God said People who have Flat Noses Canot Serve Him

[TheRocketSurgeon]

And Again the objection I have is what you identify as a 'right' more often than not isn't one.
spaking for instance. No where in the United states is it illegal to spank your child.
And it is not legal in all 50 states for transgender people to use the 'wrong' bathroom.
A right is a universal freedom guaranteed by the government. Everything I have argued is indeed sanctioned by the current laws. So if your defination requires a complete disregaurd of other people and their rights, then an honest assessment would exclude me from your 'professional' diagnosis.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

Rights do not flow from the government, some are inalienable (yes, they say "unalienable", but that's not technically correct) and natural rights, among which are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". There is a growing recognition, among those of us without social prejudices based on our religious outlook, anyway, that transgendered and gay people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, same as the rest of us, and so we are chipping away at those who would use their religion to curtail those natural rights for people we recognize are entitled to them.

Rights are individual, and must be equal or they are worthless... so your 1% figure is meaningless. If only one person in this country was transgendered, it would make no difference. The rights which are enumerated in the Constitution are not there because they are for the majority; they are there because people would wish to take them away from the minority or other disfavored group/individual. We have a right to Free Speech, for instance, because some people will say things that are unpopular, and there are those who would stop them from saying it, if they could.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...angladesh/

Which can be true in say a republic where a 'douche' is so intent on arguing for something like the ablity for a man to put on a dress and go into the wrong bathroom he can "erode a person who naturally respects the rights of others and empathizes with them until they treat others who are different from what the program says is "okay" with a level of contempt that is indistinguishable from sociopathic behavior." Meaning those people are willing to put the vast majority of the social populace in danger for their own contempt for 'traditional decency.'

"Traditional" is, of course, code for Christian domination of society, in almost every context I've heard it used. And there's no danger from transgendered people having rights to use the bathroom in the place they feel will endanger them least; all this "but then the rapists will ____" is fearmongering by using outliers as if they stand for the whole, and ignores that rapists can already access most bathrooms either directly or by disguising themselves, regardless of whether trans people existed in the first place.

To even say, "put the vast majority of the social populace in danger" tells me that you feel that the tiniest fraction of additional safety (which seems to be illusory and based on a phantom, or at least exceedingly rare, danger) above the safety of those who are gender transitioning or transitioned, simply because you think it violates "traditional decency".

Read The Federalist Papers.Part of the reason we're a Constitutional Republic, rather than a pure democracy, is that our Founders recognized the danger of allowing the majority to dictate to the minority what their rights are. When you keep citing to the 1% figure, all you're doing is saying "Well the rest of us don't care". You're completely ignoring that trans people actually ARE in danger, regardless of which bathroom they try to use, every day of their lives, from people who consider them abominations.

apparently not. apparently 1% of the population gets to dictate a 'modified level of protection' on the off chance they want to use the wrong bathroom in public. This behavior literally allows 1% of the population putting their own "Antisocial Personality Disorder" ahead of the wellfare of the hundreds of millions of other people, and yet when one challenges this NON-Right that person is charged with being the sociopath... How meesed up is your mind that you can not see what is going on in front of you?

Your definition requires a moral standard (A right) to be circumvented with no regaurd to those in whom this circumvention will hurt.

We have a federal right to privacy and a reasonable expectation of safety when we go into a public bathroom. This is a mandate that all public business and facilities are mandated to provide. that is why one can sue if they are not provided with bathroom access or if our privacy has been compromised. This is a standing right in the US. However this right has been circumvented by allowing the opposite sex access to the wrong bathroom. This demand by the LBGT community has absolutely no regaurd, or should I say shows contempt to all who oppose cross gender access...

Yet with your great powers of reasoning and deduction you seem to be focused on calling those who oppose the implication of this NON-right being forced on the community Sociopaths while the group of people who actually fit the literal definition gets your support.

And that is why i call you douche bag.

What the fuck is a "moral standard"? Is it your moral standard, based on a scripture? Because I'm pretty sure that can't be a law. On the other hand, you calling the people who are simply asking for their own safety to be respected, to make their own liberty-choices about what the "right" bathroom is for them, and to be free from your religious discrimination (especially since you insist on trying to make them into the monsters who are endangering others!), is the height of hypocrisy. I could take your arguments about the "danger" from the trans community and just as easily insert any of the previously-feared minorities, and make the same kind of claim... "If we let the races mix, then what's to stop black men from date-raping our daughters?" (Well, nothing, if they happen to be a rapist... but that's not a reason to ban interracial relationships.)

I am a straight, white, cisgendered male who has two children. For you to assert that I am disregarding their safety, or failing to acknowledge the privacy rights of the majority, is beyond asinine. Of course I have considered these things... but unlike you, I am actually familiar both with a large number of trans and LGBT people (because of my charity activities in the field of HIV/AIDS activism), and I know what they really are, rather than the straw-man threat conservative Christians have carefully tried to build in order to justify their bigoted actions against that community.

I am attempting to assert the right of privacy to this person, below, who simply wishes to walk into a bathroom where everyone else looks like her, even though she was born a man. It is the Christians who are attempting to deny her this liberty, and vilifying her to do it. Boy, when you guys get going with your persecution-of-the-majority complexes, you really get going!