Keep that FILTH out of our public institutions!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, BnaC said:

...

I think that the question is whether or not his book is intolerant....that's still not established...

Yes, as I've said, I'm assuming from what I've read from those who've read the book. As I made clear, I haven't read the book myself. 

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

2 hours ago, samhexum said:

Unless Kirk Cameron or RuPaul have come out (sorry for the terminology, Kirk) against pizza, I don't see how this post fits in this thread.

Because it's not discussing politics. That's how it fits the Lounge

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

Plain cheese pizza is nice too

[BSR]

2 hours ago, KensingtonHomo said:

So you don’t understand the Constitution. That’s okay. There are lots of books about it, but I’ll give you a hint: the key word is “establishment.”

I wish you would make arguments instead of just being nasty and disrespectful.

True, the government is prohibited from establishing an official state religion, but allowing a Christian (or a person of any religion) to read a book based on Christian values falls far short of "establishment."  No particular faith is being established nor made official.  A man simply wants to read a book (a book you have not read, correct?) that he believes spreads good values and therefore helps children.

You believe that your values should be allowed in the public square, i.e., your support of drag queen story hour, but want to shut down and ban anyone whose values you don't like.  That's not how the world works, nor is that your "constitutional right."

[Marc in Calif]

4 hours ago, BnaC said:

I do not think SCOTUS is aiming for gay marriage (because they themselves said so).

Have you heard about the Dobbs decision? It was decided even though several Justice candidates said under oath during their confirmation hearings that they themselves accepted Roe v Wade as a settled opinion. 

For example: "Kavanaugh said he believed the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was 'settled as precedent of the Supreme Court' and should be 'entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis,' the legal doctrine that precedents should not be overturned without strong reason."

So you can now wait for the "strong reason" that Kavanaugh and his buddies will use to  rule against gay marriage even though "they themselves said" they won't. 

You must be a very trusting soul. Can we play poker some time? 😁

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Marc in Calif said:

Have you heard about the Dobbs decision? It was decided even though several Justice candidates said under oath during their confirmation hearings that they themselves accepted Roe v Wade as a settled opinion. 

For example: "Kavanaugh said he believed the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was 'settled as precedent of the Supreme Court' and should be 'entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis,' the legal doctrine that precedents should not be overturned without strong reason."

So you can now wait for the "strong reason" that Kavanaugh and his buddies will use to  rule against gay marriage even though "they themselves said" they won't. 

You must be a very trusting soul. Can we play poker some time? 😁

Confirmation hearings aren’t the same as written opinions….nice try, but that’s grasping at straws.

But honestly, I don’t have a dog in that particular hunt as, while I have no problem with marriage equality, I’m probably close to becoming happily married to my girlfriend of three years.  But,  I do have a stake in the repression of religious belief and the application of double standards in applying principles of freedom.

And @Vegas_nw1982, you’re right - goat cheese on a pizza is awesome.   I’m dairy sensitive and real feta as a non-bovine alternative is good too

[KeepItReal]

This thread...reminds me why I miss George Carlin so much. At least drag queens are real...

[+ KensingtonHomo]

8 hours ago, BSR said:

I wish you would make arguments instead of just being nasty and disrespectful.

True, the government is prohibited from establishing an official state religion, but allowing a Christian (or a person of any religion) to read a book based on Christian values falls far short of "establishment."  No particular faith is being established nor made official.  A man simply wants to read a book (a book you have not read, correct?) that he believes spreads good values and therefore helps children.

You believe that your values should be allowed in the public square, i.e., your support of drag queen story hour, but want to shut down and ban anyone whose values you don't like.  That's not how the world works, nor is that your "constitutional right."

I'm not being nasty or disrespectful. I'm pointing out that someone claiming knowledge of the Constitution doesn't, in fact, understand it or the history of precedents based upon it. You're trying to control the parameters of debate, by asserting that a simple statement is "nasty", which is a predictable strategy. It lines up perfectly with claims that drag queens are "sexualizing children" by dancing or reading books. 

A long judicial record affirms that public institutions cannot prioritize one religion over another, including providing space for an evangelical Christian to proselytize to children. For example, Roy Moore had to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom. 

To my knowledge, drag queen story hour does not proselytize about religion. Rather they read secular books that are often about children being free to explore their own identity and being respectful of differences, including those based on religion. Those are not my values. Those are the values on which this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.  

[+ KensingtonHomo]

5 hours ago, BnaC said:

 I do have a stake in the repression of religious belief and the application of double standards in applying principles of freedom.

No religious beliefs are being repressed. Kirk Cameron is not being prevented from publishing his book, or having a book tour at private venues that are concordant with his beliefs. Do you think those calling for Cameron to be permitted to use public libraries to spread his right-wing religious beliefs would support a Muslim author with a children's book on sharia law? 

[CuriousByNature]

I find it interesting how this conversation has morphed from focussing on WHO is reading to the children to WHAT is being read.  I don't believe that whether the drag queens are reading something completely secular or not is the point - the point is whether or not the drag queen persona is something that children should be exposed to at an early age.  As for KC, regardless of what he is reading, there will still be people who object to his participation on the basis of his vocal faith position.  Even if he were to read a store catalogue to the kids, some people would be concerned that he would use the opportunity to proselytize and advance a Christian agenda.

[+ FrankR]

18 minutes ago, CuriousByNature said:

I find it interesting how this conversation has morphed from focussing on WHO is reading to the children to WHAT is being read.  I don't believe that whether the drag queens are reading something completely secular or not is the point - the point is whether or not the drag queen persona is something that children should be exposed to at an early age.  As for KC, regardless of what he is reading, there will still be people who object to his participation on the basis of his vocal faith position.  Even if he were to read a store catalogue to the kids, some people would be concerned that he would use the opportunity to proselytize and advance a Christian agenda.

If KC agreed to read a LGBTQ friendly book, I would have no problem with that.  But what are the odds? A drag queen, on the other hand would happily read the story of Noah’s Ark. That is the difference.

[CuriousByNature]

1 minute ago, FrankR said:

If KC agreed to read a LGBTQ friendly book, I would have no problem with that.  But what are the odds? A drag queen, on the other hand would happily read the story of Noah’s Ark. That is the difference.

I still think some people would have an issue with him reading anything at all.  It's about what he represents, not about what he is reading.

[+ KensingtonHomo]

59 minutes ago, CuriousByNature said:

the point is whether or not the drag queen persona is something that children should be exposed to at an early age. 

No, what has been happening is right-wingers are claiming a) that all drag is inherently sexual (which is ludicrous to anyone who has seen Milton Berle or Mrs. Doubtfire nevermind Nina West), and b) because it's inherently sexual, simply having drag queens interact with children - not matter how tame or age appropriate is corrupting. These same arguments were made about cis gay men and lesbians (and in some quarters still are) to oppress us and deny us our rights. 

If anything, people like Kirk Cameron enjoy MORE rights than the average drag queen, and they are definitely aiming to indoctrinate children to their values. 

I wish people who are defending Cameron or falling for the right-wing argument would wake up and see that this is a cynical campaign to erode support for queer people. 

First they came from the trans people, 

Then they came for the drag queens... 

[+ WilliamM]

18 hours ago, samhexum said:

Well, of course, the most famous Dorothy of all time is Dorothy "Tootie" Ramsey, the youngest girl from THE FACTS OF LIFE... 

 

Dorothy Hamerstien, wife of   Oscar Hammerstein. After he died in 1960, she carries on humanities projects.

She started as small time actress in Australia

 

[+ FrankR]

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

I still think some people would have an issue with him reading anything at all.  It's about what he represents, not about what he is reading.

You may be right. But if you paint yourself into a corner, you only have yourself to blame. 

[MikeBiDude]

Thanks for all your varied posts and conversations on this thread. Let’s move on.