You wrote “she had a point when she pointed out that there’s a reason we have a bathroom for boys and girls”. Go to Europe, sometime, friend, and you will likely be very, very surprised about the restroom arrangement in many metropolitan cities. Unisex bathrooms? Sure? Female attendant within the mens’s restroom? Sure. Is it a problem?

Not hardly.

And point-of-fact, if the military is enforcing its’ standards of conduct, you could shower with anyone and it shouldn’t matter.

When will groups like FRC decide that this issue is a loser for them and, for the sake of their credibility on other issues, cut their losses an move on?”

Answer: When it stops being a money-maker for them. As long as there are dolts who buy into their fear and misinformation campaigns and send them money, they’ll keep doing it.

This is a very common misperception about our opponents. Don’t think they only do this because it makes money for them. They do this because they are true and passionate believers.

They would be doing this even if it didn’t earn them a red cent. They just wouldn’t be putting it so prominently on their fundraising appeals. They’d use something else. But don’t every get the idea that if the money stops rolling in on their campaigns against us, that they’ll move on to something else. They haven’t on any other issues that doesn’t make money for them. They won’t on LGBT equality either.

Answer: When it stops being a money-maker for them. As long as there are dolts who buy into their fear and misinformation campaigns and send them money, they’ll keep doing it.

Plus, I can’t deny she had a point when she pointed out that there’s a reason we have a bathroom for boys and girls in the 1st grade. It’s an issue we’ll have to address which may result in continuing as always (boy and girl bathrooms and gay people going to their respective gender as always), mixing bathrooms (in an extreme case, just having “any sex” bathrooms with the option of private bathrooms for one person for those that would feel uncomfortable), or having seperate bathrooms based on sex and sexuality. But I see much protest in the latter for those decisions. Either way, someday, I think this may change the way we view dealing with others’ naked bodies (or bodies and presence in general).

Primarily because she offered no support for her outrageous and nebulous claim of ‘passive-aggressive behavior’. The Family Reserach Council, characteristically unconcerned with families, research, and evidence, breathlessly repeats these claims as though they were facts and blasts the Congressmen for questioning them.

2. “used the silly line, “When did you decide to be heterosexual?” ”

For a silly line, it has been notoriously hard to answer for the crazies.

I think that is to misunderstand the motivation. It’s all a protest against the reality of things now, a world in which they once used to embody understanding and owned it all mentally if not physically. Now it’s a world to them that is a shell full of things that are alien, that they fear, that have displaced them from certainty and control.

So it’s mostly a matter of desire to them. Reality is not their care, nor responsibility, nor a thing they ever had a terribly solid relationship with. Losing grasp of it doesn’t bother them that much. Holding the right (and invariably highly selfserving) opinion about things is, I’ve come to think, their true psychological core and the value they esteem. It’s the crutch on which they prop themselves. Holding the right opinion means entitlement to Salvation, after all.

If you’re a social conservative, roundly invested in moving public opinion on a number of causes, you can’t blow away your credibility on one issue and expect the public to listen to you on another. When will groups like FRC decide that this issue is a loser for them and, for the sake of their credibility on other issues, cut their losses an move on?

she seems too bitter about gay people, it really does seem personal to her.

Does she have the curse of the pink wand?