SB 2016-007: LGBTQ+ Rights Act (Passed Senate)

[This account no longer in use.]

As for the people opposing this bill, I have a question. What makes it okay to discriminate against LGBT+ individuals?

[This account no longer in use.]

A good point. If anything, it would be better to simply have a third gender marker instead of eliminating them completely.

[This account no longer in use.]

Pingvin, the 'slippery slope' argument is more tired and overused than the 'current year' argument.

[This account no longer in use.]

Besides, what does Pingvin mean by 'allow mentally ill to identify as non-humans'? Last time I checked, that's not currently prohibited, so why is he using that in the classic 'MUH SLIPPERY SLOPE' rant?

[This account no longer in use.]

1. Oh boy, two examples, one from a foreign country far to the left of ours, and one regarding a single person. That sure is convincing. As for the left, I didn't know we were trying to legalize 'vile and disgusting degeneracy', unless that's what you believe LGBT+ individuals do. And I wouldn't be surprised if you do believe that, given that you've probably never met an LGBT+ person in your life.

2. And why shouldn't we allow non-binary genders on official documents? It's literally just typing "Other" instead of "Male" or "Female". I don't see how that will create any precedent, given that it will be a complete catch-all for all gender identities other than male or female. There would be no need for any new gender markers. But please, feel free to go ahead and keep demonstrating the slippery slope fallacy to us.

[This account no longer in use.]

Aye (sane)