danger than the genetic men. As for the women's restroom, I think that it is important to remember that the sexes are equal and what applies to one applies to the other unless biology prohibits it. It is true that men are more likely to be the perpetrators in crimes but we must also remember that there are trans women both pre and post operation. Do we allow only the post op women to use the women's restroom? There are two issues with that. First, how do we know who is pre op and who is post op? We cannot ask to see proof of genitalia, that would be an invasion of privacy and we would have to do it to everyone; even non trans people. I am hard pressed to think that women would be okay with showing documentation that they have a vagina or two x chromosomes. Second, if we force pre op trans women to use the men's restroom or even post op trans women then we are exposing them to guaranteed harassment and violence. This also violates their right to safety. So if we can't allow "those evil trannys" into the restrooms that correspond with their gender and we can't force them to use the restroom that corresponds their biological sex or their chromosomes and we can't tell them, "Sorry you're a freak so your kind can't use the bathroom," what do we do?

Reactions anyone?

I asked a question about a public forum statement that I want to make and one of the answers that I recieved said that men likely won't care about trans men in the men's restroom but that women have a major privacy issue. That they feel their privacy is invaded when a tranny tries to use the restroom.

I understand that most men will not care about a women in their bathroom, in fact a trans man is in more danger than the genetic men. As for the women's restroom, I think that it is important to remember that the sexes are equal and what applies to one applies to the other unless biology prohibits it. It is true that men are more likely to be the perpetrators in crimes but we must also remember that there are trans women both pre and post operation. Do we allow only the post op women to use the women's restroom? There are two issues with that. First, how do we know who is pre op and who is post op? We cannot ask to see proof of genitalia, that would be an invasion of privacy and we would have to do it to everyone; even non trans people. I am hard pressed to think that women would be okay with showing documentation that they have a vagina or two x chromosomes. Second, if we force pre op trans women to use the men's restroom or even post op trans women then we are exposing them to guaranteed harassment and violence. This also violates their right to safety. So if we can't allow "those evil trannys" into the restrooms that correspond with their gender and we can't force them to use the restroom that corresponds their biological sex or their chromosomes and we can't tell them, "Sorry you're a freak so your kind can't use the bathroom," what do we do?

Reactions anyone?

We can’t force someone to change their mind nor can we just tell someone that they are wrong; we can only coax someone into changing it on their own. It must be their choice. They must find an alternative convincing enough to change the very way they think. For this reason, I am not going to try and convince you that you are wrong nor will I attempt to change your opinion of homosexuality or transgenderism. Instead, I hope to appeal to your sense of civic duty and reasoning. Or at the very least, take this debate away from emotional appeal and religion. I could give you my own sob story complete with death threats and harassment but in the end I would not change the way you think. Only an extremely earth shattering experience can have such a profound affect and stir people to action. Even that does not guarantee that people will change the way they think. In addition we can argue bible interpretations all year 24/7 and still get nowhere. I hope that we can put aside for a moment our religious differences and talk about this ordinance as Americans and citizens of flagstaff. I do not mean that we should forget or ignore our beliefs but instead recognize that we differ in opinion and try to reach a common ground; a compromise that will leave both parties somewhat satisfied. I also urge the lot of you to refrain from asking spiteful or sarcastic questions. They only detract from the amount of time that we have here and frankly they’re just rude.

I am looking for non-judgemental comments and constructive criticism. How would I best phrase this? Please do not just post hateful messages. That does me no good and I do not appreciate it. It is just rude, I don't care how anonymous the internet is; you should still be ashamed of it.

At the last Public Forum it seemed like four issues dominated the discussion: Restroom access for transgender individuals, Restrictions on religious institutions, and Eviction and Employment practices. I think that this ordinance is in some ways redundant. However, it does address the issues important to the queer community. As a diverse society with many faiths and opinions we must strive to hold firm in our faith while being respectful of others. We must be willing to compromise when our beliefs come into conflict. If we do not allow others to live as they wish we invite strife and malcontent into our hearts. I see no reasonable cause to deny a transgender man to use the men’s restroom or a transgender woman to use the women’s restroom. I also see no reason to evict a homosexual from public accommodation solely because they are gay. We are not pedophiles. We have sex with each other, consenting adults, not children. We are not contagious. There is no reason to keep us quarantined away from everyone else. I do believe that if a particular faith wants to exclude us from their church or church run whatever, that is their right and it must be protected. But in the public arena, the private has no place. We must not bring our prejudices with us to work. We go to work to do just that. If our professional lives and our private lives collide then we will end up with a mess in which everyone is looking into their neighbor’s window. I would much rather that the lot of you, including my queer brothers and sisters, were not between my sheets. That is my space, reserved for me alone. I have no business in your sheets and would like very much not to get dragged into them. Unless my conduct is disruptive to my neighbors or my co-workers, I have done nothing warranting my exclusion in public sector. Unless I do something untoward to another in the restroom, I have done nothing to warrant my exclusion from the lavatory. For that reason, I urge you to support this ordinance; even if you want slightly different language.

I would like to hear what you think the best way to phrase this message is and I would also like your opinions.

I know that I have asked this already; I am posting it again to get more replies from more people. If you have some negetive opinion that does not serve what I have asked for, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

Some background first, in my city people have been fired or denied access to the restroom because they were glbt. A local advocacy group proposed a city ordinance be adopted by the council to make it illegal for businesses to evict glbt's from their residence, deny them access to the gender appropriate lavatory, or to fire an employee in a secular position because they are glbt. A religious coalition was then formed to oppose this ordinance. That started these forums.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y'all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:

1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? Being gay physically harms no one and they should not be fired or evicted or barred from restrooms because, frankly, most people cannot tell at a glance; homosexuality is not disruptive to a work environment like piercings or tattoos are.

2. I was asked where does it stop by a fundamentalist Christian pastor. My answer is that this will stop when the minority’s rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; women are no longer prevented from having careers. A Person's lifestyle has no relevance in their ability to perform in the workplace. As long as all parties in their lifestyle are consenting adults, nothing untoward has occurred and they should not be punished for it.

3. Following that we must define what a right is. The dictionary defines a right as something to which one has a just claim. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others. Comfort or discomfort with a characteristic of someone does not qualify as damage. If it did, Michael Jackson would be serving a life sentence.

4. The argument was made by another churchgoer that passing this ordinance would force the beliefs of gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgender people on those who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, they do not have to change their opinion, and they are federally protected to think that homosexuality is sinful. There is no protection allowing them to act on that opinion. People are not allowed to treat women or racial minorities as property, despite the religious arguments that the confederates made. It is also worth mentioning that they are already under that force. They are not allowed to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, etc. Their argument is tan amount to saying that employers should be allowed to discriminate against women if that person feels that women should be in the home. Or to discriminate against racial minorities if that person feels that a darker skinned person should be in the fields.

5. It was said that repeating that the cause of homosexuality is biological does not make it true. My answer: the same is true of repeating that it is a choice.

6. I might bring up the Kinsey scale, I'm not sure.

7. One person said that they do not feel comfortable being or having their children in the bathroom with a gay or particularly transgender person. I think that the best reply would be that I am made uncomfortable being alone in the bathroom with a Christian. But as it stands, I must put up with them in the restroom because they have as much right as I to use a lavatory as I. On the issue of Transgender people using the restroom that corresponds with their displayed gender, I think that the best reply is to point out the faults in the alternative. Asking a male to female transgender person to use the men's restroom is like asking someone to commit suicide. MtF's have been killed for doing such a thing. Or have been beaten in the restroom or harassed. And, how would a business owner or manager know a person's genitalia? It is an invasion of privacy to ask. In addition, gender has changed so much in the most recent decades that gender, particularly for women, is not always easy to discern.

8. It was mentioned that homosexuals should not be a protected class since they chose that lifestyle. Aside from the debate over whether it is a choice or not I would mention that religion is a protected class and is a

I know that I have asked this already; I am posting it again to get more replies from more people.

Some background first, in my city people have been fired or denied access to the restroom because they were glbt. A local advocacy group proposed a city ordinance be adopted by the council to make it illegal for businesses to evict glbt's from their residence, deny them access to the gender appropriate lavatory, or to fire an employee in a secular position because they are glbt. A religious coalition was then formed to oppose this ordinance. That started these forums.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y'all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:

1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? Being gay physically harms no one and they should not be fired or evicted or barred from restrooms because, frankly, most people cannot tell at a glance; homosexuality is not disruptive to a work environment like piercings or tattoos are.

2. I was asked where does it stop by a fundamentalist Christian pastor. My answer is that this will stop when the minority’s rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; women are no longer prevented from having careers. A Person's lifestyle has no relevance in their ability to perform in the workplace. As long as all parties in their lifestyle are consenting adults, nothing untoward has occurred and they should not be punished for it.

3. Following that we must define what a right is. The dictionary defines a right as something to which one has a just claim. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others. Comfort or discomfort with a characteristic of someone does not qualify as damage. If it did, Michael Jackson would be serving a life sentence.

4. The argument was made by another churchgoer that passing this ordinance would force the beliefs of gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgender people on those who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, they do not have to change their opinion, and they are federally protected to think that homosexuality is sinful. There is no protection allowing them to act on that opinion. People are not allowed to treat women or racial minorities as property, despite the religious arguments that the confederates made. It is also worth mentioning that they are already under that force. They are not allowed to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, etc. Their argument is tan amount to saying that employers should be allowed to discriminate against women if that person feels that women should be in the home. Or to discriminate against racial minorities if that person feels that a darker skinned person should be in the fields.

5. It was said that repeating that the cause of homosexuality is biological does not make it true. My answer: the same is true of repeating that it is a choice.

6. I might bring up the Kinsey scale, I'm not sure.

7. One person said that they do not feel comfortable being or having their children in the bathroom with a gay or particularly transgender person. I think that the best reply would be that I am made uncomfortable being alone in the bathroom with a Christian. But as it stands, I must put up with them in the restroom because they have as much right as I to use a lavatory as I. On the issue of Transgender people using the restroom that corresponds with their displayed gender, I think that the best reply is to point out the faults in the alternative. Asking a male to female transgender person to use the men's restroom is like asking someone to commit suicide. MtF's have been killed for doing such a thing. Or have been beaten in the restroom or harassed. And, how would a business owner or manager know a person's genitalia? It is an invasion of privacy to ask. In addition, gender has changed so much in the most recent decades that gender, particularly for women, is not always easy to discern.

8. It was mentioned that homosexuals should not be a protected class since they chose that lifestyle. Aside from the debate over whether it is a choice or not I would mention that religion is a protected class and is a choice.

9. It was asked why glbt people are afraid of Christians. I don't want to address this

I know that I have asked this already; I am posting it again to get more replies from more people.

Some background first, in my city people have been fired or denied access to the restroom because they were glbt. A local advocacy group proposed a city ordinance be adopted by the council to make it illegal for businesses to evict glbt's from their residence, deny them access to the gender appropriate lavatory, or to fire an employee in a secular position because they are glbt. A religious coalition was then formed to oppose this ordinance. That started these forums.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y'all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:

1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? Being gay physically harms no one and they should not be fired or evicted or barred from restrooms because, frankly, most people cannot tell at a glance; homosexuality is not disruptive to a work environment like piercings or tattoos are.

2. I was asked where does it stop by a fundamentalist Christian pastor. My answer is that this will stop when the minority’s rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; women are no longer prevented from having careers. A Person's lifestyle has no relevance in their ability to perform in the workplace. As long as all parties in their lifestyle are consenting adults, nothing untoward has occurred and they should not be punished for it.

3. Following that we must define what a right is. The dictionary defines a right as something to which one has a just claim. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others. Comfort or discomfort with a characteristic of someone does not qualify as damage. If it did, Michael Jackson would be serving a life sentence.

4. The argument was made by another churchgoer that passing this ordinance would force the beliefs of gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgender people on those who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, they do not have to change their opinion, and they are federally protected to think that homosexuality is sinful. There is no protection allowing them to act on that opinion. People are not allowed to treat women or racial minorities as property, despite the religious arguments that the confederates made. It is also worth mentioning that they are already under that force. They are not allowed to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, etc. Their argument is tan amount to saying that employers should be allowed to discriminate against women if that person feels that women should be in the home. Or to discriminate against racial minorities if that person feels that a darker skinned person should be in the fields.

5. It was said that repeating that the cause of homosexuality is biological does not make it true. My answer: the same is true of repeating that it is a choice.

6. I might bring up the Kinsey scale, I'm not sure.

7. One person said that they do not feel comfortable being or having their children in the bathroom with a gay or particularly transgender person. I think that the best reply would be that I am made uncomfortable being alone in the bathroom with a Christian. But as it stands, I must put up with them in the restroom because they have as much right as I to use a lavatory as I. On the issue of Transgender people using the restroom that corresponds with their displayed gender, I think that the best reply is to point out the faults in the alternative. Asking a male to female transgender person to use the men's restroom is like asking someone to commit suicide. MtF's have been killed for doing such a thing. Or have been beaten in the restroom or harassed. And, how would a business owner or manager know a person's genitalia? It is an invasion of privacy to ask. In addition, gender has changed so much in the most recent decades that gender, particularly for women, is not always easy to discern.

8. It was mentioned that homosexuals should not be a protected class since they chose that lifestyle. Aside from the debate over whether it is a choice or not I would mention that religion is a protected class and is a choice.

9. It was asked why glbt people are afraid of Christians. I don't want to address this

I know that I have asked this already, I am posting it again to get more replies from more people. I do not want your negetive opinions. I asked for critique not negetivity.

Some background first, in my city people have been fired or denied access to the restroom because they were glbt. A local advocacy group proposed a city ordinance be adopted by the council to make it illegal for businesses to evict glbt's from their residence, deny them access to the gender appropriate lavatory, or to fire an employee in a secular position because they are glbt. A religious coalition was then formed to oppose this ordinance. That started these forums.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y'all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:

1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? No one is physically harmed by being gay and they should not be fired or evicted or barred from restrooms because, frankly, most people cannot tell at a glance; homosexuality is not disruptive to a work enviornment like piercings or tattoos are.

2. I was asked where does it stop by a fundamentalist christian pastor. My answer is that this will stop when the minorities rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; women are no longer prevented from having careers. A Person's lifestyle has no relevence in thier ability to perform in the workplace. As long as all parties in their lifestyle are conscenting adults, nothing untoward has occured and they should not be punished for it.

3. Following that we must define what a right is. The dictionary defines a right as something to which one has a just claim. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others. Comfort or discomfort with a characteristic of someone does not qualify as damage. If it did, Michael Jackson would be serving a life sentance.

4. The argument was made by another church goer that passing this ordinance would force the beliefs of gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and trangender people on those who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, they do not have to change their opinion, they are federally protected to think that homosexuality is sinful. There is no protection allowing them to act on that opinion. People are not allowed to treat women or racial minorities as property, despite the religious arguments that the confederates made. It is also worth mentioning that they are already under that force. They are not allowed to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, etc. Their argument is tant amount to saying that employers should be allowed to discriminate against women if that person feels that women should be in the home. Or to discriminate against racial minorities if that person feels that a darker skinned person should be in the fields.

5. It was said that repeating that the cause of homosexuality is biological does not make it true. My answer: the same is true of repeating that it is a choice.

6. I might bring up the kinsey scale, I'm not sure.

7. One person said that they do not feel comfortable being or having their children in the bathroom with a gay or particularly transgender person. I think that the best reply would be that I am made uncomfortable being alone in the bathroom with a christian. But as it stands, I must put up with them in the restroom because they have as much right as I to use a lavatory as I. On the issue of Transgender people using the restroom that corrisponds with their displayed gender, I think that the best reply is to point out the faults in the alternative. Asking a male to female transgender person to use the men's restroom is like asking someone to commit suicide. MtF's have been killed for doing such a thing. Or have been beaten in the restroom or harassed. And, how would a business owner or manager know a person's genitalia? It is an invasion of privacy to ask. In addition, gender has changed so much in the most recent decades that gender, particularly for women, is not always easy to dicern.

8. It was mentioned that homosexuals should not be a protected class since they chose that lifestyle. Aside from the debate over whether it is a choice or not I would mention that religion is a protected class and is a choice.

9. It wa

I know that I have asked this already, I am posting it again to get more replies from more people.

Some background first, in my city people have been fired or denied access to the restroom because they were glbt. A local advocacy group proposed a city ordinance be adopted by the council to make it illegal for businesses to evict glbt's from their residence, deny them access to the gender appropriate lavatory, or to fire an employee in a secular position because they are glbt. A religious coalition was then formed to oppose this ordinance. That started these forums.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y'all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, biblical verses that would support my arguments that religion is not a relevant issue, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:

1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? We are allowed to get tattoos and piercings.

2. I was asked where does it stop. My answer is that freedom will stop when the minorities rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; within reason of course, pedophiles cannot be allowed to molest children. There is clear harm in that, emotional, physical, and mental.

3. Following that we must define what a right is. Now I am not a scholar on what a right is vs a privilege vs an ability, but I would define a right as an endowed ability or protection granted by a higher power; whatever that may be. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others.

4. The argument was made that passing this ordinance would force my beliefs on others who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, forcing you to do anything would involve the use of force to get the other party to commit an act against their will. In this case, I am not forcing them to hire glbt people. I am instead, preventing them from infringing upon my right to make a choice; what to do (career wise), who to love, or where to live.

5. It was said that repeating that the causes are biological does not make it true without proof. My answer: the same is true of a nurture cause.

6. I might bring up the kinsey scale, I'm not sure.

7. A few other things I hope to address: feeling comfortable in the bathroom, religion is a protected class, why glbt people are afraid of christians, people being allowed to fire people over the most mundane things, legalizing morality, and the belief that this ordinance pushes my views on others.

Any critique of the above stated issues is appreciated and particularly links or citations of credible studies (biological) and non credible studies (nurture) are also welcome.

I know that I have asked this already, I am posting it again to get more replies from more people.

Some background first, in my city people have been fired or denied access to the restroom because they were glbt. A local advocacy group proposed a city ordinance be adopted by the council to make it illegal for businesses to evict glbt's from their residence, deny them access to the gender appropriate lavatory, or to fire an employee in a secular position because they are glbt. A religious coalition was then formed to oppose this ordinance. That started these forums.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y'all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, biblical verses that would support my arguments that religion is not a relevant issue, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:

1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? We are allowed to get tattoos and piercings.

2. I was asked where does it stop. My answer is that freedom will stop when the minorities rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; within reason of course, pedophiles cannot be allowed to molest children. There is clear harm in that, emotional, physical, and mental.

3. Following that we must define what a right is. Now I am not a scholar on what a right is vs a privilege vs an ability, but I would define a right as an endowed ability or protection granted by a higher power; whatever that may be. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others.

4. The argument was made that passing this ordinance would force my beliefs on others who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, forcing you to do anything would involve the use of force to get the other party to commit an act against their will. In this case, I am not forcing them to hire glbt people. I am instead, preventing them from infringing upon my right to make a choice; what to do (career wise), who to love, or where to live.

5. It was said that repeating that the causes are biological does not make it true without proof. My answer: the same is true of a nurture cause.

6. I might bring up the kinsey scale, I'm not sure.

7. A few other things I hope to address: feeling comfortable in the bathroom, religion is a protected class, why glbt people are afraid of christians, people being allowed to fire people over the most mundane things, legalizing morality, and the belief that this ordinance pushes my views on others.

Any critique of the above stated issues is appreciated and particularly links or citations of credible studies (biological) and non credible studies (nurture) are also welcome.

I know that I have asked this already, I am posting it again to get more replies from more people.

Some background first, in my city people have been fired or denied access to the restroom because they were glbt. A local advocacy group proposed a city ordinance be adopted by the council to make it illegal for businesses to evict glbt's from their residence, deny them access to the gender appropriate lavatory, or to fire an employee in a secular position because they are glbt. A religious coalition was then formed to oppose this ordinance. That started these forums.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y'all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, biblical verses that would support my arguments that religion is not a relevant issue, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:

1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? We are allowed to get tattoos and piercings.

2. I was asked where does it stop. My answer is that freedom will stop when the minorities rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; within reason of course, pedophiles cannot be allowed to molest children. There is clear harm in that, emotional, physical, and mental.

3. Following that we must define what a right is. Now I am not a scholar on what a right is vs a privilege vs an ability, but I would define a right as an endowed ability or protection granted by a higher power; whatever that may be. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others.

4. The argument was made that passing this ordinance would force my beliefs on others who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, forcing you to do anything would involve the use of force to get the other party to commit an act against their will. In this case, I am not forcing them to hire glbt people. I am instead, preventing them from infringing upon my right to make a choice; what to do (career wise), who to love, or where to live.

5. It was said that repeating that the causes are biological does not make it true without proof. My answer: the same is true of a nurture cause.

6. I might bring up the kinsey scale, I'm not sure.

7. A few other things I hope to address: feeling comfortable in the bathroom, religion is a protected class, why glbt people are afraid of christians, people being allowed to fire people over the most mundane things, legalizing morality, and the belief that this ordinance pushes my views on others.

Any critique of the above stated issues is appreciated and particularly links or citations of credible studies (biological) and non credible studies (nurture) are also welcome.

I know that I have asked this already, I am posting it again to get more replies from more people.

Some background first, in my city people have been fired or denied access to the restroom because they were glbt. A local advocacy group proposed a city ordinance be adopted by the council to make it illegal for businesses to evict glbt's from their residence, deny them access to the gender appropriate lavatory, or to fire an employee in a secular position because they are glbt. A religious coalition was then formed to oppose this ordinance. That started these forums.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y'all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, biblical verses that would support my arguments that religion is not a relevant issue, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:

1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? We are allowed to get tattoos and piercings.

2. I was asked where does it stop. My answer is that freedom will stop when the minorities rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; within reason of course, pedophiles cannot be allowed to molest children. There is clear harm in that, emotional, physical, and mental.

3. Following that we must define what a right is. Now I am not a scholar on what a right is vs a privilege vs an ability, but I would define a right as an endowed ability or protection granted by a higher power; whatever that may be. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others.

4. The argument was made that passing this ordinance would force my beliefs on others who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, forcing you to do anything would involve the use of force to get the other party to commit an act against their will. In this case, I am not forcing them to hire glbt people. I am instead, preventing them from infringing upon my right to make a choice; what to do (career wise), who to love, or where to live.

5. It was said that repeating that the causes are biological does not make it true without proof. My answer: the same is true of a nurture cause.

6. I might bring up the kinsey scale, I'm not sure.

7. A few other things I hope to address: feeling comfortable in the bathroom, religion is a protected class, why glbt people are afraid of christians, people being allowed to fire people over the most mundane things, legalizing morality, and the belief that this ordinance pushes my views on others.

Any critique of the above stated issues is appreciated and particularly links or citations of credible studies (biological) and non credible studies (nurture) are also welcome.

I know that I have asked this already, I am posting it again to get more replies from more people.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y'all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, biblical verses that would support my arguments that religion is not a relevant issue, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:

1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? We are allowed to get tattoos and piercings.

2. I was asked where does it stop. My answer is that freedom will stop when the minorities rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; within reason of course, pedophiles cannot be allowed to molest children. There is clear harm in that, emotional, physical, and mental.

3. Following that we must define what a right is. Now I am not a scholar on what a right is vs a privilege vs an ability, but I would define a right as an endowed ability or protection granted by a higher power; whatever that may be. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others.

4. The argument was made that passing this ordinance would force my beliefs on others who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, forcing you to do anything would involve the use of force to get the other party to commit an act against their will. In this case, I am not forcing them to hire glbt people. I am instead, preventing them from infringing upon my right to make a choice; what to do (career wise), who to love, or where to live.

5. It was said that repeating that the causes are biological does not make it true without proof. My answer: the same is true of a nurture cause.

6. I might bring up the kinsey scale, I'm not sure.

7. A few other things I hope to address: feeling comfortable in the bathroom, religion is a protected class, why glbt people are afraid of christians, people being allowed to fire people over the most mundane things, legalizing morality, and the belief that this ordinance pushes my views on others.

Any critique of the above stated issues is appreciated and particularly links or citations of credible studies (biological) and non credible studies (nurture) are also welcome.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y'all is studies that disprove a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, biblical verses that would support my arguments that religion is not a relevant issue, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:

1. Even, for the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should we be barred from making that choice? We are allowed to get tattoos and piercings.

2. I was asked where does it stop. My answer is that freedom will stop when the minorities rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues so I will clarify that, I mean when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; within reason of course, pedophiles cannot be allowed to molest children. There is clear harm in that, emotional, physical, and mental.

3. Following that we must define what a right is. Now I am not a scholar on what a right is vs a privilege vs an ability, but I would define a right as an endowed ability or protection granted by a higher power; whatever that may be. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others.

4. The argument was made that passing this ordinance would force my beliefs on others who oppose this ordinance. My answer is simple, forcing you to do anything would involve the use of force to get the other party to commit an act against their will. In this case, I am not forcing them to hire glbt people. I am instead, preventing them from infringing upon my right to make a choice; what to do (career wise), who to love, or where to live.

5. It was said that repeating that the causes are biological does not make it true without proof. My answer: the same is true of a nurture cause.

6. I might bring up the kinsey scale, I'm not sure.

7. A few other things I hope to address: feeling comfortable in the bathroom, religion is a protected class, why glbt people are afraid of christians, people being allowed to fire people over the most mundane things, legalizing morality, and the belief that this ordinance pushes my views on others.

Any critique of the above stated issues is appreciated and particulary links or citations of credible studies (biological) and non credible studies (nurture) are also welcome.

This is the second of three forums discussing whether a committee on diversity should approve a city ordinance to prevent employers and land lords from firing people because they were glbt, evicting them and/or throwing them out of the restroom for the same reason. What I need from y'all is studies regarding a nurture cause for homosexuality, studies that prove a biological cause, biblical verses that would be relevant arguments on religion, and any other relevant information or argument.

This is what I have so far:

1. For the sake of argument, if homosexuality is a choice, why should people be barred from making that choice? We are allowed to get tattoos and piercings.

2. It was asked where does it stop. The answer came that this will stop when the minorities rights are no longer violated. This opens up a whole bunch of issues, they said that when the majority is no longer in control of whether a person can choose a particular lifestyle; within reason of course, pedophiles cannot be allowed to molest children. There is clear harm in that, emotional, physical, and mental.

3. Following that we must define what a right is. Now I am not a scholar on what a right is vs a privilege vs an ability, but they defined a right as an endowed ability or protection granted by a higher power; whatever that may be. An example, people have the right to modify their bodies as they see fit. Tattoos, piercings, surgery. Essentially a right to choose whatever they want provided that choice does not damage others to the point that the choice is exceedingly detrimental to others.

4. The argument was made that passing this ordinance would force glbt beliefs on others who oppose this ordinance. The answer was rather simple, forcing you to do anything would involve the use of force to get the other party to commit an act against their will. In this case, gays and lesbians are not forcing anyone to hire glbt people. Instead, this ordinance would prevent people from infringing upon peples right to make a choice; what to do (career wise), who to love, or where to live.

5. It was said that repeating that the causes are biological does not make it true without proof. The answer: the same is true of a nurture cause.

6. The kinsey scale was mentioned, I'm not sure how to deal with that.

7. A few other things they addressed: feeling comfortable in the bathroom, religion is a protected class, why glbt people are afraid of christians, people being allowed to fire people over the most mundane things, legalizing morality, and the belief that this ordinance pushes glbt views on others.

Any critique of the above stated issues is appreciated and particulary links or citations of credible studies are also welcome.