you're reading...

The line of legitimacy between heterosexuality and homosexuality must be clearly defined by law

An interesting article that I first read on http://zionvsyavan.posterous.com/. The below article will show you how ridiculous things are in the United States. Basically, one person’s preference to exhibit himself freely has overwritten everyone’s rights, including 6 year old girls who have to contend with the sight of a male’s sexual organ –  even if it is a male who believes he is actually female. Notwithstanding what Collen Francis believes in about his own gender, he does not have the right to subject anyone, especially young children, to psychological abuse. Does the law protect these 6 year old girls in America? Astonishingly no. Because their law has been compromised with a “non-discrimination policy of the state”.

Please convince me that this is clear-mindedness exhibited by the policy makers of the state. What do you mean by “discrimination”? If I disagree with you, is that discrimination? Do I have no right to disagree? Would being gay mean that I can walk naked and expose my obscenity anywhere, anytime I want it? Would being gay grant me immunity when I abuse children’s rights?Increasingly, more and more ambiguous phrases that do not make sense are being used to mislead. For example, I have heard one statement that goes, “.. evolving to appeal to the sensibilities of the 21st century generation”. Such statements are ambiguous, very subjective and can be interpreted one way or another. There is no clear defining line. It can be used for any self-serving agenda. We must be objective when it comes to defining policies and laws.

And if we are objective, we would see clearly that homosexuality cannot lay claim to the biological origin and biological purpose that heterosexuality can. Therefore, the law must distinguish this legitimacy that heterosexuality has over homosexuality. If you become blurred in these lines of law, and you make the two equal, questionable disputes like this will always occur.

While rights of homosexuals remain debatable and questionable, the rights of children, families and the marriage institution, have been long established – these are the most fundamental fabrics of our nation – and it is the obligation of our law to protect them.

Article: College officials cite ‘non-discrimination’ law to admit biological males into women’s locker rooms on campus

By Oliver Darcy, on Nov 02, 2012

Administrators at a public college are claiming that state law allows them to permit biological males who self-identify as females into women’s locker rooms and restrooms on campus.

Officials at Evergreen State College in Washington State stood by the claim in an interview with Campus Reform on Friday despite multiple complaints from females who apparently complained about the presence of men in women’s facilities.

A public school’s ‘non-discrimination policy’ allows Colleen Francis, a biological male who identifies as a woman, to use the women’s locker room and restrooms.

“We have to follow a non-discrimination policy with the state,” college spokesperson Jason Wettstein told Campus Reform on Friday.

“State law doesn’t allow us to ignore gender identity as one of the protected classes,” he added.

“Therefore the transgendered individual has the right to use our facilities, including the locker rooms.”

The college rents their swimming pool and associated facilities out to two high school swim teams and has received complaints from multiple parents who are concerned that an adult man is permitted to enter the woman’s locker room.

In late September a parent called the police after her daughter walked into the locker room and observed a naked man using the sauna.

According to the police report obtained by Campus Reform, the transgendered man in question, 45-year-old student Colleen Francis, was “sitting with her legs open with her male genitalia showing” with girls as young as six years old present.

Police were, however, advised by the local prosecutor’s office that “criminal law is very vague in this area and it would be unlikely they could pursue charges.”

A spokesperson for the local district attorney’s office was not immediately available for comment to Campus Reform.

Francis, however, does not think he has done anything wrong by using the woman’s facilities.

“This is not 1959 Alabama,” he told local television news station KIRO-7. “We don’t call the police for drinking from the wrong water fountain.”

A group of concerned parents disagree. They are now being legally represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and hope to change the college’s policy.

Little girls should not be exposed to naked men, period,” said Senior Legal Counsel David Hacker for ADF.

He added that “a college’s notions about ‘non-discrimination’ don’t change that. The idea that the college and the local district attorney will not act to protect young girls is appalling.”


2 thoughts on “The line of legitimacy between heterosexuality and homosexuality must be clearly defined by law

  1. Dear Sirs

    In recent years there has been a decline in our family values. Please help those of us who value our families to keep it

    Thank you

    Posted by hoonchai | January 17, 2013, 1:02 am
  2. We have before us those developed
    counties and see for ourselves
    issues with regard LGBT and learn from history .
    We hope our policies makers dare to
    do what is upright with foresight steer
    and govern ‘the Little Red Dot ‘ steadily.
    This is a place we call HOME.

    I believe majority of Singaporeans are still holding traditional values with regard LGBT. They are either unaware ot the long term implications or unable to articulate well have their views through social media.

    Please dont open the flood gate!


    Posted by SL Wang | January 20, 2013, 11:54 am
%d bloggers like this: