The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

JimZipCode · Post by **JimZipCode** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:27 am

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:06 amAnd if you think there aren't medical doctors and psychs arguing for...

Now see, that's a bait and switch argument. There aren't any? Not one anywhere in the world? I won't foolishly stumble into the trap of claiming that. At any time there's some crazy MD or former-MD somewhere who believes some fucked up shit. Blowing compressed CO2 up your anus will lead to increased energy. Eating a diet of Romaine lettuce will lead to increased lean body mass. Hanging from gravity boots will decrease tumors. Something.

I don't necessarily think there aren't ANY. But that's not relevant to discussing what standard medical practice is.

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:12 amYou will have legions of MDs and Psychs and researchers pushing studies that indicate children can consent to sex and that the relationships are healthy.

That would represent quite a change from the current medical consensus, which is that these surivors suffer later in life. PTSD, depression, falling grades, high crime rates, failed marriages, heart disease, yadda yadda yadda. The community of teachers, pediatricians, social workers, school administrators, nurses, PTA presidents, etc etc are all in agreement on sexual exploitation of children*. That's not something that's going to change anytime soon.

(*"And if you think there aren't any teachers" – No, I'm not going to claim there aren't any teachers, I see the news. But those fuckers get rooted out and prosecuted. Not quickly enough, but surely.)

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:12 amMoreover, you will have pedos arguing that this is how they were born and they only mean the children well.

I mean, they've always been arguing that, right? Wikipedia sez NAMBLA was founded in '78.

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:06 amWhy wait until Facebook pressures you into sacrificing your kids?

WTF are you talking about? How is Facebook going to convince us of anything remotely like that?

I'm beginning to suspect that you're not a parent. Are you?

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:12 amWhat is you people's response?
What intellectual arguments will you deploy?

Tough to expect rational counter-arguments to a hypothetical position that seems so shrill and unlikely. I don't think any of us accepts your premises. Actually I'm not sure I understand them.

Playing along, I guess my own argument would go something along the lines of, "That's counter to every longitudinal study of survivors of child sexual abuse that exists, and if you try to touch my son I'll fucking kill you." Perhaps not completely intellectual, but it will be persuasive.

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:22 amYou can't draw the line at children. You just can't.

Maybe you can't. The majority of society seems quite able to.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:38 pm

What I am saying is: the very arguments you people accepted as to homosexuality and trannys is the very same argument you will face with pedophilia.

Hey, maybe the opposite is going on. Maybe people realize that 30 year old men hooking up with 14 year olds at the mall is weird and wrong. Or that Mormon polygamists shouldn't add prepubescent girls to their stable. Hollywood pervs shouldn't use children shows as a kiddie pipeline. Etc.

When you poke a hole in the wall and termites pour out, it doesn't mean they were just magically created. They've been there. Now we can see them.

We live in an age where you are expected to ask for consent first, and children can't give it. Consenting adults = yes. Children by the very definition of not being of the age of consent = no.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:14 pm

perhaps there is hope for bennie:

Italian doctor says world's first human head transplant 'imminent'

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:11 pm

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:12 am
dead man walking wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:27 pm let me try.

by accepting homosexuality as normal, transexuality as normal, we have moved along the spectrum of acceptable sexual practices to the point where there is no stopping the acceptance of pedophilia as normal. we're slipping down the slippery slope.

he notes that adolescent transexual operations are troublesome. how does a child of, say, 12 decide he is a she and can go through the physical transformation that includes significant medical procedures. obviously parental consent is required. i believe bennie is suggesting that if parents can consent to a dickectomy for a child, what's to prevent parents from consenting to a chlld of that age having sexual relations with an adult? basically, if you can cut a dick off a child of 12, you can put a dick in a child of 12.

of course, i'm interpreting bennie and could have it all wrong.
Almost. What I am saying is: the very arguments you people accepted as to homosexuality and trannys is the very same argument you will face with pedophilia. You will have legions of MDs and Psychs and researchers pushing studies that indicate children can consent to sex and that the relationships are healthy.

Moreover, you will have pedos arguing that this is how they were born and they only mean the children well.

What is you people's response?

What intellectual arguments will you deploy?

What you describe is inevitable.
I offer as proof that it's happening now in 1st world countries.
NYTimes Nov 14, 2017

PARIS — Is a 13-year-old old enough to agree to sex with an adult? That's a question France is asking as the government prepares to set a legal age for sexual consent for the first time.

Twice in recent weeks, French courts have refused to prosecute men for rape after they had sex with 11-year-old girls because authorities couldn't prove coercion. Amid the public disbelief over the situation, the French government is drafting a bill to say that sex with children under a certain age is by definition coercive.

Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet provoked consternation among feminist groups Monday by saying a legal minimum age of 13 for sexual consent "is worth considering."

Instead of mocking B16, let's hear some arguments as to how such things can't become acceptable here and what moral underpinnings will prevent us from following our European betters into a pre-pubescent fuck party.
Aside from the much maligned and increasingly marginalized evangelicals, I don't see much that will stop the slide.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:44 pm

age of consent has almost consistently gone up in states over the years.

i don't see a reversal as inevitable or likely.

i don't see the french as being leaders in anything except fried potatoes

p.s. and the evangelicals have abandoned any moral authority they once might have had in sexual matters

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:47 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:51 am
bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:27 am They aren't reversible. The kids are left with non functioning pre pubscent dicks. They have to freeze their sperm beforehand.

What do you think happens to the penis during such a "puberty"? Nothing.

What do you think happens post puberty when they "reverse" it? Nothing.

It is a pre pubescent penis forever. Non functioning too.
This is false. You can keep making shit up, but this is too tiresome to continue rebutting.

Does anybody know the long term effects of loading kids up with what I assume are heavy doses of hormones?

Say a boy at an early age on the hormone modification timeline (let's say 11 y.o.) "decides" with the assent of a parent and a medical professional to transition to a girl. That kid will go through some kind of unnatural faux physical puberty during a time of life that's difficult for the best of kids.

Let's say that a time comes when our young gender bender realizes that his parents and docs may have been too quick on the medical draw and would like to be a male (gay or straight) as nature intended. What happens to this poor kid?

He was a boy then she was a teenage girl and now he's a young adult male. There can't be sufficient studies as to the physical and psychological effects of what we're doing to these kids.

Feels like Island of Doctor Moreau stuff to me.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:22 pm

Aside from the much maligned and increasingly marginalized evangelicals, I don't see much that will stop the slide.

Eh? I've seen the evangelicals and religions in general as leaders in legitimizing going after young girls. All on the up-and-up. What Roy Moore was doing was not out of line with that thinking, asking parents for permission, betrothals, and all that.

This whole article...
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html

So now let’s talk ages. When Matthew first expressed his interest in Maranatha—interest Stan affirmed as from God but asked Matthew to put on hold—Maranatha was 13 and Matthew was 26. When Matthew heard from God that he was to marry Maranatha, and begged Stan to let him propose marriage to her, Maranatha was 14 and Matthew was 27. When Stan gave Matthew the go ahead to propose to his daughter, Maranatha was 15 and Matthew was 27. They were the same ages when they married just over a month later, and when Maranatha left her father’s home and the couple began their married life together Maranatha was 15 and Matthew was 28.
The original story doesn’t include any ages at all. I suspect that Lindvall and others felt these ages were appropriate, but were concerned that some might be put off by the idea of a 15-year-old girl marrying a 27-year-old man. I found the ages by looking them up on public record. They’re not available on the internet or in print otherwise.

It appears that Texas changed the marriage age with parental consent from 14 to 16 in 2005 in response to the activities of the FLDS sect moving into Texas and practicing both child marriage and polygamy, and that this explains why Maranatha was able to marry at age 15 while her daughter Lauren had to wait until she turned 16 to wed.

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... rXbjafv.99

To bring it home for me, my grandmother, from eastern Tennessee, was married and had her first kid at 15.

JimZipCode · Post by **JimZipCode** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:39 pm

DrDonkeyLove wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:11 pmI offer as proof that it's happening now in 1st world countries.
NYTimes Nov 14, 2017
PARIS — Is a 13-year-old old enough to agree to sex with an adult? That's a question France is asking as the government prepares to set a legal age for sexual consent for the first time.

What you offer as proof is actually evidence in the opposite direction. An age of consent of 13 is awful; but for France, that represents a move UP. From zero.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:26 pm

JimZipCode wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:39 pm
DrDonkeyLove wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:11 pmI offer as proof that it's happening now in 1st world countries.
NYTimes Nov 14, 2017
PARIS — Is a 13-year-old old enough to agree to sex with an adult? That's a question France is asking as the government prepares to set a legal age for sexual consent for the first time.
What you offer as proof is actually evidence in the opposite direction. An age of consent of 13 is awful; but for France, that represents a move UP. From zero.

My larger point was that in 2017 a 1st world country did not convict two separate men of the rape of 11 year olds because the state couldn't prove coercion.

I happen to be on the outer orbit of a situation of a <10.y.o. abuse victim whose abuser, so far, seems to be going uncharged. Thinking of a poor 11 y.o. having to prove coercion makes me ill.

13 is moving in the right direction but having people in positions of power supporting that low age kind of solidifies B16's original point.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:31 am

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:51 am
bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:27 am They aren't reversible. The kids are left with non functioning pre pubscent dicks. They have to freeze their sperm beforehand.

What do you think happens to the penis during such a "puberty"? Nothing.

What do you think happens post puberty when they "reverse" it? Nothing.

It is a pre pubescent penis forever. Non functioning too.
This is false. You can keep making shit up, but this is too tiresome to continue rebutting.

This is not a rebuttal. You can keep saying it is, but this is too tiresome to continue pointing out.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:43 am

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:51 am
bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:27 am They aren't reversible. The kids are left with non functioning pre pubscent dicks. They have to freeze their sperm beforehand.

What do you think happens to the penis during such a "puberty"? Nothing.

What do you think happens post puberty when they "reverse" it? Nothing.

It is a pre pubescent penis forever. Non functioning too.
This is false. You can keep making shit up, but this is too tiresome to continue rebutting.

Ok Dr Mengele, take me through two scenarios.

1) 14 yr old male begins hormone blockers and remains on them through adolescence. What is the state of his genitalia at the end (with respect to appearance, size and functionality)? What is his fertility status? How is this status reversed? Please define what you mean by reversed. What has been the effect of the hormone blockers (absence of sex hormones) on his psyche? How is this reversed? Please define what you mean by reversed.

2) 14 yr old female begins treatment to chemically mimic male puberty and remains on them through adolescence. What is her fertility status? What is the functionality of her sexual organs (with respect to appearance, size and functionality)? How is this status reversed? Please define what you mean by reversed. What had been the psychological effect (if any) of the ptotocol? How is this reversed? Please define what you mean by reversed.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:45 am

JimZipCode wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:27 am
bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:06 amAnd if you think there aren't medical doctors and psychs arguing for...
Now see, that's a bait and switch argument. There aren't any? Not one anywhere in the world? I won't foolishly stumble into the trap of claiming that. At any time there's some crazy MD or former-MD somewhere who believes some fucked up shit. Blowing compressed CO2 up your anus will lead to increased energy. Eating a diet of Romaine lettuce will lead to increased lean body mass. Hanging from gravity boots will decrease tumors. Something.

I don't necessarily think there aren't ANY. But that's not relevant to discussing what standard medical practice is.

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:12 amYou will have legions of MDs and Psychs and researchers pushing studies that indicate children can consent to sex and that the relationships are healthy.
That would represent quite a change from the current medical consensus, which is that these surivors suffer later in life. PTSD, depression, falling grades, high crime rates, failed marriages, heart disease, yadda yadda yadda. The community of teachers, pediatricians, social workers, school administrators, nurses, PTA presidents, etc etc are all in agreement on sexual exploitation of children*. That's not something that's going to change anytime soon.

(*"And if you think there aren't any teachers" – No, I'm not going to claim there aren't any teachers, I see the news. But those fuckers get rooted out and prosecuted. Not quickly enough, but surely.)

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:12 amMoreover, you will have pedos arguing that this is how they were born and they only mean the children well.
I mean, they've always been arguing that, right? Wikipedia sez NAMBLA was founded in '78.

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:06 amWhy wait until Facebook pressures you into sacrificing your kids?
WTF are you talking about? How is Facebook going to convince us of anything remotely like that?

I'm beginning to suspect that you're not a parent. Are you?

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:12 amWhat is you people's response?
What intellectual arguments will you deploy?
Tough to expect rational counter-arguments to a hypothetical position that seems so shrill and unlikely. I don't think any of us accepts your premises. Actually I'm not sure I understand them.

Playing along, I guess my own argument would go something along the lines of, "That's counter to every longitudinal study of survivors of child sexual abuse that exists, and if you try to touch my son I'll fucking kill you." Perhaps not completely intellectual, but it will be persuasive.

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:22 amYou can't draw the line at children. You just can't.
Maybe you can't. The majority of society seems quite able to.

https://4thwavenow.com/2017/10/13/bridg ... treatment/

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:50 am

JimZipCode wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 7:27 am
bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:06 amAnd if you think there aren't medical doctors and psychs arguing for...
Now see, that's a bait and switch argument. There aren't any? Not one anywhere in the world? I won't foolishly stumble into the trap of claiming that. At any time there's some crazy MD or former-MD somewhere who believes some fucked up shit. Blowing compressed CO2 up your anus will lead to increased energy. Eating a diet of Romaine lettuce will lead to increased lean body mass. Hanging from gravity boots will decrease tumors. Something.

I don't necessarily think there aren't ANY. But that's not relevant to discussing what standard medical practice is.

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:12 amYou will have legions of MDs and Psychs and researchers pushing studies that indicate children can consent to sex and that the relationships are healthy.
That would represent quite a change from the current medical consensus, which is that these surivors suffer later in life. PTSD, depression, falling grades, high crime rates, failed marriages, heart disease, yadda yadda yadda. The community of teachers, pediatricians, social workers, school administrators, nurses, PTA presidents, etc etc are all in agreement on sexual exploitation of children*. That's not something that's going to change anytime soon.

(*"And if you think there aren't any teachers" – No, I'm not going to claim there aren't any teachers, I see the news. But those fuckers get rooted out and prosecuted. Not quickly enough, but surely.)

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:12 amMoreover, you will have pedos arguing that this is how they were born and they only mean the children well.
I mean, they've always been arguing that, right? Wikipedia sez NAMBLA was founded in '78.

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:06 amWhy wait until Facebook pressures you into sacrificing your kids?
WTF are you talking about? How is Facebook going to convince us of anything remotely like that?

I'm beginning to suspect that you're not a parent. Are you?

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 2:12 amWhat is you people's response?
What intellectual arguments will you deploy?
Tough to expect rational counter-arguments to a hypothetical position that seems so shrill and unlikely. I don't think any of us accepts your premises. Actually I'm not sure I understand them.

Playing along, I guess my own argument would go something along the lines of, "That's counter to every longitudinal study of survivors of child sexual abuse that exists, and if you try to touch my son I'll fucking kill you." Perhaps not completely intellectual, but it will be persuasive.

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:22 amYou can't draw the line at children. You just can't.
Maybe you can't. The majority of society seems quite able to.

This is the same argument made in favor of every single expansion of sexual mores. "Calm down bigot there is nothing to worry about all your fears are crazy and Palm Springs will never have an all lesbian and tranny city council".

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:51 am

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:38 pm
What I am saying is: the very arguments you people accepted as to homosexuality and trannys is the very same argument you will face with pedophilia.
Hey, maybe the opposite is going on. Maybe people realize that 30 year old men hooking up with 14 year olds at the mall is weird and wrong. Or that Mormon polygamists shouldn't add prepubescent girls to their stable. Hollywood pervs shouldn't use children shows as a kiddie pipeline. Etc.

When you poke a hole in the wall and termites pour out, it doesn't mean they were just magically created. They've been there. Now we can see them.

We live in an age where you are expected to ask for consent first, and children can't give it. Consenting adults = yes. Children by the very definition of not being of the age of consent = no.

Did you just argue our culture has been on a path of greater sexual restraint and a return to traditional concepts?

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:54 am

JimZipCode wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:39 pm
DrDonkeyLove wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:11 pmI offer as proof that it's happening now in 1st world countries.
NYTimes Nov 14, 2017
PARIS — Is a 13-year-old old enough to agree to sex with an adult? That's a question France is asking as the government prepares to set a legal age for sexual consent for the first time.
What you offer as proof is actually evidence in the opposite direction. An age of consent of 13 is awful; but for France, that represents a move UP. From zero.

France did this because the fucking arab muslims are rapist bastards and love white kids. The cause was an incredible increase in sexual relationships between adults and children.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:15 am

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:51 am
nafod wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 1:38 pm
What I am saying is: the very arguments you people accepted as to homosexuality and trannys is the very same argument you will face with pedophilia.
Hey, maybe the opposite is going on. Maybe people realize that 30 year old men hooking up with 14 year olds at the mall is weird and wrong. Or that Mormon polygamists shouldn't add prepubescent girls to their stable. Hollywood pervs shouldn't use children shows as a kiddie pipeline. Etc.

When you poke a hole in the wall and termites pour out, it doesn't mean they were just magically created. They've been there. Now we can see them.

We live in an age where you are expected to ask for consent first, and children can't give it. Consenting adults = yes. Children by the very definition of not being of the age of consent = no.
Did you just argue our culture has been on a path of greater sexual restraint and a return to traditional concepts?

No

I am arguing that we are going to a world where consenting adults can consent on what they want, and we keep our hands off nonconsenting ones like kids.

But I'm not going to pretend all is great. We sexualize little kids (girls) all over the place.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:23 am

How do you oppose MDs and Psychs and lawyers who think kids can consent?

I know you think I am crazy and a bigot but humor me here, what argument do you deploy in such a situation?

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:27 am

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 12:43 am
Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:51 am
bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:27 am They aren't reversible. The kids are left with non functioning pre pubscent dicks. They have to freeze their sperm beforehand.

What do you think happens to the penis during such a "puberty"? Nothing.

What do you think happens post puberty when they "reverse" it? Nothing.

It is a pre pubescent penis forever. Non functioning too.
This is false. You can keep making shit up, but this is too tiresome to continue rebutting.
Ok Dr Mengele, take me through two scenarios.

1) 14 yr old male begins hormone blockers and remains on them through adolescence. What is the state of his genitalia at the end (with respect to appearance, size and functionality)? What is his fertility status? How is this status reversed? Please define what you mean by reversed. What has been the effect of the hormone blockers (absence of sex hormones) on his psyche? How is this reversed? Please define what you mean by reversed.

2) 14 yr old female begins treatment to chemically mimic male puberty and remains on them through adolescence. What is her fertility status? What is the functionality of her sexual organs (with respect to appearance, size and functionality)? How is this status reversed? Please define what you mean by reversed. What had been the psychological effect (if any) of the ptotocol? How is this reversed? Please define what you mean by reversed.

No, you go first.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:27 am

Just as I thought.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:37 pm

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:23 am How do you oppose MDs and Psychs and lawyers who think kids can consent?

I know you think I am crazy and a bigot but humor me here, what argument do you deploy in such a situation?

I tell them no fucking way. It really is that simple. The same thing I tell the religious fundies (evangelicals or Islamists) and any parents when they want to betroth their 14 year old daughter.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:34 pm

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:23 am How do you oppose MDs and Psychs and lawyers who think kids can consent?

Point out the law.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:49 am

nafod wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 1:37 pm
bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:23 am How do you oppose MDs and Psychs and lawyers who think kids can consent?

I know you think I am crazy and a bigot but humor me here, what argument do you deploy in such a situation?

I tell them no fucking way. It really is that simple. The same thing I tell the religious fundies (evangelicals or Islamists) and any parents when they want to betroth their 14 year old daughter.

Why? They have science, bigot. Are you an anti-science hater?

Actually no, you are just a not very bright man with an almost non existent sexual disgust threshold and an unwillingness to actually research homosexuality and transgenderism.

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:49 am

Turdacious wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:34 pm
bennyonesix wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:23 am How do you oppose MDs and Psychs and lawyers who think kids can consent?
Point out the law.

How did that work with Justice Kennedy and Obergefell?

bennyonesix · Post by **bennyonesix** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:51 am

Hey you guys know the whole concept of sexual gender came from an actual psychopathic MD, right?

http://www.jhunewsletter.com/2014/05/01 ... ent-76004/

Notice the role of kids.

JimZipCode · Post by **JimZipCode** » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:02 am

bennyonesix wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 4:49 amHow did that work with Justice Kennedy and Obergefell?

Well, Obergefell follows pretty directly on Loving v Va, so it's hard to argue it's a bad decision. The opinion text is one thing, but the decision itself is another.

IGX

The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill

Re: The VA lawmaker who wrote the trans bathroom bill