Attorney General Loretta Lynch said schools that don't comply may face lawsuits or lose federal aid if they do not comply.One senior Republican politician has condemned the move as the "beginning of the end" of the current school system.In a separate move, the president also strengthened protections for LGBT people receiving health care.The federal government is fighting the state of North Carolina in court over a law requiring people to use toilets according to their gender at birth.However the Obama administration education and justice departments say public schools must respect transgender pupils' gender identity even if their education records or identity documents indicate a different sex."There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Ms Lynch said.Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36286111
There's a lot of debate about whether or not the prison system in the US is helping people or just creating more criminals. The arguments can include the court systems but not the actual arresting as that would branch away from the topic but if you can relate it well you can mention it.
One of our more brazen members has taken it upon himself to exploit a feature to unilaterally delete other members posts. This is wrong and frankly illegal as he was warned not to continue doing this when he stumbled upon the feature about a year ago. The exploit had to do with debate communities and as such we have had to turn off some functionality in those communities to close the feature that Prodigee was exploiting for his nefarius purposes. So to my question...If you know who Prodigee is, would you turn him in?The reason I ask is that I have lawyered up to go after him. I have some information, even pictures I suspect are him that he posted on this site and others. I have filed an FBI report, but since the FBI doesn't touch the small stuff, my lawyer is going to file a lawsuit on my behalf today, naming the defendant John Doe AKA "prodigee" , AKA "instig8tor" (amongst others).If you have any information that would help me lead the authorities to him, it would be greatly appreciated.Here are two possible picture of the offender. Please contact me through messaging if you know who he is so I can pass this along to the authorities.
Why do Conservatives Want to Leave Everything to the States!
i would like to understand why conservatives seem to want to leave everything to the states .someone will say "actually, im ok with gay marriage, lets leave it to the states" .or "you know what, marijuana is ok", lets leave it to the states .but leaving things to the states seems like an odd compromise between allowing it and not allowing it.if abortion is legal anywhere, why not everywhere ?why should a woman in texas without a car have to hitchhike hundreds of miles to get an abortion ?why should a man in NW washington have to travel hundreds of miles to carry a concealed weapon ?why dont they have these rights in their own state ?i think that rights that are granted in any state should be available in every state .so then, what would the states have the power to decide ?taxes, pumping your own gas, and state birds are examples .
someone on this site, i think FromWithin, says that republicans proposed an abortion compromise that democrats rejected: that abortion be legal in the first 2 trimesters, and even legal in the 3rd trimester in some circumstances .i dont know why democrats would reject that, i guess they figured there was no need to compromise since it was already legal .but now there is a need to compromise !who knows what kind of wackos donald trump will put on the supreme court who will undermine this basic human right !so let us add abortion to the bill of rights while we still can .Amendment 0 - AbortionA well planned family, being necessary to the happiness and stability of a free State, the right of a woman to have an abortion in the first or second trimester for any reason, shall not be infringed.
the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." .however, i think its reasonable for the supreme court to interpret the 1st amendment as having certain restrictions .the classic example is not yelling fire in a crowded theater, but i think even more obviously, you cant lie under oath .but the 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed" .this language is much stronger, isnt it ?but still, i think its reasonable to have certain restrictions .obviously prisoners cant have guns, nor should 5 year olds, and i would say you cant have a gun on a plane or when meeting with the president .but what about banning guns in schools, or in bars, or banning concealed carry, or banning certain types of rifles, or limiting magazine capacity ?whether you think these are good ideas or not, dont they conflict with "shall not be infringed" ?i know the supreme court said that the 2nd amendment is not an absolute right, but how can they say that when it basically says it is absolute ?and if the founders really meant for it to be an absolute right, how should it have been worded so there would be no doubt ?
On another debate I posted, many went off topic to talk about sex and age of consent. So I thought why not post the topic for debate here, rather than go off topic on the other debate? So let's stir things up a little and get things started. Here is some food for thought for my religious friends, Mary was 12, Aisha 9, and Gandhi (despite a vow of celibacy) slept in bed naked with teen girls. Don't give the old tired argument, it was okay then but now times have changed. That is just as weak an argument as "I know you are but what am I?". It's like you're saying god couldn't see into the future or just snap his mighty fingers and delay puberty, so try a litter harder than that in your arguments. If you're not religious but still believe we should raise the age, okay, why are we so arrogant to think we know better than Mother Nature?Here in the U.S. many people say the age 18 is the right age, as if that is some magic number. Here are some facts to consider, girls are physically ready for childbirth at 15 (with no increased risk to the mother or baby) and we reach emotional maturity at around 23/24. So if you want to argue for any age, those are the only ages that have any credible biological facts to support them (and no, I'm not going to go back and forth providing links. Do your own research, in the end, even if I do provide links many will just dismiss the links). Also, this may come as a shock to some, but sex isn't just about having babies, sometimes sex is for pleasure (shocking, right?).One last thought, sex has been acceptable at puberty for all mankind's existence, up until fairly recently in terms of a history perspective, why can't we recognize it as it is; innate and normal? I will gladly concede diseases and early pregnancy are serious issues, the good news is we now have resources available to make sex safer than at anytime in our past... through education, providing access to healthcare, testing for disease, and birth control. If you are going to debate, at least be honest about the facts. Saying teens aren't prosecuted isn't true. Age of consent laws allow for prosecutions of the very same teens the are supposed to protect, even for having consensual sex with someone their own age (at least in many places in the U.S.). Now your turn, debate away. I've said some of my thoughts, what are your thoughts and why?
With the addition of the Obergefell v. Hodges case last summer, same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide. Since then, a large amount of opposition to the case has appeared, such as those such as Kim Davis, who have refused to marry same-sex couples in the name of religious freedom. Some places have even stopped giving out marriage licenses altogether. Possibly the most popular method, however, would be the support of a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, similar to the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Doing so would override the Obergefell v Hodges decision. Would you support this amendment?
Should all persons, not including children 17 and under, be required to wear a seat belt/helmets when driving/riding on the road? Or should individuals have the choice to put their life at risk, if they so choose?Are there any changes you would make to the above paragraph?
If someone has sex with a girl who consents to sex while drunk, why can they in trouble?
In my opinion, the girl had no business consuming a substance that makes her act irrationally, and consequently, she is responsible for any decisions she makes while under the influence. Yet, guys can be considered rapists if they do this. If you drink and drive you are responsible for your actions, so why do we treat woman like children with regards to them getting themselves drunk?
We have all heard of the controversial LGBT bathroom bill passed in North Carolina few months ago. While some argue that such a bill is against the constitution, others argue they are protecting women and children from rapists and pedophiles. What do you think?