[tc4me]

It's strange seeing this and seeing how much the consensus has changed in the less than seven years between the first post and the present. Amending the constitution to make gay marriage permanently unconstitutional, to me at least, seems like a fringe idea that absolutely no one cares or talks about anymore. It's as if since the sky didn't fall after gay marriage was legalized in the USA, that it didn't actually matter to prevent it from happening in the first place.

tc4me: I think you are confused about what terms are used here. Currently in English, we use sexualities and genders separately, so "male" is not a sexuality, nor is "lesbian" a gender. The genders recognized by everyone are man and woman, and those are the bathrooms we have. Every man of every sexuality uses a men's bathroom, and every woman of every sexuality uses a women's bathroom; gay and lesbian has nothing to do with the bathroom debate. The bathroom debate is about whether people who have changed their gender should be required to use the bathroom of the gender they were born as, or whether they can use the bathroom of their current gender.

I am also confused by the terms you have used, though, what is a "protection route"?

Unfortunately, my English is too bad to deepen this topic further, when I use google translator, something completely wrong comes out as in the first post. So sorry but that makes no sense for me to continue writing here in the topic. Sexuality gay men marriage, protection path .. is translated incorrectly :-(