Federal judge temporarily blocks Tennessee's anti-drag law

a reply to: Turquosie

You mean like the one where the drag kid was performing in the gay bar for adults? No overt sexuality there at all.

The problem with it all is that it's not just dress up. Drag relies on sexuality. It's not Mrs. Doubtfire. It's heavily sexualized glamour, more like burlesque in order to be true drag and you all know it.

LGBT + BBQ needs to push its sexual expression outward into society in order to rub its differences in our faces. If it quietly goes about its business, no one really knows because it's not different except in how it expresses in the bedroom. So it can't stay in the bedroom in order to "celebrate" can it? So we get all this grotesque emphasis on sex all the time, everywhere.

a reply to: PorkChop96

It's literally in the article of the OP, if you had bothered to read it; "male or female impersonators" are now classified as a form of adult cabaret, akin to strippers and topless, go-go and exotic dancers."

Right. That's the law the judge issued a TRO for. Can you understand why? A drag show isn't a akin to a stripper, pole dancer, go-go dancer or exoctic dancer, unless that the bit they're doing. Simply performing while cross dressed isn't cabaret.

The law singles out cross dressers and violates their freedom of speech and violates the equal protection under the law clause in the 14th Amendment, as written.

I'm not familiar with a Carl's Jr. commercial sexualizing anyone.

LOL
Right. Nothing puerile about Carl's Jr commercials.

I have yet to hear of a drag show that wasn't meant to be sexual in any way.

Sexual like a Broadway musical? You know they perform those musicals in school's theater programs. Shakespear too! Mid Summer Nigh Dream!!!!

But answer this, Why are you so for having grown men in dresses and lingerie talking to the kids of your community?

If it's legal for a woman to wear it in public then it should be legal for man to wear in public. Free speech and equal protection under the law.

a reply to: ketsuko

The sad part that when it comes to children is not "entertainment" is pure sexuality and deviant behavior, California is a good example of how the boundaries between decency and decorum has been replaced by "free expression" that is nothing more than the push for all that is unacceptable in society, specially around children.

Children used to be tabu and nono, the laws are there to protect children, but pedos cannot have these laws, because that is stopping them from their main goal, to make sure all barriers are broken in order to make sexualization of children by adults the norm.

These agenda has been going on for decades, but it took a big push thanks to the obama administration, because lets face it, Obama and democrats love pedos.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well, considering where I live we do not have Carl's Jr. I don't know how I am supposed to know?

I am well aware that schools perform musicals, I was in several in high school. Absolutely nothing sexual about any of the ones we have done. But again, nice try

Yet again you are dodging the actual question here; Would you feel the same way if it was a grown women in lingerie talking and/or reading to your kids at a school? I'm not aware of anywhere that this is legal to do. Come to think of it, when was this type of clothing allowed in any schools? When I was in school, probably more recently than you judging by some of the things you have mentioned in previous posts, we were not allowed to where anything that was even slightly provocative, boys and girls alike, let alone a high school boy come to school in a dress and/or lingerie. Why would we make the exception for a grown man doing this?

a reply to: PorkChop96

Well, considering where I live we do not have Carl's Jr. I don't know how I am supposed to know?

[yvid][/yvid]
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yet again you are dodging the actual question here; Would you feel the same way if it was a grown women in lingerie talking and/or reading to your kids at a school?

I gave my answer. If it's legal for a woman to wear, then it should be legal for a man to wear.

It's real simple. The law violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. It's too broad and obviously based on a personalized "ICK Factor".

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, I'm sorry, but a drag show and a burlesque show are kissing cousins. If drag were some sort of regular lifestyle, Ru Paul wouldn't spend so much time walking around in a man's suit basically expressing/acting as a man, a gay man maybe, but still a man.

a reply to: ketsuko

Why whould this performance on America's Got Talent be okay for kids while this drag performance isn't?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What desires? Are you trying to label me a gay, bi or trans, because you can't argue that gender grooming isn't common.

No, don't try to twist this back on me. You were the one lamenting about how you were somehow indoctrinated into playing with dolls and wearing dresses. You... not me.

Of course, according to your apparent definition, "gender grooming" (i.e.: anticipating children's desires based in some part on their gender) is common. Why wouldn't it be? A parent with a boy has a 90% chance that boy will prefer "boy stuff" compared to maybe a 10% chance they won't. That's life; males and females typically fall into the categories that society expects because those expectations are based on historic roles. Most parents, I would hope, would not have a problem with children curious about other expectations. But it is rare when any curiosity becomes more than a passing fad.

As usual, you are trying to deny human nature because you somehow think you know better than nature how nature works. You don't.

If a trans person passes as a woman, even as a super ugly woman, why would you give a prepubescent child a lecture on sexuality and gender. If they aren't fooling your kiddo, then, as a normal kid, they're simply entertained by the silliness of a man dressed as a woman, or they're grossed out and you have nothing to worry about.

Because I actually give a hoot about my children.

Sure, the first time they might be "grossed out," but do it over and over and it becomes normalized. That's the problem. And as far as someone actually appearing to be the opposite gender, you're right; I don't care. I only start caring when they make a big deal out of it in front of children. That's what the problem is. These drag queens are not just acting out their fantasies; they are announcing their perversions to children specifically in order to promote it.

If you ask me, the Tennessee law doesn't go far enough. Anyone who tries to sexualize pre-pubescent children should be tossed under a prison somewhere, the key buried in 6 feet of concrete, and left to starve. They are not human; they are animals.

TheRedneck

It's amazing to see how many so-called Constitutionalists hate the the 1st Amendment when it's protecting something they disagree with.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sad to be you, living in a cesspool of obscenity!

No, I'm fine. What would be sad would be someone trying to harm a grandchild of mine. Probably wouldn't find enough to bury after I was through.

To be honest, I am amazed at how so many people seem to be able to get away with this sexualizing children nonsense. I guess the cities are running out of places to hide the bodies. I'm thankful I don't live near a city; I don't have that problem.

The above, by the way, before you get the wrong idea, is not a threat. It's a warning. It shouldn't be necessary, but that's "progress" I guess. It seems to now be necessary.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Do you think children should be allowed into strip clubs?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Is it? Who says? You? Or are you trying to draw a false equivalence or make assumptions? I'd say you're making assumptions because you think I am only making an excuse and using sex as a shield. You probably think I watch hetero porn with my kid and it's only "teh gay" I can't condone.

Nope. It's the overt sex before they are ready to go there. And I don't care who is pushing it. Too steamy is too steamy. There are some subjects you can't really understand all the way until your body matures into them, and it's wrong for adults to try to force you to.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The leading cause for child death is gun violence. I don't see you advocating for any laws that could possibly reduce that.

a reply to: ketsuko

Is it? Who says? You?

Says the law that the judge slapped a TRO on.

It's the overt sex before they are ready to go there.

There was nothing overtly sexual in the drag performance that I posted. On the other hand, the America's Got Talent, prime time TV show on NBC, is.

There are some subjects you can't really understand all the way until your body matures into them, and it's wrong for adults to try to force you to.

And yet, sexually explicit content is all around in the public square. This law doesn't target any of that, just the cross dresser.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, don't try to twist this back on me. You were the one lamenting about how you were somehow indoctrinated into playing with dolls and wearing dresses. You... not me.

I wasn't "lamenting". I was stating what I know of gender affirmation and grooming in public schools from experience. I'm glad we're pulling away from girls wear pink play with Barbies, and boys wear blue and play with Tonka Trucks.

Sure, the first time they might be "grossed out," but do it over and over and it becomes normalized. That's the problem. And as far as someone actually appearing to be the opposite gender, you're right; I don't care. I only start caring when they make a big deal out of it in front of children. That's what the problem is. These drag queens are not just acting out their fantasies; they are announcing their perversions to children specifically in order to promote it.

Gay and trans isn't contagious. It's no different than a kid knowing that Uncle Joe is married to Uncle Mark.

the Tennessee law doesn't go far enough. Anyone who tries to sexualize pre-pubescent children should be tossed under a prison somewher

What does that mean, "sexualize children"? Performing a sexy routine in front of them, like that America's Got Talent bit that I posted? Actually, molesting them? Does teaching a kid to shake their booty and do duck-lips count?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

This no about any first amendment, this about bringing obscenity into children to get the agenda of sexualization on track.

If you cannot see the elephant the room in drag clothing with a hanging penis you are just delusional my friend.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So because this judge in TN says so, I have to let my kid see drag queens?

I don't think so. I guess that because the SCOTUS said so, blacks weren't human and slavery was OK too.

a reply to: ketsuko

If you don't want your kid to see a drag show, why are you bringing them to a drag show?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The leading cause for child death is gun violence. I don't see you advocating for any laws that could possibly reduce that.

Then you're not looking very hard. I have been pretty consistent: we need programs to educate children on the safe and proper use of firearms. The lack of education is the problem.

I noticed that, like Sookiechacha, you completely ignore my direct question to you: do you support allowing children to frequent strip clubs?

That's a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The answer is no. That's why strip clubs are 18+.

Do you support allowing children to have access to the weapon that has taken more lives than any other in history?