Won't dive too deep into the pool of conspiracies but it does feel like there's a strong push being made to blur the lines between sexuality and gender. My belief is that it's being done here to help further destabilize any hopes of a traditional family as well as help further push the goal of depopulation. We keep seeing it openly now from the higher up's. The World Economic Forum for example and a number of other institutions pushing the ideology of owning nothing and liking it.

It really feels like modern day Rome slowly beginning to collapse here in the states. Everything is cyclical and when you go back and look at the circus Rome became towards it's downfall it all started with perversion, entertainment, mass corruption and currency fraud. The same looney toon leaders that Rome had to suffer and endure are now back in today's modern world. They just have to go about it more discreetly by passing laws into effect in the dead of the night.

Again, no problems with transgender people, drag queens, etc. Hell, I am not shy to admit it. I have been to quite a few drag shows with my wife and her friends. I am completely comfortable with my sexuality. Hamburger Mary's is awesome. InCahoots is a fantastic gay bar on beach that I hit up a few times a year with our mutual friends that just so happen to be Gay. Again, zero issues with anybody's lifestyle or sexual preference. Just don't force it onto young, impressionable minds.

I have a two, nearly three year old son and he's a sponge. Any little word I drop, negative or positive, he picks up on it. Anything he sees on TV, he can copy it and parody right off of that. Targeting children that haven't even matured physically is just [BLEEP] wrong. And we all know it. My biggest complaint is that, most schools did away with God in school and did away with the Pledge of Allegiance in school every morning. Not a fan of that. Also, not a fan of this stuff being injected into these schools as well.

Needs to be even keel across the board. If we can't have God and Pledges in school? I sure as hell don't want to see drag queens and gender blurring nonsense in these schools as well. This is coming from a nearly 35 year old Agnostic. Very much more liberal than conservative and I tend to stay right down the middle politically as I have had an increasingly hard time trusting anything these [BLEEP] say on either side of the aisle.

I often say it whenever I can though. However, if we really want our society to shape up? Adopt what Japan has done for their schools and their children. Their children learn basic, everyday, helpful chores and being a kind human being and being respectful individuals to society at a young age. This is long before anything is taught academically. That's the key. Give them a solid, decent foundation to build upon.

You don't need to dive into the pool of conspiracies. You just need to read the body of literature that dominates the progressive left. It's all in there. This stuff isn't an accident. And the left is going to "principle" the Marty's and the Mikesez's right into their plan for a hypersexualized, global society with two classes... the haves and the have nots.

Never go full [BLEEP], man.  
Socialists believe that we are *already* a society of haves and have nots, that we just don't realize it yet.
The whole program of the socialist left is to make all different types of people realize that "have" and "have not" are the only meaningful distinctions between people.  They want people to learn to forget distinctions of religion, race, etc., so that economic class distinctions will be the most important.  Then they believe that when the have nots realize that they have more numbers and more power than the haves, they will overthrow the haves, and we will begin a utopian society with no class distinctions.
It's all BS of course.
But realize that the leftists pushing for the celebration and propagation of divergent sexual behaviors are actually pushing in the opposite direction, creating manifold new non-economic distinctions between people, each with their own narrative of "I'm a distinct oppressed minority".  An actual socialist wants the masses of people saying "we are all the same oppressed *majority*."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No [BLEEP]. Really? You don't say. ..

Since you have a hard time following, I am not saying they are openly advocating for a society with haves and have nots. That would be a really stupid position to take. I am saying that will be the result of their stupid ideology. Once again, you chime in with your google knowledge and prove that you can't understand anything contextually.

---

Let me throw you an olive branch... maybe when I used the word "plans," you assumed I meant the ideologues who champion leftist ideology... the simpletons, much like yourself. I'm not talking about those guys. I'm talking about how the greedy, opportunistic, sociopathic narcissists will exploit that ideology for their favor, because that's who will ride this non-sense to the top. That's how it's always been.

---

Won't dive too deep into the pool of conspiracies but it does feel like there's a strong push being made to blur the lines between sexuality and gender. My belief is that it's being done here to help further destabilize any hopes of a traditional family as well as help further push the goal of depopulation. We keep seeing it openly now from the higher up's. The World Economic Forum for example and a number of other institutions pushing the ideology of owning nothing and liking it.

It really feels like modern day Rome slowly beginning to collapse here in the states. Everything is cyclical and when you go back and look at the circus Rome became towards it's downfall it all started with perversion, entertainment, mass corruption and currency fraud. The same looney toon leaders that Rome had to suffer and endure are now back in today's modern world. They just have to go about it more discreetly by passing laws into effect in the dead of the night.

Again, no problems with transgender people, drag queens, etc. Hell, I am not shy to admit it. I have been to quite a few drag shows with my wife and her friends. I am completely comfortable with my sexuality. Hamburger Mary's is awesome. InCahoots is a fantastic gay bar on beach that I hit up a few times a year with our mutual friends that just so happen to be Gay. Again, zero issues with anybody's lifestyle or sexual preference. Just don't force it onto young, impressionable minds.

I have a two, nearly three year old son and he's a sponge. Any little word I drop, negative or positive, he picks up on it. Anything he sees on TV, he can copy it and parody right off of that. Targeting children that haven't even matured physically is just [BLEEP] wrong. And we all know it. My biggest complaint is that, most schools did away with God in school and did away with the Pledge of Allegiance in school every morning. Not a fan of that. Also, not a fan of this stuff being injected into these schools as well.

Needs to be even keel across the board. If we can't have God and Pledges in school? I sure as hell don't want to see drag queens and gender blurring nonsense in these schools as well. This is coming from a nearly 35 year old Agnostic. Very much more liberal than conservative and I tend to stay right down the middle politically as I have had an increasingly hard time trusting anything these [BLEEP] say on either side of the aisle.

I often say it whenever I can though. However, if we really want our society to shape up? Adopt what Japan has done for their schools and their children. Their children learn basic, everyday, helpful chores and being a kind human being and being respectful individuals to society at a young age. This is long before anything is taught academically. That's the key. Give them a solid, decent foundation to build upon.

You don't need to dive into the pool of conspiracies. You just need to read the body of literature that dominates the progressive left. It's all in there. This stuff isn't an accident. And the left is going to "principle" the Marty's and the Mikesez's right into their plan for a hypersexualized, global society with two classes... the haves and the have nots.

Answer these questions-  I'll answer them first.  

1) Isn't putting on a sexually explicit show in front of minors already illegal?  Answer: Probably
2) If it's not already illegal, shouldn't it be illegal whether or not a man is wearing a dress?  Answer: Absolutely
3) Shouldn't such a law apply to everyone, not just men wearing dresses?  Answer: Yes
4) Is there any situation where it is okay to put on a sexually explicit show in front of minors as long as you're not wearing a dress?  Answer: Probably not.  
5) So what the heck does wearing a dress have to do with it?  Answer: Your favorite politicians have found a great target to pick a fight with, so they can fundraise off of it.  Culture wars are great for raising campaign money.  

---

If there's a law on the books that is general, should we no longer make any specific laws? No, of course we should. If leftists are exploiting diversity and equality to work around previously understood laws, is it ok to make laws that recognize this new perversion? Sure. It's totally ok to do that. We, as a society are simply confirming that this new filth is the same as the old filth.

The question is not why they are doing it... it's why do you care? Could it be that you consume news that suggests the politicians who are enacting these bills are demagogues? Because it certainly seems that way to me. Otherwise, you should be in lockstep with us that this new filth is the same as the old, and we just want to make sure that people know that we know and to knock it off. Does it hurt to emphasize that transgenders are not above the law? Is the answer no to that? Then stop demagoguing the politicians.

---

Marty is simply looking at this through a legal prism, and he's right. Laws can't be created to thwart a particular class of people.

However, if the actions of that particular class of people are what is causing these laws to be created, or enforced, does he still have an objection?

---

Hard to trust some of these laws and lawmakers. Didn't they approve a law in California that enabled people not to disclose any STD's with potential partners or lower the penalties for knowingly spreading it without disclosing?

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Marty is simply looking at this through a legal prism, and he's right. Laws can't be created to thwart a particular class of people.

However, if the actions of that particular class of people are what is causing these laws to be created, or enforced, does he still have an objection?

I get it. He's being principled. That's how they get ya!

For the record, that was tongue-n-cheek. No need to analyze the they or get ya.

---

Sure we are and yes, toddlers do, which begs the question of your purpose when you post so that you appear not to. Strongly worded letters in response to this stuff? Nah, I want them in jail, and we'll get there if we don't react in your usual spineless way. And the more we expose their actions the more we expose their intentions.

But isn't putting on a sexually explicit show in front of minors already illegal?  And if it's not, shouldn't it be illegal whether or not a man is wearing a dress?  Shouldn't such a law apply to everyone, not just men wearing dresses?  Is there any situation where it is okay to put on a sexually explicit show in front of minors as long as you're not wearing a dress?  

The answer is obvious.  This is a case of politicians pandering to their social conservative base.

I dunno man, last time I tried to take my 6 year old to the Gold Club they wouldn't let me in, but I can head on down to the public library for Drag Time Story Hour and get it paid for on the public dime. But yeah, all you RINO 'Pubs are doing a great job of surrendering (as usual).

---

You don't need to dive into the pool of conspiracies. You just need to read the body of literature that dominates the progressive left. It's all in there. This stuff isn't an accident. And the left is going to "principle" the Marty's and the Mikesez's right into their plan for a hypersexualized, global society with two classes... the haves and the have nots.

Answer these questions-  I'll answer them first.  

1) Isn't putting on a sexually explicit show in front of minors already illegal?  Answer: Probably
2) If it's not already illegal, shouldn't it be illegal whether or not a man is wearing a dress?  Answer: Absolutely
3) Shouldn't such a law apply to everyone, not just men wearing dresses?  Answer: Yes
4) Is there any situation where it is okay to put on a sexually explicit show in front of minors as long as you're not wearing a dress?  Answer: Probably not.  
5) So what the heck does wearing a dress have to do with it?  Answer: Your favorite politicians have found a great target to pick a fight with, so they can fundraise off of it.  Culture wars are great for raising campaign money.  

5: If you're a dude who puts on a dress (or corset or thong) and does it you're exempt from any of those laws. You're a protected class because of you wear women's clothes while you exploit children.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Marty is simply looking at this through a legal prism, and he's right. Laws can't be created to thwart a particular class of people.

However, if the actions of that particular class of people are what is causing these laws to be created, or enforced, does he still have an objection?

Yes, I would have an objection.  Laws should apply to everyone equally.  We don't write laws aimed at specific classes of people.  We don't write laws that say "Catholic priests cannot molest children" we don't write laws that say "White people cannot discriminate" and we don't write laws that say "Teenagers can't exceed the speed limit."  We write laws that say no one can molest children, no one can discriminate, and no one can exceed speed limits without penalty.  

If you want to write a law in response to kids watching a sexually explicit performance, then write a law that says kids cannot watch a sexually explicit performance.  There's no need to write a law that says kids cannot watch a sexually explicit performance if it's by men wearing dresses.  That's kind of silly.

---

But isn't putting on a sexually explicit show in front of minors already illegal?  And if it's not, shouldn't it be illegal whether or not a man is wearing a dress?  Shouldn't such a law apply to everyone, not just men wearing dresses?  Is there any situation where it is okay to put on a sexually explicit show in front of minors as long as you're not wearing a dress?  

The answer is obvious.  This is a case of politicians pandering to their social conservative base.

I dunno man, last time I tried to take my 6 year old to the Gold Club they wouldn't let me in, but I can head on down to the public library for Drag Time Story Hour and get it paid for on the public dime. But yeah, all you RINO 'Pubs are doing a great job of surrendering (as usual).

---

Answer these questions-  I'll answer them first.  

1) Isn't putting on a sexually explicit show in front of minors already illegal?  Answer: Probably
2) If it's not already illegal, shouldn't it be illegal whether or not a man is wearing a dress?  Answer: Absolutely
3) Shouldn't such a law apply to everyone, not just men wearing dresses?  Answer: Yes
4) Is there any situation where it is okay to put on a sexually explicit show in front of minors as long as you're not wearing a dress?  Answer: Probably not.  
5) So what the heck does wearing a dress have to do with it?  Answer: Your favorite politicians have found a great target to pick a fight with, so they can fundraise off of it.  Culture wars are great for raising campaign money.  

5: If you're a dude who puts on a dress (or corset or thong) and does it you're exempt from any of those laws. You're a protected class because of you wear women's clothes while you exploit children.

You're saying that if a man puts on a dress he can commit a crime without any penalty?   I doubt that.

---

Marty is simply looking at this through a legal prism, and he's right. Laws can't be created to thwart a particular class of people.

However, if the actions of that particular class of people are what is causing these laws to be created, or enforced, does he still have an objection?

Yes, I would have an objection.  Laws should apply to everyone equally.  We don't write laws aimed at specific classes of people.  We don't write laws that say "Catholic priests cannot molest children" we don't write laws that say "White people cannot discriminate" and we don't write laws that say "Teenagers can't exceed the speed limit."  We write laws that say no one can molest children, no one can discriminate, and no one can exceed speed limits without penalty.  

If you want to write a law in response to kids watching a sexually explicit performance, then write a law that says kids cannot watch a sexually explicit performance.  There's no need to write a law that says kids cannot watch a sexually explicit performance if it's by men wearing dresses.  That's kind of silly.

Is anyone attempting to pass a law that explicitly targets trans performances? Or are their efforts to pass/enforce laws which ban sexually explicit performances, by anyone, for children motivated by the left leveraging trans persons as performers?

---

I dunno man, last time I tried to take my 6 year old to the Gold Club they wouldn't let me in, but I can head on down to the public library for Drag Time Story Hour and get it paid for on the public dime. But yeah, all you RINO 'Pubs are doing a great job of surrendering (as usual).

---

5: If you're a dude who puts on a dress (or corset or thong) and does it you're exempt from any of those laws. You're a protected class because of you wear women's clothes while you exploit children.

You're saying that if a man puts on a dress he can commit a crime without any penalty?   I doubt that.

I'm going to apologize to Drifter ahead of my statement, because I like Drifter and he's never done anything wrong..

But I will say, if I see a man in a dress, I automatically think "mental illness".  

When is the last time you hung out with a guy in a dress, Marty?

And if you haven't hung out with a guy in a dress, why not?

Because you think the same thing the majority of straight heterosexual people thinks who sees a man in a dress.

Mental illness.. Now that may not be the case for all, but they're still looked upon that way by society. 

And if you deem them mentally ill, do you want to be around, hang out or expose your kids to their lifestyle?

No, you don't.

---

Yes, I would have an objection.  Laws should apply to everyone equally.  We don't write laws aimed at specific classes of people.  We don't write laws that say "Catholic priests cannot molest children" we don't write laws that say "White people cannot discriminate" and we don't write laws that say "Teenagers can't exceed the speed limit."  We write laws that say no one can molest children, no one can discriminate, and no one can exceed speed limits without penalty.  

If you want to write a law in response to kids watching a sexually explicit performance, then write a law that says kids cannot watch a sexually explicit performance.  There's no need to write a law that says kids cannot watch a sexually explicit performance if it's by men wearing dresses.  That's kind of silly.

Is anyone attempting to pass a law that explicitly targets trans performances? Or are their efforts to pass/enforce laws which ban sexually explicit performances, by anyone, for children motivated by the left leveraging trans persons as performers?

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence.  It's fine with me if they want to pass a law that bans sexually explicit performances in front of children.   As long as it applies to everyone equally.

---

Is anyone attempting to pass a law that explicitly targets trans performances? Or are their efforts to pass/enforce laws which ban sexually explicit performances, by anyone, for children motivated by the left leveraging trans persons as performers?

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence.  It's fine with me if they want to pass a law that bans sexually explicit performances in front of children.   As long as it applies to everyone equally.

Yeah, that sentence was a little clumsy. In essence, does it make any difference to you if the creation of laws banning sexualized performances, by anyone, are motivated by the rise in performances by trans persons?

---

You're saying that if a man puts on a dress he can commit a crime without any penalty?   I doubt that.

I'm going to apologize to Drifter ahead of my statement, because I like Drifter and he's never done anything wrong..

But I will say, if I see a man in a dress, I automatically think "mental illness".  

When is the last time you hung out with a guy in a dress, Marty?

And if you haven't hung out with a guy in a dress, why not?

Because you think the same thing the majority of straight heterosexual people thinks who sees a man in a dress.

Mental illness.. Now that may not be the case for all, but they're still looked upon that way by society. 

And if you deem them mentally ill, do you want to be around, hang out or expose your kids to their lifestyle?

No, you don't.

If I see a straight man in a dress, I would think maybe he has this unusual compulsion, perhaps bordering on mental illness.  It's someone doing something he could avoid doing, and which can cause harm to himself.  It's definitely not normal.  I would wonder what's going on in his head that would cause him to want to do such a strange thing.  Sort of like if a guy wanted to shave off his eyebrows.  Weird.  

On the other hand, if I see a gay guy in a dress, I think, there's a gay guy trying to "gay it up," so to speak.  It's a gay thing.  Some of them want to do that.  I don't care.  

As far as "exposing my kids to their lifestyle," that's a parental decision.  I would probably explain my feelings about it to my child.  But I don't think a normal boy would ever want to wear a dress, no matter how many cross-dressers he encountered.  Exposing your kids to weird people isn't going to make them want to be weird.  

When's the last time I hung out with a guy in a dress?  Never.  I did put on a dress one time, many years ago, as a joke at an office I worked at.  I think someone dared me to do it.  It was Halloween.  The office girls found a dress that fit me, and some low heels, and a wig, and I put them on and walked around the office.  

---

I'm not sure I understand your last sentence.  It's fine with me if they want to pass a law that bans sexually explicit performances in front of children.   As long as it applies to everyone equally.

Yeah, that sentence was a little clumsy. In essence, does it make any difference to you if the creation of laws banning sexualized performances, by anyone, are motivated by the rise in performances by trans persons?

No.  The motivation to write the law doesn't matter, as long as the law applies to everyone equally.  For example, civil rights laws were motivated by white people discriminating.  But those civil rights laws should apply equally to everyone.

---

I'm going to apologize to Drifter ahead of my statement, because I like Drifter and he's never done anything wrong..

But I will say, if I see a man in a dress, I automatically think "mental illness".  

When is the last time you hung out with a guy in a dress, Marty?

And if you haven't hung out with a guy in a dress, why not?

Because you think the same thing the majority of straight heterosexual people thinks who sees a man in a dress.

Mental illness.. Now that may not be the case for all, but they're still looked upon that way by society. 

And if you deem them mentally ill, do you want to be around, hang out or expose your kids to their lifestyle?

No, you don't.

If I see a straight man in a dress, I would think maybe he has this unusual compulsion, perhaps bordering on mental illness.  It's someone doing something he could avoid doing, and which can cause harm to himself.  It's definitely not normal.  I would wonder what's going on in his head that would cause him to want to do such a strange thing.  Sort of like if a guy wanted to shave off his eyebrows.  Weird.  

On the other hand, if I see a gay guy in a dress, I think, there's a gay guy trying to "gay it up," so to speak.  It's a gay thing.  Some of them want to do that.  I don't care.  

As far as "exposing my kids to their lifestyle," that's a parental decision.  I would probably explain my feelings about it to my child.  But I don't think a normal boy would ever want to wear a dress, no matter how many cross-dressers he encountered.  Exposing your kids to weird people isn't going to make them want to be weird.  

When's the last time I hung out with a guy in a dress?  Never.  I did put on a dress one time, many years ago, as a joke at an office I worked at.  I think someone dared me to do it.  It was Halloween.  The office girls found a dress that fit me, and some low heels, and a wig, and I put them on and walked around the office.  

---

Yeah, that sentence was a little clumsy. In essence, does it make any difference to you if the creation of laws banning sexualized performances, by anyone, are motivated by the rise in performances by trans persons?

No.  The motivation to write the law doesn't matter, as long as the law applies to everyone equally.  For example, civil rights laws were motivated by white people discriminating.  But those civil rights laws should apply equally to everyone.

I really don't understand what you're trying to do here. The law should be that children are not permitted at Drag Shows and those who bring them Drag Shows are commiting a crime. The Drag Show is the issue because it's sexual exploitation of the child for the child to be present. That law should apply equally across all Drag Shows the same as we have a law that applies to strip clubs. This shouldn't even be controversial but you really are going to the mat for this one for some reason.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The bottom line here is kids aren't fully developed, mentally or physically, for drag shows.

Kids need to rely on a parental figure, teacher, guardian or even other kids for guidance because critical thinking isn't fully introduced at that time.

Taking children to drag shows is going to create gender confusion, which is the primary goal to a lot of these dragsters in the news.

Let them grow up, physically and mentally, and let them decide for themselves if that's the lifestyle they choose.

---

If I see a straight man in a dress, I would think maybe he has this unusual compulsion, perhaps bordering on mental illness.  It's someone doing something he could avoid doing, and which can cause harm to himself.  It's definitely not normal.  I would wonder what's going on in his head that would cause him to want to do such a strange thing.  Sort of like if a guy wanted to shave off his eyebrows.  Weird.  

On the other hand, if I see a gay guy in a dress, I think, there's a gay guy trying to "gay it up," so to speak.  It's a gay thing.  Some of them want to do that.  I don't care.  

As far as "exposing my kids to their lifestyle," that's a parental decision.  I would probably explain my feelings about it to my child.  But I don't think a normal boy would ever want to wear a dress, no matter how many cross-dressers he encountered.  Exposing your kids to weird people isn't going to make them want to be weird.  

When's the last time I hung out with a guy in a dress?  Never.  I did put on a dress one time, many years ago, as a joke at an office I worked at.  I think someone dared me to do it.  It was Halloween.  The office girls found a dress that fit me, and some low heels, and a wig, and I put them on and walked around the office.  

---

No.  The motivation to write the law doesn't matter, as long as the law applies to everyone equally.  For example, civil rights laws were motivated by white people discriminating.  But those civil rights laws should apply equally to everyone.

I really don't understand what you're trying to do here. The law should be that children are not permitted at Drag Shows and those who bring them Drag Shows are commiting a crime. The Drag Show is the issue because it's sexual exploitation of the child for the child to be present. That law should apply equally across all Drag Shows the same as we have a law that applies to strip clubs. This shouldn't even be controversial but you really are going to the mat for this one for some reason.

So, now we're going to have to start the whole conversation over again.  

Why do you want to ban kids from seeing drag shows?  Define what you mean by "drag show."  Men wearing dresses and singing, pretending to be Liza Minelli or something like that?  How are kids harmed by seeing that?  Is it going to make the boys want to wear dresses?  What exactly are we talking about here?

---

I really don't understand what you're trying to do here. The law should be that children are not permitted at Drag Shows and those who bring them Drag Shows are commiting a crime. The Drag Show is the issue because it's sexual exploitation of the child for the child to be present. That law should apply equally across all Drag Shows the same as we have a law that applies to strip clubs. This shouldn't even be controversial but you really are going to the mat for this one for some reason.

So, now we're going to have to start the whole conversation over again.  

Why do you want to ban kids from seeing drag shows?  Define what you mean by "drag show."  Men wearing dresses and singing, pretending to be Liza Minelli or something like that?  How are kids harmed by seeing that?  Is it going to make the boys want to wear dresses?  What exactly are we talking about here?

It creates gender confusion. It's hard enough growing up in this society. They don't need anymore cliffs to fall from.

---

So, now we're going to have to start the whole conversation over again.  

Why do you want to ban kids from seeing drag shows?  Define what you mean by "drag show."  Men wearing dresses and singing, pretending to be Liza Minelli or something like that?  How are kids harmed by seeing that?  Is it going to make the boys want to wear dresses?  What exactly are we talking about here?

It creates gender confusion. It's hard enough growing up in this society. They don't need anymore cliffs to fall from.

Are you saying that seeing a man in a dress creates gender confusion?  Can you be specific about exactly what sort of behavior creates this gender confusion? 

I'm just trying to figure out exactly what sort of behavior you guys are talking about.  "Drag show" is kind of vague.

---