I mean at one level I agree with you, but on a higher level I ask what is the limit? I mean things do scar kids. Different things scar different kids. What is more likely, a kid is positively influenced by over sexualized content at a young age or that they are negatively influenced? A conservative approach might actually be one that takes the safer option in regards to children, even if that approach might mean some overreach. Conservatism (and liberalism) are not single layer positions. I think a conservative viewpoint is to weight the risk/reward and try and reduce the risk. And trust me, i know my kids are exposed to a million more things than I was. The balls, nuts and boob jokes from my middle school son dont get the same response from me as they dod from my parents . Its the least of my worries.
The point is that these groomers are trying hard force that behavior upon all of our kids, regardless what the parents think of it. That's what's going on here. That's why we have to stop it dead in it's tracks. I cannot believe we're even talking rationally about this, and are talking about it and mitigating SOME of this crap... trying equate it to regular dancing?
If drag queens formed their own religion or church, maybe it would confer them with an additional legal argument in these matters.
Can we get a Non Sequitur... Logical Fallacy... Strawman Argument... Circular Argument... Defection... and Projection emojis? That would save a bunch typing.
So… not YOUR kid. You want to regulate someone else’s kid? Weird. Does this apply to just drag shows? Or are we going to delve into video games, movies, and television shows as well? Sounds like you want to extend book bans outside public libraries and extend to commercial activity. Just wondering where the thought police stop in the “free state of Florida”.
She doesnt even really feel that way about the stuff she is claiming the left should feel that way about. Her claim about not liking guns so dont own one for instance: Funny thing I agree with her previous liberal position on guns, but this new conservative one is too far right for me.
I think that the entire LGBTQ community should get together and invent a new religion the way That Scientologist dude did. If that got govmnt approval for tax breaks and legal protection on par with Christianity/Muslim/other then so can they. That would make a lot of the problems go away, right? Maybe I'm just naive as to how a religion gets accepted or not as being a true religion. Who decides? How long does it take? When does the gvmnt decide to start protecting this religion the same as any other?
And I will ask for the 3rd time... Where is the limit?... in the free state of Florida... Or the USA for that matter. It's like the 4 month forced birthers...or the 6 week forced birthers....or the viability forced birthers. We all have our limits, just where is it and who decides?
Please do that, then get ready for the Establishment Clause being thrown in your face every two seconds even when it doesn't apply.
"I think trans people should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice." "SePaRaTiOn Of ChUrCh AnD sTaTe."
I did not say the gvmnt would promote it as the only religion did I? Just give it the same protections as any other religion. Tax exempt status for example. You may not like that religion but you won't be able to openly discriminate against it would be the point.
Actually, “the issue” here is fundamentally to ask the question: what is the governments role in regulating artistic expression? To any small govt conservative the obvious answer should be: “not much”. This is pretty basic 1st amendment stuff. Except… this is the gays! They’re grooming children! The appeals to bigotry they want to override the 1st amendment. Which is how we end up with lists of “approved” books and sanitized version of Rosa Parks where race cannot be mentioned. Pure. Dystopian. Garbage. Obviously there are some limits. Kids should not be allowed to see full frontal nudity, for example. So… strip clubs should reasonably be 18+. I’m not sure I see a valid argument to “the govt needs to shield kids from RuPaul”. So if parents take their kids to see Rupaul, that can only be entirely up to them. I view this exactly the same as parents taking their kids to violent R rated movies or buying them video games like Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto. It’s not a mystery why “social warriors” want to create a wedge issue here, as opposed to violent movies and games. They know those are losing issues. They also know legalized gay marriage is mostly a losing issue moving away from them, so they want to weasel and wedge in some anti-trans bigotry, essentially making trans issues their current punching bag. It’s a disgusting political strategy and I really don’t think there’s much more to it than that. It’s unfortunate (ostensibly decent) people such as yourself fall for it.
And I'm saying every time you advocate for policy, and when people talk about the LGBTQ+ community they're generally talking about a group as policy advocates, get ready for people to characterize that community as trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else, even if the policy rationale is secular. All I'm saying is if you're a politically active group, the religious tax exemption comes at a price.
