Excerpts from my comments in a debate over laws espousing homosexuality and enforced accommodation of homosexual lifestyles in places of business.

Treated are the notions that the homosexual rights movement is erasing gender from society, and that I, having a religious view of the importance of gender, should be allowed to practice my religion in a state where the citizens vote against ungendered bathrooms, etc.

…Then let’s at least make this a state issue not a federal issue in other words if people with homosexuality want to go to a store that Embraces homosexuality let them do that in whatever state for example California but if I want to have a place where my children are protected when they go into the store let me do that. in other words, if you really want a homosexual bathroom, fine, have your own homosexual bathroom but don’t force me and my store to have a homosexual bathroom as well. The natural consequence of this is that if everyone if everyone hates my store because I’m a bigot then my business will fail and so the market will determine the success of the business and all will be well.

Yes people can dress up and invade illegally (into bathrooms) but we should be able to at least try and stop them (rather than inviting them to do so).

…so, you think trans should have full access but not homo? Your differentiation of them in this may makes that implication, that one should get in and the other not. Please explain how my supposed ignorance of trans vs homo effects this conversation. Are you lobbying for one to enter or both? I’m lobbying against both entering. And yes, I think both want to enter. If only one wants to enter then I lobby against that one.

All I ask is that people of the opposite sex aren’t in the same bathrooms which have no cameras to protect from rape. I think we can agree that rape occurs more between people of the opposite sex (most people are attracted to the opposite sex).

As for point number two, isn’t it already legal for a gay bathroom in your own private business? I think the issue right now is whether all bathrooms should by law need to admit persons of both sexes in them. Now here you could argue that a trans man equals a woman, is that your point? Even if this is your point, I think we should not force the non-trans people to do something they are uncomfortable with. many people they don’t want to be in the bathroom with a transgender person for various reasons. And transgender people want to be in a bathroom with people of the gender they have now become.

If you make the USA homogenous (same everywhere), a lot of people will be angry. A special thing about the USA used to be that if you didn’t like the policy in one state, you can leave to another. For example, if a flock of people whose gender identification was “I don’t want trans people in my bathroom with my kids” then we should not be bigots and force them to act against the way that they identify themselves. So, let this flock run to some state where they can have safe space. You see, safe space to me may mean something different then safe space to you. So, the only way to satisfy the conscience and identity of both groups is to have them live in separate colonies, separate states. (Another example could be gun rights. Texas could make guns legal and Texans could say “Thank God I’m a Texan!” and people in, per se, Main, could ban guns, and say, “Thank God I live in Main!” Let each chose. Most matters of government, according to our constitution, are to stay at the state, not federal, level.)

As for the pervert thing, I don’t say they are all perverts, I’m just saying that I should be respected and be allowed to have a state which doesn’t violate my conscience. You may think my conscience is silly or irrational, or even call me a bigot, but equality demands that you respect my view none the less. Let me live in a colony of likeminded people – I won’t impose on your camp, and I would wish you not impose on my camp.

The US Constitution says that the federal governments powers are specific and enumerated. Other issues like this one are state issues. If the USA wants a federal bathroom trans and homo allowed everywhere law, it needs to go through the intentionally difficult process of becoming an amendment to the Constitution. Someday it may become such, at which time if my conscience doesn’t like that, I’m free to try and change it or to move to another colony, this time at the international level. The fast track for this law is to get it in a state. But to get it in the federal, that takes multiple 2/3 majority in the several branches of government. Federal laws are so powerful that they must be extremely hard to pass. Once a law becomes federal, there is no more place for the minority to escape it. States were formed to be safe places for minorities (who flock together to the state of their choosing).

Federal laws are few because they often neglect a minority, and in this case,  we are getting into religious liberty, which (potentially violates the) 1st amendment. The people who are religious are often misunderstood and called bigots. They need a safe state to run to, so federal laws are very hard to get, specifically to protect that safe space. One thing I hate about Trump is his signing things by executive order ignoring the other 2 branches of government. There are ways to fight against this but somehow it still goes on (and of course Obama has this kind of an itchy trigger finger too. (and though some of this is allowed, I believe they take it farther than the constitution permits)) I love the Constitution and think many of our national problems are from going away from the Constitution which was built to defend minorities. It has a built-in republic style government and democratic style government mixed, and only in that way can mob rule be avoided. You see, trans and homo are not the only minority. In having this view of not wanting to use bathrooms with them, I’m becoming a minority, and should be protected too. You may not understand why I don’t like this trans homo all bathroom policy but that is beside the point. I don’t understand why a person would want to worship a yellow dog, but that’s up to them and their religion, and let them worship as they will. By the way, I have given reasons for my views they are logical, but I’m pointing out that in defending a person’s religious conscience a person need not explain themselves to deserve a safe space. Let me have a state which doesn’t require me to violate my conscience. You can have 49 states that do things the other way, but I need safe space too! If we make it federal, I have no safe space. Are not 49 states enough for you, isn’t that enough space for the homo and trans?

Can’t they respect the fact that I view the world differently and want a place of my own where my children don’t grow up wanting a sex change because they see a trans whom is kind to them and think it’s the way they should live? My children are too small to take on these issues. Thus, I claim the right to shelter them to an extent! I recognize that some people are born gay, and some people become trans etc. But my kids don’t understand this, and they would get peer pressure to embrace the lifestyle of a homosexual, they will be taught in sex education in public school that the way to be tolerant is to at least experiment with homosexual sex before you determine that you are a heterosexual, they will do like they do to my nephew (who lives in California) and call him, that tiny human, they call him a purple penguin until he declares a gender. The root of this is the idea that humans are fundamentally very sexually different and that it is bad to teach a child that they are a certain gender. But that sounds like a cult (you know the definition of cult, it’s a legit term, not a passive aggressive cut at you. cult is a legit word it’s a way of saying a religion.)

Also, I wasn’t trying to be aggressive by saying safe space please don’t read into my message unwritten things. I won’t bother trying to point out possible passive aggression in your message. I’m going to assume your benevolence and take your words at face value. I made the rape assumption based on the statistic that a large majority are heterosexual, for the which I do have statistics. If I can come up with statistics on the heterosexual rape thing would you like me to share them with you? Perhaps I will be proven wrong during my investigation, but I doubt it so strongly (based on my family science research I’ve done thus far at my university etc.) that I’m happy to look it up for you. Some things are too obvious to need to state statistics on, but to appease your point that there is a chance I’m wrong I would love to get back with you later on this point.

The following sentence is also sincere and not passive aggressiveness even though it may be strange to you: I claim that it’s bigoted for someone to call me a bigot for violating my conscience. The word bigot is so convenient, it can be mysterious enough to shame someone, but both sides have a right to their opinion without the name-calling of bigot. For you to not see me as a bigot, you must stretch your mind and consider that I might have good intentions. There might be more to the story than you think. I don’t think I called all trans people perverts, if so I’m sorry. My meaning is that opening these doors makes it easier for perverts to do what formerly was difficult and socially shamed. Based on rape statistics and trans statistics, I think there are more rapists out there than there are trans people. Thus, I think a co-sex bathroom will be exploited more than a single sex bathroom. It makes it harder to detect the rapists if both sex looking people can go into either of the bathrooms. Not all trans people look like the gender they have become, nor should we force them to. In other words, if we have these laws of co sex bathrooms, all must be allowed to enter, no discrimination of appearances. I claim this (anyone can come in) will lead to not only more rape, but more adolescent sex and teen out of wedlock pregnancies, and those things do directly correlate to more poverty and emotional deregulation and dissatisfaction overall (I do have stats on that).

Another way to summarize this is that it’s a way movement to take control of our children from family to state. Not only does state seek to prevent abuse which it should prevent, but in these things of not allowing religious safe space by turning highly debated moral issues into federal law rather than state law, the government is becoming a religion if its own, and thus amendment 1 is violated which says the government is not allowed to show preference to one religion over another.

Also I want to clarify when I say that I’m afraid of the effect of a homosexual or transgender would increasingly have on my child’s views on how to be happy I’m not trying to say that I want to live in a place where there’s no homosexuals are transgenders but what I’m saying is that I will give them a job I will let them rent an apartment from me etc. that’s my personal View and so forth but I think that making the bathrooms a thing which has long been a place of privacy for people who look like a girl or people who look like a boy etcetera is taking a step, a very large step, in the direction of disestablishing gender and making a genderless society; that is what worries me, that idea that we would normalize it so much to where gender would cease to exist; surely someone’s feelings will be hurt until we dismiss gender entirely. Raising my kids and that kind of society is intimidating. I’m just asking for a place where we don’t have to go accommodating the gambit of requests that come to us on these topics of erasing gender.

When a bathroom has no gender that’s really what it’s doing is erasing gender. I think gender is important I’ll be honest I think it is erasing gender little by little and you could even say that’s part of my religious view that gender is important, and I say in return please respect my first amendment rights to have a religious view which may not make sense to you. As you see, the religious freedom is tied into this movement because by default removing gender stipulations from bathrooms, or shall I say it more correctly, removing sex stipulations from bathrooms, will break down the idea that gender exists or in other words that sex (not intercourse) exists and that it has some meaning to it. That is the root: I am trying to uphold my religious view that sex has meaning and should not be erased. My conscience and other evidence suggest to me that this is where this is going. I claim that the open-door policy of bathrooms will greatly contribute to the erasing of gender and sex identity. A way to make both parties happy is by letting them do as they wish in their own state. I think that there are enough people like me to create a little state. In case I wasn’t clear about this earlier I will say it like this: federal law is and should be extremely difficult to make on this and other issues because a federal law has greater power than state law to eliminate safe space for minorities like myself.

I won’t trail on with this I think we’ve had enough of a rough go on the subject, but I will say that I never called for throwing homos and trans out of their home, I only called for (at least) 1 state being allowed to have gender specific bathrooms. That doesn’t mean homos and trans can’t live in that state. I likewise could say more on this (defending my opinion) but I don’t think it’s the right time and place. By the way, one of my best friends is homosexual, I meet with him regularly to study music and theatre, he is a brilliant and charming man. I appreciate your call to protect everyone, though like I said, I don’t feel like getting into this any further. God bless you friend.

Note: this person is ignoring many facts and is ignorant of the social agendas which underlie this supposed fight for equality. This is written everywhere in The Book of Mormon and the bible, people having a cuddly way of defending their spineless positions on morality.