Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I appreciate your comment, but I think you've misunderstood my intentions. I'm not carrying the torch for anyone, per-se. I liken this to Martin Niemöller's famous quote:
I also 100% agree with you that a drag-show as I know it should not be performed "out in public" (on the street, for example), to my knowledge that is not happening, but I could be wrong.
All of the ones I've been to are ticketed events, usually charity fundraisers (Crepe Myrtle is a great cause, BTW), so nobody has to "wonder whether their child might be exposed to a drag performance in public" as you say. They can simply decide not to attend, or to get sitters for their kids on that night, or if they think it's OK, they can bring their kids with them.
I think everyone (including you) are getting hung up on something that isn't happening. I've never seen a drag show out in public, but I have seen more than one person dressed in drag out in public, minding their own business, and I don't have a problem with it.
I've also seen people who believe that kids should not be allowed in restaurants that serve alcohol, I think the parents can decide.
I've seen people who think that organized prayers SHOULD be said in school, I don't agree, I think parents should be able to decide which, if any religion they want to indoctrinate into their kids.
Furthermore, if you refer to my earlier comment, I said I think that the rules should be applied EQUALLY to all people. So it was you, not me suggesting that I'm carrying a torch. To me, I don't think lewd behavior should be allowed in public at all. If that is how we want to approach it, why then are we allowing heterosexual explicit content to be void from the law. Would it be any better for you if you saw a male and a female, both dressed in gender-appropriate cloths, grinding it out in public? I hope not.
My other concern, which I believe is valid, is that all of these rules allow the government to decide what is decent and what is not. It's very subjective.
If they wanted to say that NO EVENTS could happen in public that showed two people acting in a lewd way I would still have the concern about interpretation, but not about singling people out.
Sorry, I got to rambling, I had some interruptions. But I'm not carrying the torch for any one group. I think protections should be the same for everyone.
It's a complicated issue, and whatever is decided needs to be applied uniformly. By definition in these rules, they are not being applied uniformly.
After the ban the Drag Queens, then it might be the gay bars, maybe after that it will be the hipsters, and before long they'll come after hippies. By the time they get to poorly dressed, middle-aged dads (me), there will be nobody left to fight.
Ha!
EDIT: Remember when Seinfeld had an entire episode dedicated to Master-bation? And another episode dedicated to unprotected, extra-marital relations (spongeworthy), or Big Bang Theory had an episode where one of the characters got trapped in a robot designed for master-bation? All of those were hillarious, they were all brought INTO PEOPLES HOMES, but I saw nobody proposing laws about banning or criminalizing them. how are they any less bad than a drag show that parents can choose to take their kids to, but have an option to NOT?
Gay bars are a relic of the past and will soon be extinct without any help from legislators.
Drag Shows are being performed in public spaces, like restaurants and libraries. In Carrboro and Chapel Hill, restaurants have "pop up" drag brunches. I went out for lunch with a female friend of mine with her 2 year old son. Inadvertently stumbled upon a "drag show" at a restaurant, and then got roped into the performer's act. It was awkward to say the least.
Drag shows should be treated like a Rated R movie. I also think that hetero parents who bring their children to these events believe they are "culturing" their kids, but really they're getting a very slanted view of what gay people are like. Most of my gay friends don't even like drag shows or gay bars.
I'm not sure what sort of heterosexual lewd equivalent to drag that you are referring to being done in public. Drag shows are of course different from cross-dressing and transgenderism. They're closer to burlesque, which I don't believe you can just bring a kid to.
Gay bars are a relic of the past and will soon be extinct without any help from legislators.
Drag Shows are being performed in public spaces, like restaurants and libraries. In Carrboro and Chapel Hill, restaurants have "pop up" drag brunches. I went out for lunch with a female friend of mine with her 2 year old son. Inadvertently stumbled upon a "drag show" at a restaurant, and then got roped into the performer's act. It was awkward to say the least.
Drag shows should be treated like a Rated R movie. I also think that hetero parents who bring their children to these events believe they are "culturing" their kids, but really they're getting a very slanted view of what gay people are like. Most of my gay friends don't even like drag shows or gay bars.
I'm not sure what sort of heterosexual lewd equivalent to drag that you are referring to being done in public. Drag shows are of course different from cross-dressing and transgenderism. They're closer to burlesque, which I don't believe you can just bring a kid to.
This comment makes a lot more sense to me than some of the others. I never thought of it like that, but I've been to some in restaurants too, and I always assumed they were "ticketed only" (never thought they let others into the dining room, but I'm not doubting it).
But yes, I TOTALLY agree, they should be treated like R rated movies.
I still stand by my point thought that the activity should be the target, not who is involved. That is to say that ANY show with explicit material. They should all have the same rules.
The other day one of those reality TV shows was on my TV. Not Showtime or Cinemax, just a regular cable channel, I think it was "Love is Blind". It had a couple in bed, with the woman on top of the man "grinding parts". I was not personally offended but i commented to my wife I didn't think it was appropriate for non-subscription TV. Same standard, no?
I'm not disagreeing with anyone that lewd things are fine. I'm saying that making rules that only apply to LGBTQ, Drag Shows, Blacks/whites, certain religions, or anything else are not OK with me. ID the behavior and make the rule consistent. And remove ambiguity by carefully defining what is being regulated. We've seen it a million times, one person has a personal belief against a certain group and decides they know what's best. It shouldn't be.
I am way late to this party..but what?? This is a good way to damage your credibility for any future debate.
the bottom 50 states VS the top 50 states?
You mean...THE 50 states? Thats all there are here...
You mention mayors, so maybe you meant "the bottom 50 cities vs the top 50 cities". If so, thats almost as meaningless as you obviously can not compare a NYC, LAX, CHI with cities with populations of 10-15k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TunedIn
The bottom 50 states in population have a more pronounced disparity than the top 50, with those controlled by a Democrat Mayor boasting a murder rate of 3 times of those controlled by a Republican. When was the last time that you provided any meaningful insight or relevant data of your own? How about the first time? And sticking your head in the sand while bleating about the Taliban doesn't count.
I am way late to this party..but what?? This is a good way to damage your credibility for any future debate.
the bottom 50 states VS the top 50 states?
You mean...THE 50 states? Thats all there are here...
You mention mayors, so maybe you meant "the bottom 50 cities vs the top 50 cities". If so, thats almost as meaningless as you obviously can not compare a NYC, LAX, CHI with cities with populations of 10-15k.
Yes, cities. Did you bring any facts, extrapolations of fact or empirical data to substantiate your claims? I mean other then Blue good, Red bad? Wait don't tell me......"fake news"?
I am way late to this party..but what?? This is a good way to damage your credibility for any future debate.
the bottom 50 states VS the top 50 states?
You mean...THE 50 states? Thats all there are here...
You mention mayors, so maybe you meant "the bottom 50 cities vs the top 50 cities". If so, thats almost as meaningless as you obviously can not compare a NYC, LAX, CHI with cities with populations of 10-15k.
The disparity was actually greater in the lower half of the 100 largest cities than the top half. In case you're not clear, the disparity was less pronounced in the cities of greater population, but still quite pronounced across the aggregate of the three tiers specified. Repeat after me: we're Democrats and we have a crime problem.
I am way late to this party..but what?? This is a good way to damage your credibility for any future debate.
the bottom 50 states VS the top 50 states?
You mean...THE 50 states? Thats all there are here...
You mention mayors, so maybe you meant "the bottom 50 cities vs the top 50 cities". If so, thats almost as meaningless as you obviously can not compare a NYC, LAX, CHI with cities with populations of 10-15k.
"10-15k"? The least populous city on the list was over 200k. And "LAX" isn't so much a city as.........an airport. Just a thought, but you might wanna start thinking about your own credibility.
Repeat after me: we're Democrats and we have a crime problem.
I think the real issue is: we're americans and we have a gun problem.
And of course, the irony is that its democrats who actually want to do SOMETHING about guns, which is the core problem in regard to crime in this country. If republicans really want to be tough on crime, they should consider a bipartisan, common sense gun problem solution.
I think the real issue is: we're americans and we have a gun problem.
And of course, the irony is that its democrats who actually want to do SOMETHING about guns, which is the core problem in regard to crime in this country. If republicans really want to be tough on crime, they should consider a bipartisan, common sense gun problem solution.
It's an issue, but not the only real one. Another is soft on crime Democratic mayors in our most violent and deadly American cities. If they really want to be tough on crime, they should consider.....being tough on crime? Let this thing go, will ya? It's got nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Owen, isn't it?
SPACs are just another way for the investment bankers to wring money out of a situation that would normally result in a company's going out of business. Whether a SPAC actually increases the long-term viability of the business is of no concern to Wall Street. Just pay me my fees.
I think the real issue is: we're americans and we have a gun problem.
And of course, the irony is that its democrats who actually want to do SOMETHING about guns, which is the core problem in regard to crime in this country. If republicans really want to be tough on crime, they should consider a bipartisan, common sense gun problem solution.
This is EXACTLY the real issue! Anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), there will be nobody left to fight.
