All Things LGBTQ+ (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[Farb]

you are correct, Drag is something that is ancient has has been done for 1000s of years. prove me wrong.

as a serious art form or for comedy?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

as a serious art form or for comedy?

both..

 

[Farb]

you are correct, Drag is something that is ancient has has been done for 1000s of years. prove me wrong.
But i don't know what percentage it is. There are many people who are aganst Drag, that have worn it themselves as costums and such. do you think they were gay? or should there be a legal limit on it? if you only do it twice, it doesn't count, or somehting like that?
Was Patrick Swayze gay, is Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo, they did a whole movie in Drag. I can name many others too. what about the founders of this country, they all wore wigs, were they gay? i guess we need to nail down this exact line on when its ok and when its not, even all the way through history...

You really need to stretch. You might pull something with those mental gymnastics.

Are you saying men dressed as women is meant to be comedy only? That is kind of what you are saying

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

You really need to stretch. You might pull something with those mental gymnastics.

Are you saying men dressed as women is meant to be comedy only? That is kind of what you are saying

it doesn't matter if its comedy or serious role. dressing in womens clothing is Drag, right?
Too Wong Foo was a comedy, but it was also a serious movie.

 

[coldseat]

Why do you think it is appropriate for a man dressed in fetish gear to read to children in a public facility? Would you feel the same if it was some 'bear' in BDSM gear reading to kids?
I understand you feel the need to defend this because the people you view as your enemy are calling it out as wrong but I honestly think deep down, you know it is just a weird sexual gratification for these people (there are plenty of drag queens who also view this new fad and not appropriate) to read to children. You know it is odd but since your tribe is a coalition, you can't really say that, can you?

Stop putting "you know" in my mouth. No, I do not know or agree with anything you've stated here.

There is no "weird sexual gratification" with drag queens reading to children. Drag Queens do not fantasize or fetishize about children. For Drag Queens, drag is something they do for entertainment and fun. I've never spoken to a Drag Queen who does story hour, but if I had to guess at their intentions for why they do so it's probably for several reasons. As a community service to do something fun and worthy for children by reading to them in an entertaining way (without being sexual). To expose the kids and community to LGBTQ+ people, so that if any of those kids grow up to be LGBTQ+, they know they have a community. Because they enjoy reading to kids. etc.

It's not for any sordid reason that you imagine in your right wing wired brain.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I guess hypotheticals are lost on this group.

Is that what we are calling irresponsible red herrings on a slippery slope now?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Stop putting "you know" in my mouth. No, I do not know or agree with anything you've stated here.

There is no "weird sexual gratification" with drag queens reading to children. Drag Queens do not fantasize or fetishize about children. For Drag Queens, drag is something they do for entertainment and fun. I've never spoken to a Drag Queen who does story hour, but if I had to guess at their intentions for why they do so it's probably for several reasons. As a community service to do something fun and worthy for children by reading to them in an entertaining way (without being sexual). To expose the kids and community to LGBTQ+ people, so that if any of those kids grow up to be LGBTQ+, they know they have a community. Because they enjoy reading to kids. etc.

It's not for any sordid reason that you imagine in your right wing wired brain.

thats because he thinks every single thing LGBTQ does has to have a narritive. they should all go back in the closet and keep their mouths shut like in the good ol days...

 

[LA - L.A.]

Yes, normal is normal. It has been that way since man came about.

That's exactly what I thought this person would say and I was hoping they would say exactly that.

Let's take a walk down "normal" memory lane, in no particular chronological order:

• Since man came about, it has been considered "normal" for men to force women to have sex.
• Since man came about, it has been considered "normal" for people to own other people as slaves.
• Since man came about, it has been considered "normal" to murder people in the name of religion.
• Since man came about, it has been considered "normal" to kill people for dishonoring family.
• Since man came about, it has been considered "normal" to murder people for their skin color.
• Since man came about, it has been considered "normal" to terrorize and kill men for wearing "women's" close.
• Since man came about, it has been considered "normal" to terrorize and kill people for being homosexual.
• Since man came about, it has been considered "normal" to have sexual relationships with minors.
• Since man came about, it has been considered "normal" to terrorize and murder "inferior" people.
• Since man came about, it has been considered "normal" to kill communities of people to take their land.

Your new view to make abnormal the new normal is just that, abnormal.

The imposing of one groups idea of "normal" on everyone else is what has caused all the death and suffering listed above. Accepting and respecting "abnormal" has never caused such death and suffering.

Given all the past and current atrocities committed against innocent people in the name of "normal," the world could use a lot more "abnormal."

...all the studies you cite (can you provide one)...

They've all been posted before. You can go find them if you really want to read them.

...your side...

I don't have a "side." I just believe in treating every person with empathy, compassion and respect.

Why is treating every person with empathy, compassion and respect such a horribly repulsive thing to you?

...my side...

What exactly is your "side?"

 

[LA - L.A.]

Social decency.

Why do you think you have the right to shove your idea of social decency down everyone else's throats?

I think your beliefs and values are bigoted which is completely indecent.

I think bigoted parents hurt their kids and other people's kids by raising their children to also be bigots.

I've never once called for laws that would force parents not to raise their children to be bigots.

That's the difference between me and this poster. They want laws that force other parents to raise their children the way this person wants children to be raised.

Q: Why is it that all of this person and his kind's calls to protect people always involves controlling people?

A: Because the "protecting people' is just a cover excuse for their real goal of controlling people.

 

[bird]

Social decency. Next.

Just like I don't think a man in bondage gear should be reading to children because it is indecent.

Social decency? Black people were property such was social decency. Black people were suppressed via Jim Crow such was social decency. Dred Scott such was social decency.

Birth control illegal for unmarried couples such was social decency. Whites and Blacks could not marry such was social decency. Homosexuality was illegal such was social decency.

Child labor such was social decency. Sheriffs arising from slave patrols such was social decency. Women could not vote such was social decency. Women were guided/forced into “traditional roles” such was social decency. Women could not establish credit in their own name such was social decency.

Your “normal” and “social decency” is your belief and completely and utterly irrelevant.

Not to mention none of your business.

 

[bird]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/01/democrats-voter-registration-minorities/
A confidential memo circulated among top Democratic donors has sparked a furious debate in Democratic circles about whether to narrow the focus of voter registration efforts to avoid signing up likely Republicans.
"But then there NEVER was any screaming about voter ID until the orange buffoon claimed with no evidence that there was voter fraud."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-new-voter-id-laws-may-affect-the-2016-presidential-contest
17 states will have new voting regulations in place for the presidential election this November. 12 states will join the ranks of those requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID, including North Carolina and Texas.

So, before 2020 no one ever mentioned ID to vote (until Orange Man), yet before the 2016 election, 17 states enacted laws pertaining to voter IDs? But yes, none of your stances are arbitrary. LOL. I know, politics was easy and fun before the orange hitler showed up. He is the cause of all the problems. Sad, predictable but still sad.

Again you fail. The screeching of Donald Trump combined with the support of Republicans such as yourself and the fools in congress and state legislators have served to undermine the institutions established by the constitution that Trump swore to uphold.

Now we have the religionist Mike Johnson saying he knows intuitively that illegals voting despite not having evidence. Furthermore Republicans such as yourself have screamed voter fraud resulting in more pushing for voter suppression when the percentage of voter fraud is so small as to be meaningless yet the few cases which have been discovered overwhelmingly have been Republicans committing the fraud.

So, failure, the screeching of Trump and the disciples of Luntz known as Republicans has created a fear-mongering which has been demonstrated by federal and state Republican fools in order to curb voting.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. For 200+ years the voting in this co7ntry despite occasional bumps has been taken seriously by voters until Republicans determined that they had to suppress voting to be successful.

 

[MT15]

Again you fail. The screeching of Donald Trump combined with the support of Republicans such as yourself and the fools in congress and state legislators have served to undermine the institutions established by the constitution that Trump swore to uphold.

Now we have the religionist Mike Johnson saying he knows intuitively that illegals voting despite not having evidence. Furthermore Republicans such as yourself have screamed voter fraud resulting in more pushing for voter suppression when the percentage of voter fraud is so small as to be meaningless yet the few cases which have been discovered overwhelmingly have been Republicans committing the fraud.

So, failure, the screeching of Trump and the disciples of Luntz known as Republicans has created a fear-mongering which has been demonstrated by federal and state Republican fools in order to curb voting.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. For 200+ years the voting in this co7ntry despite occasional bumps has been taken seriously by voters until Republicans determined that they had to suppress voting to be successful.

Of all the things the GOP has done, falsely undermining the US rule of law and the integrity of US elections in pursuit of political power is one of the worst. Indescribably reckless and immoral.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Target will limit the availability of its 2024 Pride Month collection after last year’s conservative blowback over its LGBTQ+ themed merchandise.


The retailer said in a Thursday fact sheet that it plans to offer a collection of products including adult clothing and “home and food and beverage items” to celebrate Pride Month this June. It will be available online and in select stores “based on historical sales performance,” Target said.


Target has carried Pride-themed merchandise in its stores for years, but last year it announced plans to pull back some items after the company was swept up in a culture war that saw some conservative commentators accusing the company of profiteering on a political issue and selling inappropriate products for children.


Workers faced threats from angry customers over the issue, while others boycotted the company. Stores in at least five states had to be evacuated after they received bomb threats.

America First Legal, a conservative activist group led by former Donald Trump aide Stephen Miller, argued that the company failed its investors by wading into a political issue, pointing to a 20 percent decline in the company’s stock price.

The backlash and boycotts probably hurt Target’s sales, analysts said at the time, but the company also faced broader issues as consumers became more selective with the sort of discretionary goods that abound on Target’s shelves.


Leaving Pride Month items out of some stores belies the fact that LGBTQ+ individuals live all over the country, said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign advocacy group.


“Target’s decision is disappointing and alienates LGBTQ+ individuals and allies at the risk of not only their bottom line but also their values,” Robinson said in an emailed statement………

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/10/target-pride-collection/

 

[Optimus Prime]

Target confirmed Friday that it won’t carry PrideMonth merchandise at all stores in June after the discount retailer experienced a backlash and lower sales over its collection honoring LGBTQ+ communities.

Target, which operates roughly 2,000 stores, said decisions about where to stock Pride-themed products, including adult apparel, home goods, foods and beverages, would be based on “guest insights and consumer research”.

A Target spokesperson declined to disclose the number of stores where the merchandise will not be available, but the company said its online shop would offer a full assortment. The moves were first reported by Bloomberg.


“Target is committed to supporting the LGBTQIA+ community during Pride Month and year-round,” Target said in an emailed statement. “Most importantly, we want to create a welcoming and supportive environment for our LGBTQIA+ team members, which reflects our culture of care for the over 400,000 people who work at Target.”…..

Target Pride merchandise only available at select stores after rightwing backlash

Company, which operates roughly 2,000 stores, declined to disclose number of stores where merchandise will not be available

www.theguardian.com

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

the right wing and their cancel culture ..

 

[SystemShock]

you are correct, Drag is something that is ancient has has been done for 1000s of years. prove me wrong.

I don't remember any ancient paintings or writings describing a Cher impersonator lip sync'ing to "Do You Believe in Love After Love".

But seriously, though... let's be fair and acknowledge that @Farb said "drag queens", not just "drag", which is a term that was coined somewhat recently to describe cross dressing.

Historically, you'll find instances of men in theater or ceremonies playing the part of a woman, more famously onnagatas in Kabuki. However, their costumes were very much on par with what women and geisha wore, not exaggerated versions of them, as it is the case of drag queens. And, usually males played female parts because women were forbidden from participating in theater, not impersonating women for the sake of impersonating women, wearing exaggerated clothing like clowns or jesters wear/wore.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I don't remember any ancient paintings or writings describing a Cher impersonator lip sync'ing to "Do You Believe in Love After Love".

But seriously, though... let's be fair and acknowledge that @Farb said "drag queens", not just "drag", which is a term that was coined somewhat recently to describe cross dressing.

Historically, you'll find instances of men in theater or ceremonies playing the part of a woman, more famously onnagatas in Kabuki. However, their costumes were very much on par with what women and geisha wore, not exaggerated versions of them, as it is the case of drag queens. And, usually males played female parts because women were forbidden from participating in theater, not impersonating women for the sake of impersonating women, wearing exaggerated clothing like clowns or jesters wear/wore.

sure they did, i'm sure you haven't researched it or even looked into it. Just in Ancient Greece and Rome there was a history of it and i'm not just talking abouit plays.
Heck Alexander the Great used to dress up as Artemis in public. but i guess him dressing up as a female goddess isn't the same as a Queen...lol

 

[LA - L.A.]

sure they did, i'm sure you haven't researched it or even looked into it. Just in Ancient Greece and Rome there was a history of it and i'm not just talking abouit plays.
Heck Alexander the Great used to dress up as Artemis in public. but i guess him dressing up as a female goddess isn't the same as a Queen...lol

The mythological goddesses were the OD's, the original divas, Cher and Barbara ain't got nothing on them.