CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:104
Arguments:110
Total Votes:106
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (72)

Debate Creator

Srom(12206) pic



New Study Proves that Homosexuality is not genetic

Read the article below for proof on this matter. I already knew that homosexuality isn't genetic in the first place. Just wanted to share it here to the people who think people are born gay. 

 

 

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic

Add New Argument
7 points

This is not a study, nor does it directly cite any studies, nor does the referenced authority work in the field of genetics.

The rationale being presented is highly fallible because it concludes that if sexual orientation were genetic then pairs of twins must both be either homosexual or not homosexual. The problem with this is that it blatantly ignores very basic principles of genetics, the most notable of which is that genetics predispose us towards various attributes such as homosexuality but those attributes do not always manifest unless triggered by appropriate environmental stimuli. Consequentially, one twin can be homosexual while the other is not without this constituting evidence against a genetic origin.

2 points

Yes.

Both sides of this argument can provide links to (study conclusions) that support their positions. The same studies can support different conclusions, owing to the predispositions of the researchers. We are consequently left with contradiction and confusion. Clearly blind acceptance of the latest study conclusions is not a path to understating. What we are left with is our own ability to reason and judge. Taking results rather than conclusions from these studies we can assemble a factual view of the subject, untainted by the bias of the researcher. The process of forming identical twins begins when a fertilized embryo divides into two embryos.

The long held conclusion that both embryos will develop identically because of starting with the same genetic material or mix of DNA has been proven to be incorrect. It has been clearly shown that during the trillions of subsequent cell divisions in both embryos copy number variants occur. These variants are then copied billions of times with even more copy number variants occurring. These CNV's result in identical twins with different genetic makeup. I will leave the conclusions to others, but clearly identical twins are not genetically identical.

Jace(5149) Clarified
2 points

I have yet to actually be presented with or to personally locate any research that actively contradicts the genetic origins hypothesis for homosexuality. I think science has generally established that genetics factor at least to some extent, and what is genuinely in question due to lack of research is only to what extent and exactly how. You are correct, of course, that looking at the actual results rather than others' interpretations of them is a more fruitful and accurate course to knowledge.

I was actually not familiar with the body of research pertaining to CNVs; quite fascinating! I cannot say it surprises me too much, given how different twins can be behaviorally and otherwise in my personal experience. Again, though, quite interesting to ruminate over.

Harvard(666) Clarified
1 point

[Citation Needed] .

Jace(5149) Clarified
3 points

"I can study a specific topic or a scope of topics and implement that knowledge into a debate; therefore my source is my studies. I may have no proof but you can surely look up my claim and see yourself if it's true or not. I'm not Googling my own assertions every time just for the opposed satisfaction."

1 point

The citation is in the debate description.

Reading comprehension needed...

5 points

First off I love how they source this from a blog on Orthodoxytoday.org, who got it from a Christian site named Hollanddavis.com. None of those are peer reviewed journals fyi, but in absence of that they should have cited the study that supports their conclusions. Heck they could have at least quoted the studies conclusions or had a discussion with the authors of the studies.

They didn't provide any of that though. However they did provide commentary from Neil Whitehead, a member of a gay conversion therapy organization NARTH (National Organization for  the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and author of a book called "My genes made me do it" (suprise....he argues against genetic factors being important in sexual orientation). Wow right? I mean at least he is published in the field right?

Nope, not in peer reviewed journals.

Anywho, Whitehead concedes right at the start of the article that genetics plays a role although he feels it is diminished"At best genetics is a minor factor,” which undermines the articles position that homosexuality is not genetic.

If the article said that the research shows that nature and nurture both play a role in sexuality it would be in line with the science. Instead their framing of "They are not born that way" implies not nature and nurture but only nurture.

The article has other snipets that are refuted by science such as claims that homosexuality comes about due to "...exposure to pornography or sexual abuse."

The article is not a study, provides no relevant expert nor does it frame the body of evidence in an accurate manner. The article is biased crap.

I suggest people get their science from peer reviewed sources and check the methodology and conclusions themselves, not from opinion pieces telling you their own take on the studies.

Here are some examples from peer reviewed sources from the field of study, heck you can even check their methodology.

APA meta analysis of 8 studies (....heeey, just lke in the article)

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2001-06745-002

A consensus is forming that although biological influences are important for both men and women, they are probably more important in influencing male sexual orientation.

A newer study that is discussing the genetic side;

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid;=9385646&fileId;=S0033291714002451

Conclusions Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 influencing development of male sexual orientation.

For the sake of argument I'm going to completely ignore all the flaws in that article and I'm going to pretend that they have found 100% conclusive evidence that genetics has absolutely zero influence on whether or not a person is gay. So my question to you is, so what? Why does it matter if it's genetics or societal influences or upbringing or just a personal choice they made because like to use the word fabulous?

daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

Why does it matter if it's genetics or societal influences or upbringing or just a personal choice they made because like to use the word fabulous?

IMO what matters to some is the following.

Some theists believe that homosexuality is a choice that individuals make. The implications, become for some, that homosexuals are choosing to sin.

LittleMisfit(1749) Clarified
3 points

IMO, I think the real reason some people want to believe that it's a choice is because they feel guilty for condemning gays if they are just born that way. Deep down they know it's wrong to condemn them and expect them to give up some of the greatest joys in life, like falling in love, getting married and raising a family. It also makes their god look like a dick for creating people that way and then condemning them for it. So if people can convince themselves it's just a sinful choice then they feel less guilty for condemning them.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

The point is it doesnt matter

What does matter is everyone has the right and freedom to believe what they will. No one should hurt snyone for believing differently, and no one should force anyone to lower their moral standards euther.

Both are a choice. All sexuality is a choice.

It actually doesnt matter what parts I agree or disagree

What mattes is "live and let live"

Why does it matter what we think or believe? Isnt that personal till we decide its safe for us to share with others?

The point is, Gay, Transgender, thats their buisiness to have gender preference.

And its the Christian baker's business to believe or not to believe however she likes!

Whatever happened to live and let live?

These laws LGBT pressures everyone with, arent "live and let live!"

They are 1 group gets to live, and the other doesnt get to live!

Gays were bullied, and so were many people.

But as a whole, society had balance. Live and let live.

The movement mellenials are embracing is Cruel! Heartless! and Selfish! And Christians are being bullied. Individuals bully, so why take it out on Christians?

This generation doesnt understand boundaries of others.

LGBT is intolerant of society, because they want to be moral dictators. No one had rights or freedoms aloud to disagree or have a moral standard that disagrees with them.

But why not? Why by force on everyone, as unconstitutuonal as you can ever get!

What does it have to do with anything?

Isnt it better to let everyone have a right to their own moral standard?

And a freedom to believe how they want to?

Why cant we be individuals respecting each others boundaries?

So if there are 30 specialty bakeries, Why do they have to take the one that disagrees and kill her? Isnt that targeted discrimination?

Are they Terrorists or Islam Radicals, if you dont believe their way, you will loose your head, or your business?

Bow down, and compromise your stand for something you believe in with all your heart, or commit business suicide?

What does that sound like to you?

Millennials cant see that? Really?

2 points

Regarding the bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, it's one thing to refuse to perform a specific type of service, such as baking a cake in the shape of a penis. That's not discrimination because it's the type of cake they are against, not the person requesting it. It's an entirely different thing to refuse to make a cake for someone when you are willing to make that same type of cake for other people, because in that case it's the person you are discriminating against, not the type of service.

On the flip-side, there was a case in Ireland recently where someone requested a cake with a pro-gay message on it. The baker refused to make it because of the message. In this case I think they had a right to refuse to do it, because the cake itself goes against their religious beliefs. They would have refused to make that cake even if a straight person requested it. Therefore, I don't think they are discriminating against the person, but the requested service. Unfortunately, the court made a bad judgement and declared it was discrimination. I hope that the case is appealed and the decision is reversed, and that the U.S. courts don't make the same mistake by making a similar ruling.

It was against many people's religious beliefs to serve blacks. Was the government wrong in forcing businesses to serve blacks as long as it's based on a religious belief? Do you think it's okay for businesses to refuse to serve Christians, or minorities, or republicans, or women, or can they only discriminate against gays? If a Muslim owns the only hospital in a town, do you think they should be able to refuse service to Christians? The owners of Microsoft and Apple are both atheists, would it be okay if they refused to sell computers to theists? Every person regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation should have the freedom to fully participate in society, and should be able to shop, dine, and move about unfettered by bigotry.

The Baker claim they are refusing service to gays because it's against their Christian beliefs. Let's see what Jesus has to say about that.

Luke 6:27-36 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."

“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

Matthew 5:40 "And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well."

Cartman(18191) Disputed
1 point

Whatever happened to live and let live?

Um, the Christian bakers said "fuck no".

These laws LGBT pressures everyone with, arent "live and let live!"

Only the ones in North Carolina.

The movement mellenials are embracing is Cruel! Heartless! and Selfish! And Christians are being bullied. Individuals bully, so why take it out on Christians?

No one is bullying Christians. Bakers who don't want to do their job, a requirement to do business, are being "bullied". It has nothing to do with them being Christian.

This generation doesnt understand boundaries of others.

Your generation doesn't. Which generation are you in?

LGBT is intolerant of society, because they want to be moral dictators. No one had rights or freedoms aloud to disagree or have a moral standard that disagrees with them.

Your concept of "disagrees" is far from a dictionary definition.

Isnt it better to let everyone have a right to their own moral standard?

Absolutely not. We have to have an agreed on "moral standard". Societies become anarchy when everyone follows their own rules.

And a freedom to believe how they want to?

Absolutely. You can believe whatever you want as long as your actions follow the law (societal moral standard).

Why cant we be individuals respecting each others boundaries?

Your boundaries exceed the law. If I wanted the boundary of physical violence to not apply to me you would have to object.

So if there are 30 specialty bakeries, Why do they have to take the one that disagrees and kill her? Isnt that targeted discrimination?

No one killed her. It makes no sense for a bakery to turn down work.

Are they Terrorists or Islam Radicals, if you dont believe their way, you will loose your head, or your business?

It goes against "live and let live" to equate being forced to bake a cake to loosing your head.

Bow down, and compromise your stand for something you believe in with all your heart, or commit business suicide?

Or, a third option: read the Bible and recognize that Jesus said you were supposed to help sinners.

Millennials cant see that? Really?

Yeah, education makes people lose their religious delusions.

3 points

Why are all fake anti-gay pseudo-studies published exclusively by fanatical Christians and sourced to website lead by anther Christian fanatics ...?

daver(1771) Disputed
1 point

Though I understand your comment to be rhetorical, I would like to respond literally if I may. Just for fun.

Your comment is posed as a question, but you actually seem more to intend a statement. Removing "Why are" from the beginning would then help it to better represent what your thinking.

Referencing studies as fake because the researchers carry a perspective into the work, would condemn nearly all research. To first hypothesize, then experiment is embodied in the scientific method.

I see publishing research conclusions that support a Christian view as a reasonable thing for a Christian to do.

I believe that you are biased against Christians and that your aim is simply to refer to Christians as fanatics. For Christians as a group, this is not accurate. I have personally come in contact with hundreds of Christians throughout my life. Very few fit that characterization.

Noxter(92) Disputed
2 points

All Christian pseudo-research is heavily biased.

Actual science works this way: Lets throw egg against a wall and see what happens, so you throw 20 eggs, make photos, write a paper about what have you seen with. You collect everything you have and send it to various recognized journals and see what happens.

Christian pseudo-science works this way: You start throwing hundreds of eggs against wall until one splash looks like face of Jesus Christ. Then you write a "paper" titled "Each time you throw egg on the wall it will look like Jesus Christ therefore Jesus Christ is the Lord." You paper will be refused by every single scientific journal so you publish it on "unbiased" webs like JesusIsTheLord.com or creationism.com ....

3 points

From what I have read, it seems to be in-the-womb environmental. Hormones and such. Like fingerprints?

By this, they would be born gay.

2 points

Correct-a-mundo.

I read the same stuff and it makes more sense than someone choosing a life of alienation, struggle, rejection, ridicule and other crummy s h I t

2 points

Erm.. posting an article from a christian website about homosexuality and asking us to take it as an unbiased source is like posting a article about the advantages of eating shit from www.ilovescat.com and asking us to take it as an unbiased source.

2 points

This could have easily been inferred based on the countless gay children with straight parents or straight children with gay parents. I don't see why this is even a thing. I mean really. Why.

stratos(85) Disputed
1 point

Its because stupidity exists, no wonder why our planet is still on a slow pace of development.

1 point

You just want to believe someone somewhere is going to burn in hell, don't you?

Every time I try to open that link, I'm told the page does not exist.

That said, genetic expression isn't the only way someone can be "born that way".

MuckaMcCaw(1968) Clarified
1 point

Thank you.

Homosexuality is not determined by genetics but people still are born gay. Sexuality is determined by prenatal hormones. Disproving that it is genetic doesn't get you any closer to proving it's not something you're born with. It was always obvious hat it couldn't be genetic as a gay gene would wipe itself out as gays wouldn't naturally reproduce.

1 point

Hahaha, this is so funny. Children aren't sexually mature so really people aren't born gay or straight. No child is born having already found they have sexual preferences towards one or the other sex xD

It matters not what evidence you could possibly show those on the Left. They will deny it, they will twist it because they will NEVER admit anything being wrong in their ideology.

In their world it is ok to be judgmental against Christians or slander them if they should sin, but when the world sins, they actually hate it if Christians speak out to those sins. Those on the Left are true hypocrites and truly not worth debating because they will never admit their own hypocrisy.

Remember when Jimmy Swaggart sinned? The Liberal media bashed and judged him for years and still do to this day. Tell me why Swaggart's sins were so much worse than all of your sins? Oh that's right, he was a Christian who spoke out on sins so when he sinned, you hypocrites had to judge his sin of hypocrisy. Yes, Swaggart had the sin of being judgmental, so tell me why his sin is ok to judge? No one ever said Christians were perfect and Swaggart was the first one to admit his sin and never once tried to condone it.

So the simple truth is that those on the Left are total hypocrites!

1 point

Isn't that somewhat obvious? if you were to say homosexuality was genetic, then surely it comes to question who and when the first homosexual came about, which is unexplainable except by saying they are either a different race, (which wouldn't make sense as homosexuality seems to be present in every culture and race of human) or that they were placed here by god (which would be inconsistent with many peoples arguments and therefore not very popular, haha) or that they are a mutation, which would mean you would to some extent believe in evolution, (again rendering the sources of some arguments inconsistent). Even if homosexuality was a genetic mutation it would not be one that survives as HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT REPRODUCE WITH EACH OTHER

Jace(5149) Clarified
1 point

In some persons genes affecting human sexual orientation create a greater disposition towards homosexuality, but unless such persons are exposed to the environmental stimuli that trigger that disposition they will not become homosexual. There is also research that indicates that the same genetic composition that disposes towards homosexuality may also create greater fertility in the maternal line; the implication is that those offspring whose environment does not trigger that disposition still retain the genetic disposition and pass it on to their own offspring... of which there will be more than occurs within more heterosexually disposed lineages.

Notably, being homosexual also does not preclude one from having reproductive intercourse.

daver(1771) Clarified
1 point

Two things are happening with a fetus. First there is gender assignment.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/231357-when-does-a-baby-develop-gender/#page=2

http://www.pregnancyandbaby.com/the-hatch-blog/articles/936883/boy-or-girl-the-mysteries-of-gender-selection

Later in development the gender identity is established in the developing brain of the fetus.

http://www.shb-info.org/sexbrain.html

No evidence exists that homosexuality is a choice made by individuals, after they are born.

1 point

Wether homosexuality is genetic is not as relevant to the debate as one would think. It would be far more helpful if someone actually determined wether it is an inborn trait, rather than a choice.

As for your source, Jace already said what needed to be said about it.

Jace(5149) Clarified
1 point

Could you clarify the distinction you are making between genetics and an inborn trait? It seems to me that if genetics determine orientation, then it is not a choice.

pakicetus(1455) Clarified
1 point

An inborn trait being something that one is born with, not necessarily genetic in origin or nature.

1 point

Actually, "not being genetic" and "not being born with it" is a false dichotomy because it doesn't account for events that occur as a fetus is developing.

Jace(5149) Clarified
1 point

Unless events in the womb produce inherent, uniform results then those events function just as any other environmental stimuli outside of the womb. Namely, they are stimuli that engage the pre-existing genetic dispositions... rendering subsequent developments ultimately genetic in origin even though affected by external stimuli.

Genetics are not the only factor- hormones, epigenetics, and the various external stimuli that actually shape your brain as it develops are likely all factors in this. There aren't genes that make somebody gay- but everybody (for the most part) has a different genetic makeup, and certain genetic makeups would alter the likelihood of the individual emerging as any of the various sexual orientations upon the development of the sex drive.

Even if it's not genetic, it's still not a choice that can be decried. You can still make an argument that they make a choice to ACT on those impulses, but I can still make the argument that only a huge dick of a god would give someone basic primal instincts to perform action X, while telling said person that performing action X means eternal suffering.

1 point

Here is a brilliant one from other debate!!!

Wouldnt common sense easily think through Bi means 2.

And 2 means there is a CHOICE?

I can go that way, or I can go that way. Isnt bisexual by its own definition a choice not forced "by birth?"

Are bisexual people saying by birth they were forced to make a choice, and change that choice throughout life, as they like?

So how where bisexuals different from everyone else that can choose from 1 or the other? 🤔

From - luckin(29) 1 point

------''

He she or it says "I would say that people are born with preferences, but acting on those preferences is a choice. I didn't choose to be straight, but liking people of the opposite sex is a choice I make"

My point back -

Yea right! Because every baby is born with preference! You've got to be kidding me!

How can this make sense to ANYONE? So then, these kids over in this group are born with a sweet tooth, and this group if kids were born to prefer vegitables??

We have to call it out!

Its one thing to give the what they need for living their own choice, its another thing to call it equal and let it invade and destroy or entire society, and to screw religious freedom while their at it!

And this moral value is a belief, like any religion! But those values are aloud to parade in our kids school, who most were born of natural sexuality, some helped by enhancement due to difficulties. But 100 of which were born, from male plus female!

Shouldnt the nature of their existance dictate the influences allowed BY GOVERNMENT?Isnt anything else vue based education?

Last I checked we werent oud to have "value based education"

And this is UNNATURAL VALUE BASED EDUCATION"

So will you all celebrate with them when Disney produces its first prince and prince fairy tale??

1 point

If you are not gay, would you pick up a book like this for a bedtime story with your 5 year old?

"John is a Police Officer and Bill drives the school bus in the morning.

The rest of the day Bill is a busy dad of 2 little boys.

Bill takes the boys to the grocery store where Miss Linda and Miss Patty work in the check out lines. They live next door, and they are Mary’s mommies.

Time to hurry home to make dinner! When John comes home they enjoy dinner on the deck and play baseball in the yard.""

1 point

I wouldnt mind a lawyer responding to this, and if down the rabbit hole, my concerns have some validity.

Gender bathrooms

-------------------------

You may not want to hear this, but dont reject true evaluation of legal process, to defend your views.

If you can say the trade off of letting preditors be preditors and continue to get away with it, and perping toms or worse will be excused in droves in the legal process over this law, then fine. Have a good day. We agree to disagree.

And I said before just do it. We wont likely question your gender, if you are really transgender. And ladies rooms have stalls. Your peeing is a private affair. But a law would present a loop hole you may want to think about 1st

But a nongender public bathroom law will aid preditors, and make it difficult to prosecute them!

Are you sure law has control of the legal process and loopholes, assuring these preditors will have to prove they are transgender?

And people who are victims will be able to prove something that is gray, against someone who is saying they are protected as a "transgender?"

Proof of an incident would be extremely difficult to prove or disprove, no matter how clear the incident seems to be?

Law is a funny thing! The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Word against word, ask a lawyer what would likely happen in a case like this!

The preditor may not have to show much proof of being a "transgender" at all. Afterall, "trangenders" will be protected. You would have to have proof of what you saw.

A d thst will be word against word! And God forbid DON'T snap a photo! Because you will get locked up!

A few dynamics people need to think about before you support this bathroom law, and are fair to some at the cost of great unfairness to all women and girls.

A guy could peep or fondle or rape in a bathroom or dressing room with or without this law. But, the difference is with this law passed, you WILL tie up just prosecutions of offenders!

Although being "uncomfortable" on either side is valid its only a 1 point to consider when making this law, with only a small picture in mind. You should be responsible, and look at the many different scenarios then apply them, to make sure you'll be fine with the outcome of each possible scenario. There is a price to pay for passing this law, you should make sure your willing to pay it.

Bigger issues than feeling uncomfortable.

You have a perv peeking or worse, with this law crimes will occur by nasty peepers in frequency beyond current incidents. And a law like this will protect the pervert inadvertantly, and the law wont be able to touch perverts legally who are using these areas easily for perversion.

Its a matter of chaos, its to confusing and it will make circumstannces gray and difficult to prosecute.

Preditors will jump for joy and prey on it!

Then get away with deviant crimes through this law protecting them from legal consequences.

Its a perfect legal argument! Enabling perverts to repeat crimes in bathrooms and dressing rooms again and again. Without even a smack.

As a matter of fact, the pervert will actually sue stores, and concerned citizens for infringing on their rights and privacy, AND WIN!

Without this bathroom law, if a customer or employee sees a 40 year old guy in the girls room, and he looks suspicious, they could act on it and can call police, and have it thoroughly investigated!

With this law, deviant behavior will get a free pass, and the law will protect preditors, and do harm by creating an environment of frequent victimization. And the we will have a hard time proving otherwise.

Preditors will easily claim they are trangender, and they may get as many get out of jail free cards as they want.

And be sure to tread carefully, because approaching these preditors with any suspicious will be a possible case of discrimination, guarenteed to get concerned citizens and store owners in big trouble, and sued too.

Preditors can and will sue you, regardless if you and they know that they are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt! You and the store will be in trouble, the victim will be without justice, and the pervert will be free to continue being a preditors! And possibly abduct or kill someone later!

So please look at at impact of a law like this, and weigh it with common sense, and also knowledge of the legal process we will face later!

This law will open up crimes against women and little girls and give predators legal arguments that will almost always escape prosecution!

Stores, concerned citizens who identify these deviant predators will find themselves in a whirlwind, and law enforcement, and the courts will have their hands tied and will not be able to deliver justice and keep women and little girls safe in bathrooms and dressing rooms!

Because

1 - They will have a legal argument of defense thanks to a law

And

2 - A law would justify bogus law suits from preditors, who should be prosecuted, and the law will justify suit against accusations on the grounds they are " transgender" and "discriminated against"

3 - the political correct environment will force the public to excuse these preditors day in and day out. As people ignore what theyve seen, and walk away from something that felt wrong to them. The law will foster a fear of being wrong or called names like bigot, as they decide not to question the confusing circumstances they just witnessed.

In general they will fear accusing a predator, because of not wanting to offend a transgender. Predator found a sweet spot as he isnt challenged!

My suggestion is write no law allowing it!

And let the issue go!

If you are truly "girl transgender," you most likely really look feminine, Just use the bathroom you look like you belong in. If you look like you belong there, we likely wont stare at you long enough to figure it out! Go into your stall, which are closed in ladies rooms, privately do your thing, wash your hands and then enjoy your shopping!

Because if its a law, you will effectively have given predators a free pass, and that's unconscionable!

You hear many incidents of peepers in bathrooms and dressing rooms, AND DRESSING ROOMS will come quickly if not passed in one swoop along with bathrooms!!

Dressing rooms are really the end game of the law. Bathrooms are just the foot in the door!

Please share these points for action if you agree

NannieBoot(29) Clarified
1 point

Quick ! Tell me where my friend chairs is .

1 point

I wonder if the PA Govenor thought this through, if not, why not?

Being able to get a liscence change in PA, is actually even worse!

Imagine a world where people who would exploit and take advantage of innocent people, or be legal perverts can by laws selectively plan to become a protected class!

Hmm, no problem with that, is there?

Black people are born a protected class. But "transgenders" can choose to be a protected class!

Anyone can NOW dress up and become a protected class! Yea!

That doesnt sound like a disaster, does it?

Cartman(18191) Disputed
3 points

Imagine a world where people who would exploit and take advantage of innocent people, or be legal perverts can by laws selectively plan to become a protected class!

We are talking about gays in this debate, not Catholic priests.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

The point is anyone can abuse it.

A physical id is supposed to be accurate not an alias.

Would you like to change your license to Frankestein?

Maybe theres a form for you too!

1 point

They didn't need a study to prove sodomy is learned and not genetic. It's well known that 90 percent of sodomites were molested a children, naturally causing confusion about their sexuality.