Quote9. The ongoing, aggressive lobbying by the Gender Confusion Movement. Having learned well from their "gay'" allies, "transgender" activists seek to turn "gender nonconformity" into a legal civil right. This would include the supposed "right" of a very young boy to come to school in a dress if he thinks he should be a girl. (Now there's an agenda item sure to be popular with most parents of school-age children....) Memo to the Transgender Lobby: women do NOT want biologically-born men (wearing dresses and high heels) with male genitalia in their public restrooms—period.
How is "gender nonconformity" NOT a civil right? If you look back throughout history, people of different cultures (including our own) broke so-called "gender traditions" all the time.
I was actually asked a question on the subject—of 'biologically-born men' using the women's restroom—during my efforts at my college to bring gender-neutral restrooms on campus. I was asked what is to stop a biological male from dressing and going into a women's restroom to attack a woman? My answer was: what's to stop them from doing so now, dressed or not? The difference between someone who was born male wishing to use the women's restroom for the purpose of going to the bathroom and nothing more, and someone who was born male wishing to attack someone in the women's restroom is this: The former identifies as a woman, and the latter identifies as a man. That is the only difference. Shouldn't we allow individuals to use the restroom of their choice based on their gender identity, rather than their genitalia? In other words, didn't the women's movement establish a while ago that biology does not equal destiny?
The simple fact is that those boys seeking to come to school dressed as girls aren't doing so for any deviant purpose. They're not going to cause any problems if they're allowed to use the girl's restroom—they simply want to be one of the girls! They are expressing their gender identity, and maybe if society wasn't so strict on their gender rules, then maybe we wouldn't have some of those little boys developing chronic depression, having social and personal problems later in life, or killing themselves because all the adults in their lives say what they're doing is somehow "immoral" or a "sin." What would be the real "sin" or "immoral" thing in that, letting that boy suffer and die, or letting that boy be who they feel they are? There is nothing wrong with being who you are, as long as you're not hurting another person.
Quote"Why are all relationships built around unnatural, changeable, immoral and often unhealthy homosexual behavior somehow deserving of taxpayer-subsidized government recognition?
GLBTIQQ relationships are neither unnatural, nor changeable, nor immoral, nor unhealthy. People who are born gay or lesbian or bi or trans or intersex or queer or questioning are born that way; it's not unnatural to be who you were born as. Also, it's not something you can change, so how is it immoral or unhealthy? Be who you are. Those in the GLBTIQQ community are just as deserving of "tax-payer subsidized government recognition" because they are human beings just like everyone else, and the government has a duty and an obligation to help
all members of the society which it governs, regardless of how they were born.
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will" - Wiccan Rede
