Men can now legally go into womans restrooms?

[DELGRAD]

I just found out about Colorado Senate Bill 200...

It will allow anyone to go into any restroom, changing room, showers, etc. they choose. Trying to stop someone from entering a restroom of the other sex could result in a fine and jail term... And this applies to every restroom in Colorado, whether it is in a school, mall, or where ever.

And all this is coming under the guise of 'gay rights.'

Edit: I want to add that you can be jailed for up to 1 year for not allowing a guy into the ladies room or displaying something that implies that guys may not go into the ladies room (this could be interpreted to mean the standard male/female signs) or vice verse.

Must go both ways.

If you have no choice, use whatever. I have had to shit in a garbage can.

You are born a man you use mens room.
You are born a woman you use womens room.

Government has no say in this. Force it, I will fight it.
I frankly don't care.
All restrooms should be unisex.

All restrooms except K through 12 schools.
Primary education buildings need to retain boys and girls restrooms.
It will take most adults a long time to become acustom to unisex restrooms and children longer.
If that point if ever reached, under grade 8 should stay unisex.

Maybe at some point in human evolution, a persons sex will have no effect in everday living.

Immaturity of nearly everyone is the problem.
Sexual education is so taboo, our kids need parental consent to learn it in school.
Sexual education should not be taught at school, but should be taught at home.

90% of people hearing the word penis or vagina will giggle or laugh.

Immaturity. Simple and fact. Immaturity.


Thank you fishfin for bring this up.


I will say with complete honesty,
I do not want a queer anywhere near me. Yes I am prejudice.
I don't want them anywhere near my ass, literally.

Not the point though.
EVERYONE has the same rights as everyone else.
There are a few exceptions, but I don't want to be raked over the coals.
Gets political and into what I personally feel, which has no place here.

[Arlequin]

Actually this is a Catch-22.

Either you make native male/female people to share bathrooms, or you make non native male/female people to share bathrooms (as it was), or you make everybody share bathrooms. Playing Devil's advocate, if it's ok in all three instances, then it couldn't be wrong for a start.

The real problem is that certain people (generally alcohol abusing young males) cannot behave in a civilized way either if they find a girl or a transexual sharing their bathroom. Ideals are cool, but human nature is filthy.

[Voltenion]

[
...90% of people hearing the word penis or vagina will giggle or laugh...

hehehe........penis,hihi.

[mikki]

Alright, I have been reading this and well I guess I am going to put my view in here.. And some of it might make no sense, but hopefully you get what I am talking about. To start off with I am a Christian. I believe in God and I believe in Jesus. I don't go to church as often as I would like, but things happen. My views aren't exactly what you would think a christian's views would be. I have male friends that are gay, and several of my female friends are lesbians. I believe that people should be able to marry who they love regardless of their sexual orientation.

And about the unisex bathrooms. Think about it people, females and males do the same thing in bathrooms. What is the big deal. Sunni says it all right here..

Honestly.. if a transgender.. entered the ladies room while I was in there... big deal...
#1 if this person is living as a female... then she is no different than any other lady in there..
#2 there are no urinals in 99% of ladies room.. though I have seen some strange things ..
#3 Ladies rooms have doors on thier toilet stalls.. hence the guy sees nothing anyways...
#4 As stated before.. there are still laws against harassment...
#5 Personally... I have used a mens room when the line was too long at the ladies room.. just had someone stand at the door.. or locked it..
#6 There are unisex bathrooms all over the place! So whats new?

As of mothers not letting their children go into the bathroom by them selves anymore because of this.. Well depending on age they shouldn't be anyways. My oldest is 10 and I know he can take care of himself in the bathroom, and he takes my younger son in. But no matter what I am still standing outside the door just in case something does happen. I mean really.. There are people out there that will harm a child regardless of their gender.. So having unisex bathrooms I think would be better then them being separated. If children were used to it from a young age, it wouldn't seem wrong to them. I don't believe there would be laughing when told to go in with kids of the opposite gender. In any situation, they should all be taught not to look under the stalls, or peak between the doors. It comes from how they are raised. Parents need to teach them all right from wrong. Anyways.. That is just my feelings on it all..

OH and regardless of separate bathrooms or unisex bathrooms, there will always be people that laugh at the mentioning of penis and vagina.

[Antichrist_Online]

Unisex bathrooms with stalls and doors makes the most sense to me, execpt for the fact most guys piss over everything when peeing standing (which I can't due to a scar...).

[Chris]

The best solution is to have a small separate room with a real door for each toilet and sink. Then there is no peeking over/under stall doors. Parents can accompany children who need help without worrying about who is what gender. Each room can be cleaned by staff without inconveniencing everyone of one gender. There is just one line for the next available toilet. The waiting area is part of the larger public space, so there is less opportunity for crime.

[SumBum]

For what it's worth....

The gay bar here has 2 bathrooms. I think they're designated as male and female, but no one really pays any attention to the signs. It was a little unnerving my first time there, but no one makes a big deal of it. The doors are about the size of a saloon style door - meaning there isn't much to them. When I stand up, I'm just over eye-level with the top of the door. I've never had trouble with people standing at the door gawking at me (male or female), most people stand against the opposite wall while they wait for the stall.

I just really don't understand why people assume if you're gay, it makes you some sort of sexual predator. I know that will open a whole other can of worms...sorry. But it does bother me when a straight person finds out someone is gay and they immediately say things like "don't stand behind me!". Most gay people are not going to force themself on anyone any more than a straight person will to the opposite sex.

[mikki]

Exactly.. I was mostly referring to teaching children not to look through the cracks or under the stalls in my comment. As I stated before, there are already what they call "family" restrooms. Where anyone can go into.. And to assume that someone who likes the same sex gender is going to be looking you up and down is crazy.. Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but the majority that I know of have someone they love and want to spend the rest of their lives with..

[Stan]

Really? That didn't occur to me. But largely because I never even thought there was an argument... (People who seriously contend that sexuality is a choice don't have an argument so much as extreme myopia...)

Not to get sucked into this argument, but I seem to recall you once saying that you "chose" to be gay. Likewise, I believe it to be physically possible for me to have sex with a man or a woman. So I don't think you can reliably claim sexuality isn't a choice. And this is just on the basis of ability. I'm not contending everyone choses who attracts them, but I believe it is possible and therefore likely.

[viktor]

social experiment, the government or w/e organisation really holds piwer, is doing this as a social experiment, using the state of colorado for it.
just one of many examples today of live human experimentation without true consent.

[formerly known as hf]

Really? That didn't occur to me. But largely because I never even thought there was an argument... (People who seriously contend that sexuality is a choice don't have an argument so much as extreme myopia...)

Not to get sucked into this argument, but I seem to recall you once saying that you "chose" to be gay. Likewise, I believe it to be physically possible for me to have sex with a man or a woman. So I don't think you can reliably claim sexuality isn't a choice. And this is just on the basis of ability. I'm not contending everyone choses who attracts them, but I believe it is possible and therefore likely.

Yes. Facetiousness. Like arrogance, but more funny.

The choice / born dichotomy is nonsense, as there are always people on the other side of said fence (or, people like me, who like that fence between their legs - personally, I have never felt 'born' a certain way. I have always seen my sexuality as an amalgam of cultural and social factors, as well as certain biological factors which, for me at least, have never seemed to fit the homo/hetero spectrum.)

But those who espouse the impossibility of 'born with it' are just blind to the lives of many. I'm lucky, in that I have had the choice, and can be, and frequently am, playful with those choices. I also know I'm in the minority - by a long shot. For many, they not only do not have that choice (socially) but cannot feel comfortable to make it (biologically). To say that there are some, minority, exceptions (as I would) is one thing. To deny it is entirely another.

But that's moving on to an issue I didn't think was relevant.

As for the whole unisex bathrooms. Apart from the general lack of respect some people have for those who share those facilities (and it's by no means only men), I fail to see any issue at all.

[Stan]

I agree the whole bathroom deal is irrelevant to a large extent. More pressing matters to deal with.

And I don't espouse "born with it" is impossible at all. I believe it is likely the case.

Now, what a person does in the bedroom is their choice. I wouldn't try to dictate that either. But you, being a man that holds dearly his right to freedom of expression and right to opinion, as am I, must agree that neither I or anyone else must subscribe to your opinion.

Therefore, I am confident that you won't begrudge me when I say that just because someone is born with a penchant for one matter or another does not necessarily make such "inate" bent towards behavior right.

That being the case, I do things wrong all the time. That would make me a hypocrite in some senses of the word, but I wouldn't expect you are anyone else to hate me because of my mistakes. Likewise, hating someone because they are gay or any other reason is morally wrong sad.

I think someone who is non-Christian who hates or denegrates someone for their religious beliefs is similarly bigoted, ignorant and non-progressive as the ku klux klan.

I'm in no way lumping you, HF, in this category. I don't know what you think these days.

[formerly known as hf]

I never suggested any biological predisposition is necessarily 'right'. To argue (solely) for biological basis for ethics would be some silly form of natural moral essentialism. Such nonsense can - and has - lead to all forms of gender, racial and sexual discrimination.

However, the biological factor is an important one. To say sexuality is only ever a choice leads to a position whereby people can (and should) choose otherwise. To proclaim a biological predisposition gives weight to arguing for the acceptance of such positionings. As I have said, it is certainly not the only thing which makes it 'right'. The biological factor needs to be wieghed along with whatever else any individual bases their ethics system upon.

I do have some issue with the whole 'what happens in the bedroom' argument. As that implies it should not be public. I see no harm in allowing free expression of sexuality (although I would have some issues with public sexual engagement in certain instances) in any sphere. It may make certain people feel uncomfortable and that it is wrong, but that would be their issue.

Similarly, I feel uncomfort at public expressions of religion, as I deem such a position 'wrong'. But I wouldn't claim that such expressions only belong in the church or the home.


In regards to the hating people you deem morally wrong or denegrating individuals for their belifs, I can see there's some slippage between arguments here. But in regards to some things I've said recently. The target for my venom is always the religious belief system. Now, I'm well aware that this becomes just as as problematic as those who say 'I have no problem with gay people, I just think being gay is wrong.' In that religion is just as much a part of someone as sexuality, gender, ethinicity etc.

However, whilst I would be the first to admit my arrogance, I like to think that - despite this - I do my best never to close off dialogue. An ignorant bigot not only despises something about another, but refuses to engage and excludes.

Meh, I just went off on one about me and my flat mate, but that read too much like 'but I have black friends' in the end. Suffice to say that despite my arrogance and strong opinions on the matter, I like to think I'm not self-righteous or ignorant enough to close of dialogue and to exclude certain people because of certain beliefs. I might disagree entirely with someone's positioning - as I'm sure many disagree with mine - but to close of connection and exchange because of that - that's ignorance and bigotry. Which is almost as bad as 'tolerance' whereby those in power 'tolerate' others, but never engage in any meaningful exchanges.

In an ideal world, such exchanges (which should always be on an equal footing) would lead to moderation, foster mutual understanding and encourage respect. I do believe that with difference and diversity comes strength - and relgion is part of that. Unfortunately, however, as time has gone on, those exchanges have only deepened my feelings. Which is probably a shame, if I could see it that way. Hopefully, one day, I'll meet someone whose able to convince me otherwise an moderate my stance. Until the, I'll keep ranting, arguing, debating, huffing and puffing.

[Pie]

Amen to that, HF.

ok, here comes my two centc.

it actually don't say in the bible that homosexuality is a sin. It sais in liviticus that homosexuality is tôw’êbhâh, meaning -not- abomination, as it sais in the king james vertion, but "unclean." .... now this is a lot less condeming of a word than Abomination. It could even be said that it isn't a rule, but just a guidline. Also, jesus died for our sins, and abolished all of these rules. He replaced it, quite finely, with the golden rule. Which is the one that I follow. Also, its in leviticus. Which is the list of laws and stuff for the LEVITES. hence LEVITicus. they where the people in the holy of holy's and the like. and since we aren't those people, than I don't think these laws apply to us. Correct me if I'm wrong.

and paul also said it to. He also said that women shouldn't ever speak in church. and you know what little loophole we used to get around that? "he just used that for a special situation." I think paul used a lot of things for special situations. Either that or he set down some ground rules without asking the big man first. *shrugs*

And sodom and gomoria? they weren't even gay. There are 100's of other mentioning of little villages trying to gang rape people. and those 100's of villages didn't get the same fate as sodom and gomoria. It's becaus back then, that was just what people used as the most abhorrent form of punishment. Seriously, what could be worse?

oh, and my two centc on "is it genetic or not"

no it not. but it still isn't a choice. New psycological information points out that sexuality, and gender assotiation is predetermined by environment, personification, characterisation, and the like before age 4. I'm not saying that it's the parents fault that their children might turn out gay, I think personally think it's the reaction that the young toddler and child takes to his/her surroundings. And there are other of what I would call Mentalities about sexual orientation that determin other things, weather they are a top or a bottom, fem or a butch, and other things like that. (I define a mentality as a state of beliefe or natural desposition that one has on a topic or anything else.) I'm not ruling out the posibility of the genetic aspect of it, but that only effects under 1 percent of the global population. at least thats the info i got ahold of.

so anyway, I think that sexual orientation is just a mentality that someone has becaus of their enviroment, characterasation and personification of themselves, and how they were treated by people in early developmental years. It's still not a choice, but I disagree that It's genetic.

yay, I sound so smarty...

[Antichrist_Online]

There have been studies recently that show that homosexuality may have a biological component, but I don't believe that there is a hetro/homo split, just points on a sliding scale with those at the extremes.

Back on subject, Male/Female toilets was just a way of breaking them up based on the majority culture. If D/s culture was the majority, maybe we'd have Dominant and submissive toilets instead.