(04-23-2015 02:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: (04-23-2015 12:20 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: What it means is that liberals are all for the rehabilitation of rapists and criminals, and want them to be re-integrated into society......unless they are against gays rights.....
Actually, this isn't the first case of this either. Here in Houston, one of the mega pastors trying to ban Transgendered persons from having access to the bathroom when they are conducting business hired a YOUTH minister who daillied with the kids.
My larger point is that all of the screaming from the anti-Gays about 'protecting the children' is just misplaced.
From Pedophile priests, to rapist Preachers, to child molesting youth ministers...it seems to me that those screaming about 'protecting kids' need to focus less on our community and more on their own.
A kind of off color joke in my community runs like this "If you want your kids to be safe...don't take them to church...take them to a Gay bar...they'll be safer there".
Obviously that goes too far, but it brings up the larger point that those claiming that opposition to LGBT rights is somehow justified based upon concerns for safety of kids is very hypocritical.
Tom, You're really spinning this too hard. First, the convicted rapist was 23 when he raped an 80 year old.... he's now 60. I'm not excusing what he did... I'm merely pointing out that other than his association with religion, that incident has nothing to do with either of the other cases. You may as well point out that he is black, and then point out that someone convicted of murdering a child is also black and then try and argue that your kids are safer around gay people than black people.
If you want to dismiss this guys opinion because of his own past transgressions, that opinion has merit. Some on the other side would actually argue the opposite... that Nancy Reagan was in less of a position to tell people to 'just say no' to drugs than say George W or Bill or Barack.... or Ted Kennedy.... but the argument has merit.
Should we not allow ANY previously convicted felons to voice their opinions? I'd be okay with that actually. It's not Constitutional, but so long as it was ALL of them, at least it would be 'fair'.
Is the preacher trying to ban transgendered people from the bathroom REALLLY trying to ban them from the bathroom, or merely trying to ban them from a CERTAIN bathroom? I strongly suspect the latter though I certainly don't know. How is that materially different from what the transgendered actually want? Don't they, themselves want to be allowed to use the bathroom that they feel most 'correct'? ANd not merely the right to go into either, depending on their mood?
I think it pretty self-evident that the reason we have mens and women's restrooms is pretty universally accepted, and while this certainly creates a potential issue for the transgendered, there certainly should be a rule applied to them, right? The preacher has a different opinion than yours as to what that rule should be (i.e. the restroom of their 'appearance' vs the restroom of their 'equipment') but unless he's actually saying they shouldn't be allowed to use any restroom at all, I don't really see how having a different opinion of what the rule should be is the problem you want to imply.
I know some men who'd love to use the women's bathroom... but they're not allowed to... Why should trangendered be any different? IT's merely a question of which one. You can disagree with his reason, but trying to label him a bigot and equate him to a pedophile or rapist is just wrong.
If he's actually trying to ban them from public restrooms, that's another issue.