(03-02-2023 02:00 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:46 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:27 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:14 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 12:58 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  So then you think someone appropriately dressed has the right to volunteer to read at the library, or be a teacher, or sing at a brunch even if they are in a dress and are biologically male?

I think we have readically different definitions of "appropriately dressed".

Its a tiny minority of cross dressers that dress in a way meant to NOT draw attention to the fact that they are cross dressing. 9 times out of 10 the cross dresser, even if well covered, is purposely dressing in a way to draw attention to the fact that they are a cross dresser or in drag.

No, a person who purposely seeks to expose young children to the fact that they are cross dressers and drag queens is inappropriate in front of small children. That is about the most polite way that can be put. The obvious reality is that is groomer behavior.

If a drag queen simply wanted to read to children and leave sexuality out of it, they would not feel compelled to dress in drag in front of them. They would have no problem leaving their cross dressing and drag stuff for more appropriate settings. But thats not what most of them want. The main goal is to expose small children to the fact that they are drag queens and cross dressers.

They have the same rights while wearing a dress as you do while wearing a 4XL bass pro t-shirt.

You get mad when I call you a bigot, but you continue to display your bigotry against LGBTQ people by defining actions that would be appropriate for you to do as inappropriate for them.

The constitution protects all Americans equally, no matter what they are wearing.

The Constitution acknowledges that certain rights are inalienable, that is, they are intrinsic rights which governments don't have the power to grant nor deny. The purpose of government is to protect those rights.

This is NOT the same as saying people can do whatever they want. There is a standard of morality to which people must adhere, and the Founders clearly stated that standard is religious morality.


Surely you don't believe that the actions of a thief must be protected and that he be treated the same as a non-thief.

The very act of stealing, which makes a person a thief, demands justice meaning the thief is treated differently than the non-thief.

To compare this to your thief example Eric is saying it's OK if a man with a suit on steals, but it isn't OK if a man in a dress steals. He judges their actions based on how they are dressed.

In reality theft (the action) is illegal, it doesn't matter how you are dressed. All I've said this entire thread is that this law is over-broad and will be used to discriminate against cross dressers. Just like the action stealing is illegal, regulate the specific action that is harmful to children, not if their clothing matches their biological gender. Twerking in a thong should be illegal in front of children, make it illegal no matter what is under the thong.

What the federal government provides is equal protection, which isn't provided when it's legal for you a man to read to children but not legal for you to do the same thing if you a man are wearing a modest dress. That discriminates against a subgroup of people who are by and large LGBTQ.

Why is the action of theft illegal? There is a reason. If we don't fully understand that reason then it's reasonable to expect that we can't understand why other actions are right or wrong.

And let us understand that a government defining an action as illegal is acknowledging that certain behavior is immoral.

And how can something be immoral if moral doesn't exist?

As athiest, pre-Christian C.S. Lewis realized:

Quote:My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?

(03-02-2023 01:49 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Does your viewpoint run the same to a woman with an enormous chest reading to that group of kids? Or a woman with the same enormous chest when she is not wearing a pure baggy blouse?

Oh good grief man, you are not this stupid.

Naturally large breasts are not the same thing as cross dressing or being in drag. And YES, a woman with large or small breast can dress inappropriately in front of children and be subject to consequences for it.

I can't take anyone serious who says a bearded man in a dress in front of small children is NOT an attempt to sexualize and draw attention to his sexuality in the setting. That is stupid and dishonest and you KNOW it is no matter how hard you argue and pretend otherwise.

I'm not answering any more of your questions so don't waste your time asking.

Just because a guy in a dress turns your crank doesn't mean it is by definition a sexual act. The fact that you can't see it as anything but sexual is more about you than them.

(03-02-2023 02:00 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  To compare this to your thief example Eric is saying it's OK if a man with a suit on steals, but it isn't OK if a man in a dress steals. He judges their actions based on how they are dressed.

This is why I call you a pathological liar.

I said no such thing anywhere nor do I remotely believe in such a thing. Everyone here knows that including you.

But your so filled with hatred and bigotry for me that you posted it even knowing it was a lie and knowing everyone would know it was a lie.

That's pathetic.

(03-02-2023 02:05 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:00 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:46 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:27 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:14 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I think we have readically different definitions of "appropriately dressed".

Its a tiny minority of cross dressers that dress in a way meant to NOT draw attention to the fact that they are cross dressing. 9 times out of 10 the cross dresser, even if well covered, is purposely dressing in a way to draw attention to the fact that they are a cross dresser or in drag.

No, a person who purposely seeks to expose young children to the fact that they are cross dressers and drag queens is inappropriate in front of small children. That is about the most polite way that can be put. The obvious reality is that is groomer behavior.

If a drag queen simply wanted to read to children and leave sexuality out of it, they would not feel compelled to dress in drag in front of them. They would have no problem leaving their cross dressing and drag stuff for more appropriate settings. But thats not what most of them want. The main goal is to expose small children to the fact that they are drag queens and cross dressers.

They have the same rights while wearing a dress as you do while wearing a 4XL bass pro t-shirt.

You get mad when I call you a bigot, but you continue to display your bigotry against LGBTQ people by defining actions that would be appropriate for you to do as inappropriate for them.

The constitution protects all Americans equally, no matter what they are wearing.

The Constitution acknowledges that certain rights are inalienable, that is, they are intrinsic rights which governments don't have the power to grant nor deny. The purpose of government is to protect those rights.

This is NOT the same as saying people can do whatever they want. There is a standard of morality to which people must adhere, and the Founders clearly stated that standard is religious morality.


Surely you don't believe that the actions of a thief must be protected and that he be treated the same as a non-thief.

The very act of stealing, which makes a person a thief, demands justice meaning the thief is treated differently than the non-thief.

To compare this to your thief example Eric is saying it's OK if a man with a suit on steals, but it isn't OK if a man in a dress steals. He judges their actions based on how they are dressed.

In reality theft (the action) is illegal, it doesn't matter how you are dressed. All I've said this entire thread is that this law is over-broad and will be used to discriminate against cross dressers. Just like the action stealing is illegal, regulate the specific action that is harmful to children, not if their clothing matches their biological gender. Twerking in a thong should be illegal in front of children, make it illegal no matter what is under the thong.

What the federal government provides is equal protection, which isn't provided when it's legal for you a man to read to children but not legal for you to do the same thing if you a man are wearing a modest dress. That discriminates against a subgroup of people who are by and large LGBTQ.

Why is the action of theft illegal? There is a reason. If we don't fully understand that reason then it's reasonable to expect that we can't understand why other actions are right or wrong.

And let us understand that a government defining an action as illegal is acknowledging that certain behavior is immoral.

And how can something be immoral if moral doesn't exist?

As athiest, pre-Christian C.S. Lewis realized:

Quote:My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?

You are completely glossing over the fact that theft is illegal because it infringes on the property rights of others. Wearing a dress as a man doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. If you don't want to wear a dress don't, but don't try to apply your own standard of religions morality to others through government power.

They have the right to exist in society and wear what they want.

Your exact same arguments were applied in the 50's to interracial marriage, segregation, etc and at the end of the day we as a country have decided that everyone in America is provided equal protection under the law.

There is no more picking and choosing and saying that white males who own land and wear pants are the only people protected by the constitution.

(03-02-2023 02:11 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:00 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  To compare this to your thief example Eric is saying it's OK if a man with a suit on steals, but it isn't OK if a man in a dress steals. He judges their actions based on how they are dressed.

This is why I call you a pathological liar.

I said no such thing anywhere nor do I remotely believe in such a thing. Everyone here knows that including you.

But your so filled with hatred and bigotry for me that you posted it even knowing it was a lie and knowing everyone would know it was a lie.

That's pathetic.

Even you aren't stupid enough to think I was saying you actually said stealing was OK.

I was comparing your mentality to reading at the library (that it should be legal for you to do it in pants but illegal for another male to do it in a dress) to the provided example of theft.

(03-02-2023 02:17 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:11 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:00 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  To compare this to your thief example Eric is saying it's OK if a man with a suit on steals, but it isn't OK if a man in a dress steals. He judges their actions based on how they are dressed.

This is why I call you a pathological liar.

I said no such thing anywhere nor do I remotely believe in such a thing. Everyone here knows that including you.

But your so filled with hatred and bigotry for me that you posted it even knowing it was a lie and knowing everyone would know it was a lie.

That's pathetic.

Even you aren't stupid enough to think I was saying you actually said stealing was OK.

I was comparing your mentality to reading at the library (that it should be legal for you to do it in pants but illegal for another male to do it in a dress) to the provided example of theft.

AGAIN, that is not what I said or what I was talking about. Everyone here knows that including you.

(03-02-2023 01:50 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:25 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:14 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I think we have readically different definitions of "appropriately dressed".

Its a tiny minority of cross dressers that dress in a way meant to NOT draw attention to the fact that they are cross dressing. 9 times out of 10 the cross dresser, even if well covered, is purposely dressing in a way to draw attention to the fact that they are a cross dresser or in drag.

No, a person who purposely seeks to expose young children to the fact that they are cross dressers and drag queens is inappropriate in from of small children.

If a drag queen simply wanted to read to children and leave sexuality out of it, they would not feel compelled to dress in drag in front of them. They would have no problem leaving their cross dressing and drag stuff for more appropriate settings.

How dare a bearded man wear a dress and simply read for children's hour? But no issue when that same bearded man wear a dress into his corporate office?

Exactly, its not appropriate behavior in front of other people's children.

DUH

I now see the reason why you state we disagree. Thank you for the discussion.

I would agree that the highly overt sexualization (i.e. twerkers in thongs) *are* a matter of potential government intervention.

In my viewpoint, the display of a bearded man, dressed fully and modestly in a gingham dress, does not cross the rubric of utterly outlandish behavior. Nor a display of sexualization to the extent that requires government intervention.

Thank you for defining that viewpoint for me. As promised, I am not attacking your POV. Its yours. And yes, I now understand why we should agree to disagree on this.

Does your viewpoint run the same to a woman with an enormous chest reading to that group of kids? Or a woman with the same enormous chest when she is not wearing a pure baggy blouse?

If morality is purely subjective then it would be up to each individual to determine right and wrong... moral relativism.

But this would render laws and justice null and void. There must be a standard outside of each individual.


That standard must be either the organization knows as the state or the Being who created the universe and everyone in it.

Deferring the moral standard to government is very dangerous.

Which religious viewpoint is that supreme and better moral standard then?

If that cannot be articulated, then that seemingly does devolve into a subjective basis of morality.

I agree that deferring the standard to the government is dangerous -- highly dangerous. But so is deferring that standard to *any* belief system.

I might differ a tad with your initial formulation bolded above.

Maybe it *is* at the individual level subjective -- yet each individual in chooses to be part of a group or society. And those societies choose to adopt, as a collective and for the greater good, 'community standards'.

To be absolutely fair and upfront, I am agnostic. I cannot tell you 'how and why this universe is.' I am not critical of any individual's faith -- that is theirs. And I accept that they believe that faith. One cannot necessarily argue about matters of individual faith. The concept of faith embeds that, at least for me.

But in that agnostic basis, I have to ask, when the concept of true real morality arises, the question thus becomes 'whose'? How is that 'picked'?

Kind of like 'who picks the non-partisan election district line drawers'.....

The long and short is that the morals embodied in the Old and New testament seem to be a good start. Kind of the 'basics' -- so to speak. Dont kill another, dont steal, -- fantastic start. The concepts of Christianity and the attempt to accept others is good one as well... as are the concepts of Martin Luther with respect to the reformation.

Extending that moral rubric of good ideas and acceptance -- when applied to a guy in a beard wearing a modest dress and reading to kids -- I cannot for the life of me say that that is an utterly and totally bad thing morally.

Not my cup of tea -- but not the moral outrage.

I do think the basis or morality includes an idea of being just with respect to the application of the laws' That is attempting to exclude non-dangerous behavior as much as possible, and the idea of fairness requires a non-vague description of the restriction.

I dont see that in the TN law.

On the opposite side, more than one person has expressed 'screw the possibility of capturing innocent behavior, let them sue to get out of it'.

Honestly, that style of 'fk em and feed em fish' doesnt comport very well with what I would consider 'Christian'.

(03-02-2023 02:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:17 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:11 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:00 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  To compare this to your thief example Eric is saying it's OK if a man with a suit on steals, but it isn't OK if a man in a dress steals. He judges their actions based on how they are dressed.

This is why I call you a pathological liar.

I said no such thing anywhere nor do I remotely believe in such a thing. Everyone here knows that including you.

But your so filled with hatred and bigotry for me that you posted it even knowing it was a lie and knowing everyone would know it was a lie.

That's pathetic.

Even you aren't stupid enough to think I was saying you actually said stealing was OK.

I was comparing your mentality to reading at the library (that it should be legal for you to do it in pants but illegal for another male to do it in a dress) to the provided example of theft.

AGAIN, that is not what I said or what I was talking about. Everyone here knows that including you.

Except for the part where you said exactly that here :

Quote:"No, a person who purposely seeks to expose young children to the fact that they are cross dressers and drag queens is inappropriate in front of small children. That is about the most polite way that can be put. The obvious reality is that is groomer behavior.

If a drag queen simply wanted to read to children and leave sexuality out of it, they would not feel compelled to dress in drag in front of them. They would have no problem leaving their cross dressing and drag stuff for more appropriate settings."

You don't think they have the same right to do things as you do, and you have admitted it over and over in this thread. You are the modern version of the people in the 50s throwing stuff a black kids in front of a school for the simple act of attending school with white kids.

Just responding to the headline....

This is a waste of political capital and time. The government should not be determining how people can dress or what they can choose as entertainment. They can certainly limit content as it pertains to minors, but it would be a HUGE MISTAKE for them to just blanketly decide that a show (or costume party) with a man wearing a dress is illegal.

(03-02-2023 02:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Just responding to the headline....

This is a waste of political capital and time. The government should not be determining how people can dress or what they can choose as entertainment. They can certainly limit content as it pertains to minors, but it would be a HUGE MISTAKE for them to just blanketly decide that a show (or costume party) with a man wearing a dress is illegal.

Should've read more than the headline. This is about the shows allowing kids to be present.

(03-02-2023 02:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Just responding to the headline....

This is a waste of political capital and time. The government should not be determining how people can dress or what they can choose as entertainment. They can certainly limit content as it pertains to minors, but it would be a HUGE MISTAKE for them to just blanketly decide that a show (or costume party) with a man wearing a dress is illegal.

The point has been made that the law is directed as kids in the audience.

Some have demonstrated that there is definitely behavior directed towards kids that should rightfully be restricted.

My point is that I think the law is vague -- it is using a standard that is indeterminable.

My second point is that vague obscenity laws are a minefield of disaster of over-application.

For example -- a danger of restricting a non-sexual reading books by a bearded man dressed fully yet in a dress, to a childs reading group.

Or by restricting a play open to the public with children in the audience, of a Dolly Parton imitator who is a male.

I would prefer a law that is more objective in nature, and tends to be less subjective. One that tends to act to reduce the chance of it being applied to the above.

Others are saying 'great law, stops the guy in a wig from twerking with his junk in the kids' faces, let the innocent people who are affected sue their way out of the issue'.

Which has now progressed to discussion of morality of the guy in a dress reading to children.

I have no problem with it being "applied to the above". No bearded man in a dress would have read books to one of my children. I don't care what the topic of the books were.

(03-02-2023 02:53 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I have no problem with it being "applied to the above". No bearded man in a dress would have read books to one of my children. I don't care what the topic of the books were.

At least you will proudly admit to being a bigot vs Eric dancing around yelling "I didn't say that" after saying it three times in the thread.

Easy to know where you stand.

(03-02-2023 02:34 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  You don't think they have the same right to do things as you do, and you have admitted it over and over in this thread. You are the modern version of the people in the 50s throwing stuff a black kids in front of a school for the simple act of attending school with white kids.

AGAIN, that is not what I am saying and everyone here including you knows that.

Hetero men and women aren't allowed to dress inappropriately and push their sexual perversions on small children for the sole purpose of exposing them to it.. The same rules apply to the LGBTQ groomers.

No one here is buying your BS lies on this. Everyone here sees right through you on it.

(03-02-2023 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Just responding to the headline....

This is a waste of political capital and time. The government should not be determining how people can dress or what they can choose as entertainment. They can certainly limit content as it pertains to minors, but it would be a HUGE MISTAKE for them to just blanketly decide that a show (or costume party) with a man wearing a dress is illegal.

The point has been made that the law is directed as kids in the audience.

Some have demonstrated that there is definitely behavior directed towards kids that should rightfully be restricted.

The bold in my statement addresses the bold in your Tanq, which I believe is responsive to 'b2b'

Quote:My point is that I think the law is vague -- it is using a standard that is indeterminable.

My second point is that vague obscenity laws are a minefield of disaster of over-application.

For example -- a danger of restricting a non-sexual reading books by a bearded man dressed fully yet in a dress, to a childs reading group.

Or by restricting a play open to the public with children in the audience, of a Dolly Parton imitator who is a male.

I would prefer a law that is more objective in nature, and tends to be less subjective. One that tends to act to reduce the chance of it being applied to the above.

Others are saying 'great law, stops the guy in a wig from twerking with his junk in the kids' faces, let the innocent people who are affected sue their way out of the issue'.

Which has now progressed to discussion of morality of the guy in a dress reading to children.

I understand this. Morality laws are often difficult if not impossible.

Nobody had a real issue with Mrs Doubtfire though... at least not on a 'he's corrupting our kids' basis.

Bottom line, to the headline... 'banning most drag shows' is a bad idea. Not because drag shows are a good thing in my mind, but because the government shouldn't be regulating adult choices.

Seeing Shakespeare in its original form (with men playing the women) can provide interesting original context to his humor that is often lost when you remove that fact.

(03-02-2023 03:11 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:34 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  You don't think they have the same right to do things as you do, and you have admitted it over and over in this thread. You are the modern version of the people in the 50s throwing stuff a black kids in front of a school for the simple act of attending school with white kids.

AGAIN, that is not what I am saying and everyone here including you knows that.

Hetero men and women aren't allowed to dress inappropriately and push their sexual perversions on small children for the sole purpose of exposing them to it.. The same rules apply to the LGBTQ groomers.

No one here is buying your BS lies on this. Everyone here sees right through you on it.

You think the simple act of a man wearing a dress is “pushing their sexuality” though. Just because a dude in a dress turns you on that doesn’t mean that’s what they are trying to do.

You keep going back to that, but when asked the simple question of should a man in a modest dress be allowed to read to children you always go back to your “pushing sexuality” rant. You claim that any man in a dress is sexualizing children.

They have the right to live their life the same as you, no matter how they dress. That includes reading to children. It it is OK for a biological woman to do it in the same dress then it’s OK for a man. Full stop, that is their first amendment right.

(03-02-2023 03:25 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 03:11 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:34 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  You don't think they have the same right to do things as you do, and you have admitted it over and over in this thread. You are the modern version of the people in the 50s throwing stuff a black kids in front of a school for the simple act of attending school with white kids.

AGAIN, that is not what I am saying and everyone here including you knows that.

Hetero men and women aren't allowed to dress inappropriately and push their sexual perversions on small children for the sole purpose of exposing them to it.. The same rules apply to the LGBTQ groomers.

No one here is buying your BS lies on this. Everyone here sees right through you on it.

You think the simple act of a man wearing a dress is “pushing their sexuality” though. Just because a dude in a dress turns you on that doesn’t mean that’s what they are trying to do.

You keep going back to that, but when asked the simple question of should a man in a modest dress be allowed to read to children you always go back to your “pushing sexuality” rant. You claim that any man in a dress is sexualizing children.

They have the right to live their life the same as you, no matter how they dress. That includes reading to children. It it is OK for a biological woman to do it in the same dress then it’s OK for a man. Full stop, that is their first amendment right.

We get it, your a pedo groomer who wants the right for you and others push your sexuality on small children. Believe me, everyone here hears you LOUD AND CLEAR. Everyone here sees right through you on this.

But the fact remains that society has the right to set standards decency in front of small children. Society has the right to say cross dressing in front of 5 year old children is unacceptable.

The same person is allowed to engage with the children as long as they keep their sexual perversions out of it.

You have a right to do it in every other aspect of your life, but you do not have a right to force it on other peoples children. Just like heterosexual do not have the right to push their sexual perversions on other people children.

(03-02-2023 02:53 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I have no problem with it being "applied to the above". No bearded man in a dress would have read books to one of my children. I don't care what the topic of the books were.

And your response of 'fk em and feed em fish' doesnt surprise me in the least.

(03-02-2023 03:05 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:53 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I have no problem with it being "applied to the above". No bearded man in a dress would have read books to one of my children. I don't care what the topic of the books were.

At least you will proudly admit to being a bigot vs Eric dancing around yelling "I didn't say that" after saying it three times in the thread.

Easy to know where you stand.

Hahahaha

I'm not a bigot you pervert. I just would never allow freaks around my boys. We eventually put them in a Christian private school because Public Schools are crap. I don't profess to being a Christian, but Christian values are so superior to your disgusting perverted dogmas that it was a no brainer.

That's the problem with you leftist pieces of sh!t. Anyone that doesn't believe what you believe is a bigot. You only do it on a message board though. I feel pretty sure you wouldn't have the gonads to say it to a man's face.

(03-02-2023 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 02:53 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I have no problem with it being "applied to the above". No bearded man in a dress would have read books to one of my children. I don't care what the topic of the books were.

And your response of 'fk em and feed em fish' doesnt surprise me in the least.

Go back to your gin rummy.