I still hold that I will do what is in the best interest of the kids and it is MY JOB to try and protect them from harm.
It is noble indeed that you are on the frontline protecting young landscapers around the country from predatory gay couples who may be peeking at the young lads firm butts while they mow their client's lawn. Good on ya.
It's his ****ing right! I'm going to move to Canada or Europe or whatever the moment it becomes illegal for businesses to refuse service to people they don't want to serve!
That's funny, since it has been illegal for a looooooooong time here in Europe (to decline service based on race, religious believe, gender, political believe or sexual preference). It's actually the very first article in our constitution.
One thing I do agree with you. This thread doesn't belong here. I'll move it to the Trash Can for now but I don't even believe it belongs there. I'm sure many of you will disagree with me on this - so chalk this one up as a personal decision on my side.
Now that this thread is finally where it is, I'll make this one final post. There was no reason for this thread to end here, though both sides of this argument hold strong opinions, the discussion could have and should have remained civil. I definately line up on the side of the landscapers, not necessarily for religious reasons but because I beleve it is their right to conduct business with anyone as long as they aren't breaking the law. In this case, they were well eithin their rights. Homophobia aside, this is still America and both parties have rights. I know that some folks will almost always line up on opposing sides, some because of their political or religious beliefs, some just because they love to stir up the crap. 84Bill is one that loves to stir up crap. his posts always endup being inflamatory and calling others that don't agree with him juvenile insulting names. He says it's all about rights but when it comes to actually defending the rights of Americans, he is full of his own crap and wouldn't stand up to defend this nation other than to squeal like a little girl. He's a coward and I have absolutly no respect for anything he has to say. Not because he doesn't have a right to an opinion, because he always, always ends up insulting folks, can't remain an adult and be civil, then tries to hide behind his intrepretation of the constitution.
To 84 Bill, yes, you may flameon now.
------------------ Ron Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all. My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.
Now that this thread is finally where it is, I'll make this one final post. There was no reason for this thread to end here, though both sides of this argument hold strong opinions, the discussion could have and should have remained civil. I definately line up on the side of the landscapers, not necessarily for religious reasons but because I beleve it is their right to conduct business with anyone as long as they aren't breaking the law. In this case, they were well eithin their rights. Homophobia aside, this is still America and both parties have rights. I know that some folks will almost always line up on opposing sides, some because of their political or religious beliefs, some just because they love to stir up the crap. 84Bill is one that loves to stir up crap. his posts always endup being inflamatory and calling others that don't agree with him juvenile insulting names. He says it's all about rights but when it comes to actually defending the rights of Americans, he is full of his own crap and wouldn't stand up to defend this nation other than to squeal like a little girl. He's a coward and I have absolutly no respect for anything he has to say. Not because he doesn't have a right to an opinion, because he always, always ends up insulting folks, can't remain an adult and be civil, then tries to hide behind his intrepretation of the constitution.
Until Falcon4 got into this I was enjoying the conversation. After that I did what he asked, I gave him a - since he told me to.
This is Cliff's house, I've said it over and over, he makes the rules and we either live by them or leave. That said, this thread for some reason upset his sensibilities. I've seen a LOT worse in the name calling, etc., on other topics, so this TOPIC must be the cause of the thread being locked and moved.
This is his right, but I'll say that I'm very disappointed in his stifling of debate. It's pretty obvious which side of this debate he is on, and that's fine by me, but to simply say "you're wrong and you're not talking about it anymore"...........well, whatever.
Let's just say it's not what I expected.
Cliff, you say this thread has made you look at people differently? Back at you, friend, and not for which side of the debate you're on, but in how you deal with people that think differently than yourself on the subject.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock:
That's funny, since it has been illegal for a looooooooong time here in Europe (to decline service based on race, religious believe, gender, political believe or sexual preference). It's actually the very first article in our constitution.
One thing I do agree with you. This thread doesn't belong here. I'll move it to the Trash Can for now but I don't even believe it belongs there. I'm sure many of you will disagree with me on this - so chalk this one up as a personal decision on my side.
I have said it before, and would like to state again that because it is normally 'off topic' of in the 'trash can', I have a personal policy of not rating people based on their posts in these forums. I do rate if their poor behavior carries over to gen chat, tech, or if a deal goes bad in the Mall. I'm not saying everyone should follow the same rules, and I have made exceptions when it is apparent when someone creates a user name for the sole purpose of antagonizing others.
Just putting that out there before the red starts growing.
Originally posted by jstricker: This is his right, but I'll say that I'm very disappointed in his stifling of debate. It's pretty obvious which side of this debate he is on, and that's fine by me, but to simply say "you're wrong and you're not talking about it anymore"...........well, whatever.
Stifling of debate? How did I do that? By moving this thread to a more appropriate section of the forum? Please show me where I "stifled the debate"? Is the "Post Reply" button hidden in this section or anything? Again, please tell me how I stifled this debate.
quote
Cliff, you say this thread has made you look at people differently? Back at you, friend, and not for which side of the debate you're on, but in how you deal with people that think differently than yourself on the subject.
Oh puh-lease. Now your just taking jabs at me. If anything, I have never, ever "dealt" with people that think differently than I do. And even in this thread I haven't "dealt" with anyone. Have I lost respect for some people here? You betcha. Anybody that says they will not shake the hand of a gay person, anybody that says homosexuality is a "choice" and they are wrong for "choosing" it, or anybody that says homosexuality equals pedophelia doesn't deserve my respect. Those people deserve my loathing. And according to you, that's my right. In fact, if I would deny a few people access to the forum here and there because I choose not to deal with people who think differently than I do on this subject, that would be ok because it's my right to decline service to anyone for whatever reason. Right?
You're wondering why I react stronger to this than other things? Maybe because I'm from another part of the world than you are. I'm from a part of the world where discrimination of people based on their sexual preference is unheard of. To us, people who think like that are still in the stone age. To us, this discussion could just as well be about colored people. And don't give me the "they choose to be gay" crap. Sexual preference is a choice? So basically everybody is bi-sexual choosing either to be hetero or homosexual? I'm sorry, but that does not fly with me.
I was not happy to see this thread here but after reading this post I'm actually glad..
Cliff was right. You, quite a few others and this thread ALL belong in the trash..
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Now that this thread is finally where it is, I'll make this one final post. There was no reason for this thread to end here, though both sides of this argument hold strong opinions, the discussion could have and should have remained civil. I definately line up on the side of the landscapers, not necessarily for religious reasons but because I beleve it is their right to conduct business with anyone as long as they aren't breaking the law. In this case, they were well eithin their rights. Homophobia aside, this is still America and both parties have rights. I know that some folks will almost always line up on opposing sides, some because of their political or religious beliefs, some just because they love to stir up the crap. 84Bill is one that loves to stir up crap. his posts always endup being inflamatory and calling others that don't agree with him juvenile insulting names. He says it's all about rights but when it comes to actually defending the rights of Americans, he is full of his own crap and wouldn't stand up to defend this nation other than to squeal like a little girl. He's a coward and I have absolutly no respect for anything he has to say. Not because he doesn't have a right to an opinion, because he always, always ends up insulting folks, can't remain an adult and be civil, then tries to hide behind his intrepretation of the constitution.
"The freedom of opinion and the reasonable maintenance of it is not a crime and ought not to occasion injury." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1801
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill: It's fine to have an opinion against a gay lifestyle but when it INJURES, that is where the line is drawn and "hate" / "crime" comes into the picture. Injury without justice will bring about further injury and further the pain.
It's fine to not like gays.. that IS an opinion and anyone can have it BUT it is NOT OKAY to injure someone by refusing service to them simply because they are gay. Thats where opinions injure. Refusal of service because they are gay IS NOT an opinion anymore.. thats an action.
The COMPANY injured another citizen by refusing service. Not the individuals running the COMPANY...... but the PUBLIC COMPANY. The COMPANIES policy is in need of correction and its people might need sensitivity training to help them cope with the world outside of their own little church....I mean work place. Afterall they do deal with the public... You know the little country they live in called AMERICA? home to 300 million others?
Though this thread will die its core will rage on in a country that is alleged to be the great melting pot, a land of freedom and equality for all its inhabitants which together act as shining examples to the world.
I can't help but hear these words ringing more loudly than the Liberty bell did over 200 years ago.
YOU MANIACS........YOU BLEW IT UP........DAMN YOU!!!! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!!!!
It is noble indeed that you are on the frontline protecting young landscapers around the country from predatory gay couples who may be peeking at the young lads firm butts while they mow their client's lawn. Good on ya.
I would bet that every one else here but you is intelligent enough to know that I was talking about my grandchildren. I think you knew it too but are just a trouble maker.
Patrick, once again you have taken one sentence from my post completely out of context just so you can make some stupid idiotic comment. What the hell is your problem! I have seen you do this to others too. You are a troll.
If you are dumb enough to post that same old quote you always do of mine, use the entire quote this time so everyone can see that you do this all the time and prove you are a troll!.
What the hell I will save you the trouble.
quote
Originally posted by Red88FF:
Look here cookie, You have taken a small piece of the conversation and made a transparent effort to get others to view it out of context. This thread has gone far beyond your hero and his unfortunate experience (caused by your guys) I made that comment in regards to the war on terrorists in general, Known for a fact terrorists. I ask you again! did you watch the beheading video!. DID YOU WATCH THE TWIN TOWERS FALL? THAT IS WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST. I suppose you would get on your high horse and protect those bastards too! oooohhh ahhhhh the panty waist legend in your own mind better than everyone else just because you thinks so liberal pinko fag pacifist attitude rears it's unworthy head again!
Falcon, I am very sorry, I thought is was you and I was mistaken.
quote
Originally posted by edhering:
(Don't believe me? Think I'm a bigot? Do a little research. Find out how many pedophiles are homosexuals versus how many are straight, particularly in terms of percentage of parent population. Find out how much of the "gay lifestyle" revolves around promiscuous and frequently anonymous sex. HIV became an "epidemic" in the 1980s because of such practices.)
Originally posted by Cliff Pennock: To us, people who think like that are still in the stone age. To us, this discussion could just as well be about colored people.
And that seemed to be the point I COULD NOT get across.
In Germany a while back, people stood around watching thier neabors being rounded up becouse they were "different" in some way. And they did nothing.
"Shhhhh, we're not different, like them."
Until THEIR difference showed up on the list!
I just wonder what part of the idea, It always starts small, that people don't see. History shows us that very thing, time & time & time again! It's ALL there for the READING!
You gotta put a finger in the dyke's hole BEFORE it drowns you!
Take that any way you want!
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 11-14-2006).]
Originally posted by blackrams: I know that some folks will almost always line up on opposing sides, some because of their political or religious beliefs, some just because they love to stir up the crap. 84Bill is one that loves to stir up crap. his posts always endup being inflamatory and calling others that don't agree with him juvenile insulting names. He says it's all about rights but when it comes to actually defending the rights of Americans, he is full of his own crap and wouldn't stand up to defend this nation other than to squeal like a little girl. He's a coward and I have absolutly no respect for anything he has to say. Not because he doesn't have a right to an opinion, because he always, always ends up insulting folks, can't remain an adult and be civil, then tries to hide behind his intrepretation of the constitution.
Poor"cowardly"Bill
BBTs
[This message has been edited by BigBoyToys (edited 11-14-2006).]
"you're wrong and you're not talking about it anymore"...........well, whatever.
John Stricker
John, I must have missed this quote of Cliffs... as I don't see where he said this or even insinuated such!
Pulease.....If what you claim was even close to reality Cliff would have made such comments (or not) and simply locked this thread and left it in O/T to fall off into the archives. That is NOT what was done! Was it? He offered a comment regarding the insinuation that it was different in Canada and Europe...and facts regarding "It's actually the very first article in our constitution."....and then even offered up a judgement call...I believe due to the bantering between views regarding this topic and the negative antics of some members as simply TRASH talk...thus moving the topic to where all the trash talkers can continue should they choose play in this trash.
Originally posted by Patrick: The topic under discussion in this thread is "Landscaper Under Fire for Refusing to Work for Gays".
If your grandchildren are not landscapers or gay or perhaps gay landscapers, I have no idea how they became a part of this discussion.
Not only were you “dumb enough” to post it in the first place, but you continue to do so months later. Unbelievable.
You are truly an idiot to think anybody else here is dumb enough to buy your line of crap. This thread like almost every thread in the OT section does not and did not stay completely on topic. Worst part is you knew that, you read my post, you replied to it (one line out of context anyway) with your usual flaming dribble.
Really only two choices here, you are either an outright liar saying you have no idea how my grandchildren became part of this thread and just felt like trolling? OR you did not read the posts, have no idea what the hell we are talking about but feel the need to poke and prod and offer up your invalid opinion to try and get flame reaction. Either one of these means you should not be here in my opinion.
Last time I said you are not worth the effort of anymore replies your big comeback was "let's pretend I wrote that" heh, oh good one! pretend away!
There once was a young lad of 7 years.He would love to be asked by his Mum to ride into town, 6 miles away, to do some errands for her.One day, he was asked to get some shopping, to help his Mum.He got on his bike, and pedalled off to town,where he picked up the groceries his Mum had asked for. He put them in his saddlebag, and set off on the journey back home.Passing the local railway station, he realised he needed to go to the toilet.So he stood his bike against the wall outside, and went in.Standing at the urinal, he was suddenly aware of a door opening behind him. A man, who appeared to be a lot older than the boy, came out of the cubilcle he had been in, smiled, and then stood beside the boy. Looking down at where the lad was relieviing himself, he smiled again, and nodding toward the young lad's fly, said" Well, that isn't so big, is it?" The boy looked up at the man, confused."Never mind" the man said."One day, when you are grown, you will have one like this", and proceeded to show his penis to the boy.The young lad blushed crimson, and turned away. The man then took his arm, and ppulled him into the cubicle, saying " come on, I'll show you what a real one feels like". The boy, who was very small, tried to pull away, but couldn't. The man shut the door, and stood between the door and the boy." Now, all you have to do s hold it in your hand, and rub it, like this"... Fast forward to a time 3 years later.The same boy had two brothers. The elder brother had an older friend, who had been his prefect in school, and sometimes came round to visit for a while at the weekend. Sometimes, he would invite his second brother, who was 15, to go to the local beach for a swim. This happened quite a few times, until one weekend the man came round, and his second brother seemed to have disappeared." Never mind" He told the boy's Mum.." Perhaps your younger son would like to come?" The young lad felt so proud and grownup, to e invited to go swimming with this friend of his brothers, and rushed upstairs to get his swimming trunks.Mum waved goodbye, as they drove off to the seaside.."be careful, won't you?" He had a lot of fun, swimming, and throwing stones with this nice man, and all too soon it was time to go home."Would you like to go again?" the man asked the young lad."Oh yes please!" "Ok, if the weather is fine I will come next Saturday. The weekend came, the weather was fine, and the man in his shiny MG TA turned up, and off they went.This time it wasn't so much fun. The man swqam out a little further with the young boy, and they swam and splashed around.Suddenly, the man asked"Have you ever swum without your trunks?" "Suddenly, the young man had a flashback, and turned crimson."No" he stammered." Oh, you should try it!! There is nothing like the freedom you feel swimming naked!! Here, let me hold your trunks while you try".He slipped the young lad's trunks down with ease, and laughed, and swam off with them. The young lad was confused..was it a fun game, or..? They swam around for a while, with the man holding his trunks out of reach. Eventually, the young lad lunged for them, and they struggled for possesion. Suddenly, the trunks were gone.Oh no!! What was he to do? He would die of embarassment to gwet out of the sea, naked.He eventually persuaded the man to go ashore and get is briefs, so he could cover himself.The man smiled, and apologised, saying it was just a bit of fun that went wrong, and bought the boy an icecream, to show that he really WAS a nice man. The next weekend came, and this time the man brought a canoe with him, on a trailer. His Mum said "That will be fun!! He is going to take you down the river to the sea, and back again!!". The thought of going in a canoe pushed the bad thoughts to the back of his mind, and off they went. The story continues in this vein, for 11 more occasions, with 11 different 'nice guys', until the boy was 16, and was quite strong, and not so afraid. 3 more attempts were made on him before he became 18, and left home. He went to Art College, and University. He then started to play in Bands, and doing pretty well. He wasn't brilliant, but was above average. Several times, over the next 4 years, he was offered the chance of the 'Big Time'. Unfortunately, that 'Big Time' came at a price. All the old fears came flooding back, and the young man moved away to another part of the land.He got married twice, anf both times the marriage failed.He decided he would never try again, until he met a young Lady in Spain, who has now been with him, and helped him forget the nightmares that even then still came. They haven't visited the man for many many years..until today, when he was alone in his garage, working on a car. The fears had been re-awakened by something he wished he had never read. And he cried. He had been betrayed by people he had been happy to chat and laugh with, and to share stories. Some of these people, without malice, because how could they know??, were actually standing up for the kind of men who had damaged him so..mentally and physically. What these people should realise is, that heterosexuals are normal until the carry out a horrible deed against somebody else. These other minority group, aren't normal, any of them, because they have to have perverted desires to be included in that group. So you see, even if they do not harm somebody else, they are still perverted, to that young man, who has grown to nearly 60 years of age, carrying scars, both mental AND PHYSICAL, from the terrible encounters with those men. If you choose to read this, please believe me. I had never even told my dearest Mother of the things I have been through. Only 5 years ago, did I pluck up the courage to explain to my Wife why I used to refuse to go with her to visit her friends of many years.You see, they were homosexulas too. Ellie told these two guys as to why I never went with her to visit, and they were the kindest, sweetest people you could ever meet. They talked to me for hours, and tried to sooth the pain in my heart.These two guys were nothing like the others.But even they could not rid me of the disgust I still feel for the others. I don't ask for replies,or sympathy or regret. I just ask those, who shout so loud in defence of these people, to consider the feelings of others like me too. Women aren't the sole sufferers from rape, you know. And ALL my rapists and assaulters were homosexuals. Predators on innocent and defenceless young boys and men.I hope none of your children EVER have to go through the traumas I have. If it happens, god forbid, I hope you will be able to face yourself in the mirror each morning. It is more likely to happen nowadays, than 53 years ago.
Originally posted by Oscar: I believe due to the bantering between views regarding this topic and the negative antics of some members as simply TRASH talk...thus moving the topic to where all the trash talkers can continue should they choose play in this trash.
BBTs
Nice to see you are still kicking around the trashcan
quote
Originally posted by BigBoyToys: Poor"cowardly"Bill
BBTs
Speeking of trashtalk
Maybe one day you will grow up and become a man.. till then...
The fears had been re-awakened by something he wished he had never read. And he cried. He had been betrayed by people he had been happy to chat and laugh with, and to share stories.
Some of these people, without malice, because how could they know??, were actually standing up for the kind of men who had damaged him so..mentally and physically.
Nick, your story is both touching and horrible. As I stated to you earlier, men who prey on children need to be castrated at the very least.
I’m sorry, but I do not agree with tarring all homosexuals with the same brush. Some gay men rape boys. Some straight men rape girls. Should women therefore demand that ALL men be treated with contempt, treated as second class citizens, denied services?
Sound ridiculous? Sure it does.
Nick, in no way am I making light of your experiences. Not a chance. However, because of the severe emotional trauma you’ve been put through, I can’t imagine you’d ever be able to look at this situation through totally un-biased eyes. That doesn’t negate your opinion, but it also doesn’t supercede those opinions which are in direct opposition to your own.
I sincerely hope that some day you’ll be able to purge all the pain.
Well, in a strange way, I am both glad and upset that I read this thread.It seems to have gone some way to purging the pain.After I wrote it, I cried again. Ellie asked what was the matter, adn I asked her to read that which I have written above. She learned a few bits about me NOBODY ever knew before. The love and devotion this Lady shows me transcends anything I have ever known except from my Mum. I still wonder if that man had tried it on with my brother,and he let him take me in too.I daren't ask him, because if it did happen to him first, I would never have anything to do with him. Or at least, that was the way I thought. But now, today, I have understood some of my own fears, and wonder if he had them too, which prevented him fromdoing anything, because he would have to explain. Now, today, I hold no more bitterness toward him, just sympathy, if that WAS what he went through. Patrick, I wrote at the bottom of almost my last post, that I thought maybe my views were biased, as a result of the things I went through. I know I will never ever feel kindly, or sympathetic to homosexuals as a group. The few that have become friends have been kind and understanding, and tried to help. But I STILL can't trust even them, 100%. JohnnyK..you are my friend, and I understand your comments.But, to me they are the same..homosexuals and pedophiles.Can't help it. So once again, I am not going to get embroiled in the argument, discussion or whatever.I just wish there could be a category made for this sort of thing, and I wouldn't even know it existed. So, now, I am going back to my thread about the Spitfire, show some pictures of progress, and try and ignore this. See you there, all of you, if you want to see how it is going. Nick I don't think I need to say this, but I will. Everything is true.Not fantasy made up to back up my feelings. May their God protect the innocents, and their Devil make the others pay in Hell. Nick
You may now all flame each other in the appropriate section of the forum, without me bitching about it... the trash can. At least in a trash can, it won't catch other things on fire.
And no, I never said "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, SO DISCUSSION OVER". I said "DISCUSSION HAS ENDED". I didn't even say which way was what. The whole time I was saying to STFU, I was just saying that: STFU. It's only when 84Bill started asking dumb questions that I answered them, and continued to STFU the discussion. At any rate, the fortunate thing is, there's no more problem with having to watch people duke it out in the otherwise somewhat-tame Off-Topic forum, so all 84Bill-bashing is fair game. Muahaha. I'm so glad to see more people giving Bill a good what-for.
------------------
'87 Fiero GT, Automatic, 153k miles, stock everything, just trying to make it all work again. :D
But, to me they are the same..homosexuals and pedophiles.Can't help it. May their God protect the innocents, and their Devil make the others pay in Hell. Nick
I agree with you Nick.. Both have no place in my life and never will.
For some people in here that are so blinded by being politically correct and hold their rainbow panties high *cough* 84 bill *cough* johnnyk *cough* excuse me, just needed to cough there
I agree with you Nick.. Both have no place in my life and never will.
For some people in here that are so blinded by being politically correct and hold their rainbow panties high *cough* 84 bill *cough* johnnyk *cough* excuse me, just needed to cough there
I'm sorry if you feel it's wrong that I will fight against hate and prejudice.. At least the rest of the world is starting to see it our way, albeit slowly. Must be whats wrong with the world, right...?
I'm sorry if you feel it's wrong that I will fight against hate and prejudice.. At least the rest of the world is starting to see it our way, albeit slowly. Must be whats wrong with the world, right...?
I agree with you Nick.. Both have no place in my life and never will.
For some people in here that are so blinded by being politically correct and hold their rainbow panties high *cough* 84 bill *cough* johnnyk *cough* excuse me, just needed to cough there
While I completely agree with part of the things that page said, like forcing universal acceptance of ALL "lifestyles" on children in schools being a crock of **** , things like gay people being "demons" and all this "IF YOU LIE YOU WILL BE CAST INTO A SEA OF FIRE" and having all "disagreeable" people being illustrated with "demons" crawling over them... pure bullshit.
Geez, in that case, if we have to put up with the people that made that cartoon, for example, then I'm sure we should be forced to put up with gays too...
[/quote] November 7, 2006 New York Plans to Make Gender Personal Choice By DAMIEN CAVE Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.
Under the rule being considered by the city’s Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.
Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements.
“Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”
If approved, the new rule would put New York at the forefront of efforts to redefine gender. A handful of states do not require surgery for such birth certificate changes, but in some of those cases patients are still not allowed to make the change without showing a physiological shift to the opposite gender.
In New York, the proposed change comes after four years of discussion among health officials, an eight-member panel of transgender experts and vital records offices nationwide. It is an outgrowth of the transgender community’s push to recognize that some people may not have money to get a sex-change operation, while others may not feel the need to undergo the procedure and are simply defining themselves as members of the opposite sex. While it may be a radical notion elsewhere, New York City has often tolerated such blurring of the lines of gender identity.
And the proposal reflects how the transgender movement has become politically potent beyond its small numbers, having roots in the muscular politics of the city’s gay rights movement.
Transgender advocates consider the New York proposal an overdue bulwark against discrimination that recognizes an emerging shift away from viewing gender as simply the sum of one’s physical parts. But some psychiatrists and doctors are skeptical of the move, saying sexual self-definition should stop at rewriting medical history.
“They should not change the sex at birth, which is a factual record,” said Dr. Arthur Zitrin, a Midtown psychiatrist who was on the panel of transgender experts convened by the city. “If they wanted to change the gender for all the compelling reasons that they’ve given, it should be done perhaps with an asterisk.”
The change would lead to many intriguing questions: For example, would a man who becomes a woman be able to marry another man? (Probably.) Would an adoption agency be able to uncover the original sex of a proposed parent? (Not without a court order.) Would a woman who becomes a man be able to fight in combat, or play in the National Football League? (These areas have yet to be explored.)
The Board of Health, which weighs recommendations drafted by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, is scheduled to vote on the proposal in December, and officials say they expect it to be adopted.
At the final public hearing for the birth certificate proposal last week, a string of advocates and transsexuals suggested that common definitions of gender, especially its reliance on medical assessments, should be abandoned. They generally praised the city for revisiting its 25-year-old policy that lets people remove the sex designation from their birth certificate if they have had sexual reassignment surgery. Then they demanded more freedom to choose.
Michael Silverman, executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, said transgender people should not have to rely on affidavits from a health care system that tends to be biased against them. He said that many transgender people cannot afford sex-change surgery or therapy, and often do not consider it necessary.
Another person who testified, Mariah Lopez, 21, said she wanted a new birth certificate to prevent confusion, and to keep teachers, police officers and other authority figures from embarrassing her in public or accusing her of identity theft.
A few weeks ago, at a welfare office in Queens, Ms. Lopez said she included a note with her application for public assistance asking that she be referred to as Ms. when her turn for an interview came up. It did not work. The woman handling her case repeatedly addressed her as Mister.
“The thing is, I don’t even remember what it’s like to be a boy,” Ms. Lopez said, adding that she received a diagnosis of transgender identity disorder at age 6. She asked to be identified as a woman for this article.
The eight experts who addressed the birth certificate issue strongly recommended that the change be made, for the practical reasons Ms. Lopez identified. For public health studies, people who have changed their gender would be counted according to their sex at birth.
But some psychiatrists said that eliminating identification difficulties for some transgender people also opened the door to unwelcome advances from imposters.
“I’ve already heard of a ‘transgendered’ man who claimed at work to be ‘a woman in a man’s body but a lesbian’ and who had to be expelled from the ladies’ restroom because he was propositioning women there,” Dr. Paul McHugh, a member of the President’s Council of Bioethics and chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in an e-mail message on the subject. “He saw this as a great injustice in that his behavior was justified in his mind by the idea that the categories he claimed for himself were all ‘official’ and had legal rights attached to them.”
The move to ease the requirements for altering one’s gender identity comes after New York has adopted other measures aimed at blurring the lines of gender identification. For instance, a new shelter policy approved in January now allows beds to be distributed according to appearance, applying equally to postoperative transsexuals, cross-dressers and “persons perceived to be androgynous.”
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority also agreed last month to let people define their own gender when deciding whether to use the men’s or women’s bathrooms.
Joann Prinzivalli, 52, a lawyer for the New York Transgender Rights Organization, a man who has lived as a woman since 2000, without surgery, said the changes amount to progress, a move away from American culture’s misguided fixation on genitals as the basis for one’s gender identity.
“It’s based on an arbitrary distinction that says there are two and only two sexes,” she said. “In reality the diversity of nature is such that there are more than just two, and people who seem to belong to one of the designated sexes may really belong to the other.”
Very true, maybe tomorrow you will be waiving your rainbow flag while you head out the door.. Nice red mark going for you there..
Did it hurt your limp wrists clicking the rating button 10 times?
Shouldnt you be preaching to your kids about how vile and filthy the gay lifestyle is.. maybe teach them to spit on them and other cool things.. You know.. a mini hitler youth program and whatnot.
South Africa Bill OKs Gay Marriage Tuesday, November 14, 2006
CAPE TOWN, South Africa — The South African parliament passed legislation recognizing gay marriages Tuesday in an unprecedented move on a continent where homosexuality is taboo.
African National Congress veterans heralded the Civil Union bill for extending basic freedoms to everyone and equated it with liberation from the shackles of apartheid.
The bill's supporters had to overcome criticism from both traditionalists and gay activists and warnings that the legislation may be unconstitutional.
"When we attained our democracy, we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust painful past, by declaring that never again shall it be that any South African will be discriminated against on the basis of color, creed culture and sex," Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula told the National Assembly.
But a Christian lawmaker, Kenneth Meshoe, said it was the "saddest day in our 12 years of democracy" and warned that South Africa "was provoking God's anger."
One Church leader in Nigeria denounced the move as "satanic," reflecting the views on a deeply conservative continent where some countries are debating constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriages.
But gay rights groups in Europe hailed South Africa as a shining example of progressiveness.
The National Assembly passed the Civil Union Bill, worked out after months of heated public discussion, by a vote of 230 to 41 with three abstentions. The outcome was expected given the ANC's huge majority. It now has to be approved by the National Council of Provinces, which is expected to be a formality, before being signed into law by President Thabo Mbeki.
The bill provides for the "voluntary union of two persons, which is solemnized and registered by either a marriage or civil union." It does not specify whether they are heterosexual or homosexual partnerships.
But it also says marriage officers need not perform a ceremony between same-sex couples if doing so would conflict with his or her "conscience, religion and belief."
South Africa recognized the rights of gay people in the constitution adopted after apartheid ended in 1994 -- the first in the world to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The bill was drawn up in order to comply with a Constitutional Court ruling last December that said existing marriage legislation was unconstitutional, as it discriminated against same-sex couples.
The court gave the government a Dec. 1 deadline to change the laws, saying that otherwise same-sex marriages would be legalized by default.
"In order to give effect to the Constitutional Court ruling, same-sex couples have to be allowed to marry so that they can enjoy the status, obligations and entitlements enjoyed at the moment by opposite sex couples," Mapisa-Nqakula said.
The Roman Catholic church and many traditional leaders objected to the use of "marriage" saying this denigrated the sanctity of traditional marriages.
In an effort to ease some of these concerns, the drafters of the bill allowed both religious and civil officers to refuse to marry same-sex couples.
Gay rights groups criticized this "opt-out" clause, saying they should be treated the same as heterosexual couples.
But in general, they hailed the new measure.
"It demonstrates powerfully the commitment of our lawmakers to ensuring that all human beings are treated with dignity," said Fikile Vilakazi of the Joint Working Group, a national network of 17 gay and lesbian organizations.
In Africa, homosexuality is still largely taboo. It is illegal in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Tanzania, Ghana and most other sub-Saharan countries. Even in South Africa, gays and lesbians are often attacked because of their sexual orientation.
Denmark in 1989 became the first country to legislate for same-sex partnerships and several other European Union members have followed suit. In the United States, only the state of Massachusetts allows gay marriage, Vermont and Connecticut permit civil unions, and more than a dozen states grant lesser legal rights to gay couples.
The event highlights deep divisions between Israeli communities A controversial gay pride rally has taken place in Jerusalem despite calls from religious leaders to ban it. About 4,000 gay men, lesbians and civil rights supporters gathered at the Hebrew University stadium.
Security was tight in the city with 3,000 Israeli police drafted in to stop clashes between the demonstrators and orthodox Jews.
About 30 gay protesters who tried to march illegally through the city were arrested by Israeli police.
The proposed march was cancelled by Israeli police on Thursday after Palestinian threats to attack Israel after the shelling in Gaza in which 18 Palestinian civilians were killed.
HAVE YOUR SAY People have the right to partake in loving relationships of their choice
Matthew, Bethlehem
Gay men speak out In pictures: Gay gathering Event organisers agreed to move the event to the stadium after Israeli police said they needed to divert forces to deal with the security threat.
Permission for the proposed march through Jerusalem had provoked controversy because of religious Jewish views of homosexuality as an abomination.
Religious sensibilities
Ultra-orthodox Jews clashed with Israeli police earlier this week after calling for the march to be cancelled, saying it defiled the holy city.
The proposed march was also criticised by the Muslim and Christian religious communities.
The Vatican called for it to be scrapped for fear of offending "the sensibilities of religious communities".
As the event got under way, thousands of gay people poured into the stadium to hear a series of speeches.
Many wore T-shirts celebrating their sexuality while others held banners and flags. One banner read: "There are different ways to be a Jew."
Two men dressed as sperm handed out condoms to participants.
One man at the rally told that the BBC that "that people need to be more accepting of homosexuality".
The four-hour event passed off without any reports of violence.
At last year's march, three participants were injured when they were stabbed by an orthodox Jew who opposed the event.
This year's gathering had already been postponed because of the conflict with Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas during the summer.
as I don't see where he said this or even insinuated such!
