• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this child endangerment?

ajn678 said:
A drag queen children reading time sounds like child endangerment to begin with.
Click to expand...

it sounds odd but whats the danger?
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep.. and wearing womans clothes didn;t make them gay and certainly not a threat to children. .

All it says when a man wears womans clothes.. is that he likes wearing womans clothes... not that he is weird, or gay, or has "issues" and definitely it doesn't say they are a menace to children. ..

Just like your wife wearing pants.. doesn;t make her want to be a man. or dangerous.
Click to expand...

It wasn't very long ago that some workplaces prohibited women from wearing pants...and required them to wear heels. Men wearing dresses or pumps still isn't accepted while women wearing either skirts or pants is. There are men who like wearing women's clothes and underwear, but is this not called "cross-dressing" still?
 
jaeger19 said:
there unhappiness is do to the way people like you treat them...

Do you really want to tell children that they best conform to what society says they may do as individuals (while not harming others) or they will suffer?

Where would we be with woman;s rights, civil rights, and so on?

I have an interracial marriage... Do you believe that I should have decided not to have an interracial marriage because some in society don;t accept it? Do you think my parents should have been sure to teach me to only marry into my own race?

Not really a "libertarian".. view you hold there...
Click to expand...

Their unhappiness is due to the choices they make and the sexual hangups they have. Never have I said they should be forced to make other choices. They choose to live the way they do, and they choose to take the consequences of that choice.
 
nota bene said:
It wasn't very long ago that some workplaces prohibited women from wearing pants...and required them to wear heels. Men wearing dresses or pumps still isn't accepted while women wearing either skirts or pants is. There are men who like wearing women's clothes and underwear, but is this not called "cross-dressing" still?
Click to expand...

If women can wear pants and not identify themselves as men...why cant men wear dresses and not identify themselves as women?

The question was prompted by your post but is for anyone to consider.
 
Lursa said:
If women can wear pants and not identify themselves as men...why cant men wear dresses and not identify themselves as women?

The question was prompted by your post but is for anyone to consider.
Click to expand...

It's called a "double standard."
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not if it could be shown that libertarians, like cross dressers, are more likely to have psychological issues than the general population, or that they're out to indoctrinate children into their peculiar way of thinking.
Click to expand...

So if I can cite a study that suggests either of these things, you would approve of banning all libertarians from interacting with children?
 
Grand Mal said:
I think it depends on how it's presented. I could see a lot of humour in it if done right.
Drag queens ain't necessarily gay, ya know. In fact, I've read that most cross-dressers aren't. I've read that cross-dressing has nothing sexual about it, usually. 'Course, those flamboyant drag queens might be different fron the run-of-the-mill transvestite but still.
If they it were an ordinary gay man, does that cause concern? Gay's aren't automatically pedophiles, no more than straights, what I hear.
The story is about a sex offender beling allowed near kids, not a transvestite. That's the piss-off here. For all we know the only reason the creap was dressed up was so he could use the chance to get near kids. Whoever runs i might not have been aware of the need for checks and should have it explained in no uncertain terms.
Click to expand...

What kind of humor do you find in a 10 year old twerking for a bunch of adults?
 
ajn678 said:
What kind of humor do you find in a 10 year old twerking for a bunch of adults?
Click to expand...

just going by your description its hilarious
this is hilarious especially since he is wearing shorts that look like golf shorts a 60 year old would wear.



is there something else you left out?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Sure. Give it a go.
Click to expand...

You probably thought that was a safe answer. So what about people with Down Syndome? More likely to have psychological issues, you think? If so, ban them from interacting with children? If you're OK with libertarians being banned from interacting with children if it can be shown that they have a higher likelihood of suffering psychological problems, I have to assume you feel that way about any other group, correct? So ban people with Down Syndrome from interacting with children, right?
 
lwf said:
You probably thought that was a safe answer. So what about people with Down Syndome? More likely to have psychological issues, you think? If so, ban them from interacting with children? If you're OK with libertarians being banned from interacting with children if it can be shown that they have a higher likelihood of suffering psychological problems, I have to assume you feel that way about any other group, correct? So ban people with Down Syndrome from interacting with children, right?
Click to expand...

No. That's so far off in left field it has nothing to do with the challenge I gave you: Show that libertarians are more likely to have psychological issues than the rest of the population. Your veering off the subject into Downs Syndrome shows you're not able to do so, which is something I already knew.
 
ajn678 said:
What kind of humor do you find in a 10 year old twerking for a bunch of adults?
Click to expand...

Hell are you talking about? That's some weird fantasy you got there.
 
ajn678 said:
What kind of humor do you find in a 10 year old twerking for a bunch of adults?
Click to expand...

Okay, I scrolled back through the thread and saw what you're talking about. I was addressing the OP, not what you posted later in the thread.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No. That's so far off in left field it has nothing to do with the challenge I gave you: Show that libertarians are more likely to have psychological issues than the rest of the population. Your veering off the subject into Downs Syndrome shows you're not able to do so, which is something I already knew.
Click to expand...

It was an attempt to prove a point. It is wrong to paint a group of people with a single brush just because you think that on average they might be more inclined to have psychological problems. I concede that libertarians are not more likely to have psychological problems than the rest of the population. Do you concede that even if cross dressers do, that this is not sufficient reason to ban them from interacting with children?
 
jaeger19 said:
Wait..so a drag queen is the equivalent of a "gang banger" or a jihadi?

Lets take a step back here and think please.

The female parts in Shakespeare's plays were originally played by males. Often teenage boys.. dressed as women.
Click to expand...
The entire point of drag is to sexually excite, it is effect blackface of women.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The entire point of drag is to sexually excite, it is effect blackface of women.
Click to expand...

:shock:What?????

ding ding ding ding, winner winner chicken dinner!

that is easily the most retarded claim i read today :lamo
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The entire point of drag is to sexually excite, it is effect blackface of women.
Click to expand...

No its not.

but you go ahead and show me some scholarly articles that its the point of crossdressing.
 
lwf said:
It was an attempt to prove a point. It is wrong to paint a group of people with a single brush just because you think that on average they might be more inclined to have psychological problems. I concede that libertarians are not more likely to have psychological problems than the rest of the population. Do you concede that even if cross dressers do, that this is not sufficient reason to ban them from interacting with children?
Click to expand...

No. Why deliberately expose children to people with psychological problems? Aren't there enough hazards to children as it is?
 
Dittohead not! said:
No. Why deliberately expose children to people with psychological problems? Aren't there enough hazards to children as it is?
Click to expand...

Not all cross dressers have psychological problems. In fact, most do not. But you are correct that psychological problems are overrepresented in gender queer folks for a variety of reasons. Just like they are in folks with Down Syndrome. So if this overrepresentation is all that is needed to ban them from interacting with children, then you must agree that children should be kept away from people with Down Syndrome. Do you not agree with this?
 
Roadvirus said:
Someone needs to be fired for sure. When kids are involved, you don't "fail to conduct background checks".
Click to expand...

What was she on the list for to begin with?
 
jaeger19 said:
Why? Whats the difference?

Oh..and you might want to do some research about little boys wearing dresses. Since that's how little boys were dressed 100 years ago.

Don't freak out, but ALL little boys used to wear dresses and nobody cared!

And golly gee.. society didn't die.
Click to expand...

I don't think the other poster realizes that Drag Queens, for the most part, dress in drag to perform at a club or on stage.

Very few of them live as a female. Those people are called transsexuals.
 
lwf said:
Not all cross dressers have psychological problems. In fact, most do not. But you are correct that psychological problems are overrepresented in gender queer folks for a variety of reasons. Just like they are in folks with Down Syndrome. So if this overrepresentation is all that is needed to ban them from interacting with children, then you must agree that children should be kept away from people with Down Syndrome. Do you not agree with this?
Click to expand...

If it can be shown that Downs syndrome people have more psychological problems, then it doesn't make sense to set up a program that deliberately exposes children to people with Downs.

But, I've never seen any evidence to support that they do. On the other hand, drag queens do tend to have a lot of issues, mainly with sexuality.

I don't think that having a read along with prostitutes is a great idea, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom