Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Accept and Advocate or Else.
Drag Queen Storytime is scheduled this month at three of the local libraries where I live. I’m told in the comments on Facebook that if I disagree with it that I’m bigoted, narrow-minded, and hateful.
In 2010 I was invited to a forum to discuss the impending repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. A panel came to visit the Marine Corps base where my husband was stationed and military wives were invited to take part in the discussion. Many were vocally opposed to the repeal. We knew that it would open the door to much more than simply securing the rights of a specific group of individuals to serve openly in the military. I vividly remember one woman relaying that she was both apprehensive and concerned about the repeal of DADT because of the impact it would potentially have on DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). She decidedly explained to the panel and to her fellow military wives that if DADT were to be repealed that DOMA would soon suffer the same fate, and so a snowball effect would sweep the nation.
We were adamantly assured that this repeal would have no effect on DOMA. We were assured that those pressing for the DADT repeal were only interested in the rights of gays to serve openly and that it would not impact marriage. That’s not what they were after. At least that’s what they said.
DADT was repealed by President Obama in December of that year.
Three years later DOMA was struck down as unconstitutional.
We have been told repeatedly when it comes to gay rights, that the goal is simply basic human rights for an oppressed and marginalized group of people. The LGBTQ community only wants the same rights as everyone else. They just desire to live how they choose and it won’t affect anyone else.
We all know what a blatant lie that turned out to be.
Bakers, florists, photographers, and others can attest to just how destructive the LGBTQ lobby has been to their businesses and their livelihoods.
And now, four years after Obergefell was decided (just two years after DOMA was struck down), the claim that all they wanted was to be able to marry has been proven a lie as well.
Last week I received an email from our local library listing 15 events included in their new “Rainbow Connection and Collection.” Three of those events are Drag Queen Storytime. No surprise there. We’ve watched over the past several years as these bizarre events have swept the nation’s public library spaces, funded by taxpayers, and targeting the youngest and most vulnerable among us.
But what we’re witnessing with these “inclusive” programs, events, and books is not just a group of people who want basic human rights. It’s the gay lobby forcefully pushing their agenda on every single American citizen and also entities bending over backward to appease, accept, promote, and push the LGBTQAI+ agenda. There is no end in sight.
There is an apparent connection between the progression of law and the changes we have witnessed in our culture over the past decade. How is it that there was an overnight change in the societal acceptance and praise of all things LGBTQ?
Nancy Pearcey writes extensively about what we have experienced in her book Love Thy Body. She argues that when society adopts certain practices as normative, acceptable, and good, and when it then enshrines such practices into law, the society also then absorbs the practice’s accompanying worldview.
In simple terms, a worldview is a lens through which an individual or a collective views the world regarding such things as truth, epistemology, ethics, and values.
The worldview that accompanies the LGBTQ agenda and culture is one that argues for no objective truth or biological facts. All is governed by what you feel you are, by what you decide in your mind to be, by your desires, feelings, and personal experiences. Truth, facts, evidence, and biology become not just less important, but irrelevant altogether. It is a Postmodern, Secular Humanist worldview which is in stark opposition to the historically dominant worldview of western civilization, namely a Christian theist worldview.
We are observing how law influences our collective values. And not just law, but the law that has been thrust upon the majority and implemented by a minuscule minority.
Now we are told, “It’s the law. You will accept it. You must embrace it.”
But the law is not the only way these practices and their accompanying worldview have become normative and accepted. This happened through a very calculated strategy that is outlined in the 1989 book After The Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. It was written by Marshall Kirk, a neuropsychiatry researcher and Dr. Hunter Madsen, an expert in public persuasion tactics and social marketing. Albert Mohler wrote a thorough and excellent review of the book in 2004.
To sum it up, their purpose was essentially to shift focus away from the immoral and unnatural behavior of homosexuals and onto the human rights denial and attack of “gay” citizens.
Their three-part plan included desensitizing people to homosexuality. We primarily experience this through media and marketing as Hollywood has been more than happy to oblige. The second step uses “jamming” which equates anyone who is opposed to LGBTQ individuals or the agenda with Nazis or the KKK. They are considered bigots and hate mongers. We saw headlines like “Gay is the New Black” meaning to oppose gay rights is tantamount to being a racist. Lastly is conversion which encourages, demands even, that people not only accept homosexuality, transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and all the rest (hence the + at the end of LGBTQIA), but that people advocate for and promote their cause.
Get used to it, embrace it, and promote it.
It has been 30 years since After the Ball was written. Their strategy has been successful and worse, we now are seeing the LGBTQ lobby vigorously target youth.
Hence: Drag Queen Storytime.
It is well understood that to get a hold of young minds, and to “groom” them early as one drag queen recently testified before the Lafayette City-Parish Council, is to rapidly progress an ideology among an entire culture and society. The sooner those Secular Humanist worldview lenses are on our children, the easier it will be to see the outcropping of that worldview and ideology. Young children grow up to be adults who determine the values, lifestyles, laws, and standards of a culture.
This worldview may be cloaked in rainbows, sparkles, love, tolerance, and acceptance, but the cold, hard reality is that there is no room for tolerance in the LGBTQIA+ ideology. Anyone who deviates from the acceptance of and promotion of it will be label “bigot” and dealt with accordingly. Soon it won’t be just bakers, florists, and photographers who suffer. It will be all of us. We will either accept and advocate or else.
Published in General
The “Drag Queen Story Hour” group’s own website tells us on its own front page that its objective is to influence children to embrace sexuality.
Sexual advocates have in recent decades concentrated an enormous amount of time and energy to gain access to children and youth (schools, Boy Scouts, and now toddlers). That concentration is the sexual advocates telling me that their intentions are not benign.
The history of homosexual behavior (thousands of years) is a history not of love, but of power moves by the powerful over the less powerful, including a non-trivial proportion involving children and youth.
Concerns about “drag queen story hour” are highly rational based on what the sexual advocates themselves tell us and especially in light of history.
They do Cato – of course! But it is obvious that this “new” drag queen story hour is something else – in the video the drag queen even says this is about acceptance and inclusion. Think about it. If it was about acceptance and inclusion, the person (drag queen) would read the stories to the children as they are, without the dress up and the rainbow symbol behind them. No wearing your sexual preference on your sleeve. Drag queens are adults, and they dress in outrageous outfits as part of their show – no children that I am aware of go to these shows or know what a drag queen is. They are just there to hear a story. So the story teller should just be there to read a book, not be on display.
Also, the drag queen in the video, when confronted by the dude who say you aren’t a woman, you are a man, he states back, but today I choose to be a woman. So the day that the person gets a chance to read to children, he chooses to be a woman. He says today, so tomorrow or another day he is a man. Why not just be a person reading to children without the sexual reference?
Well, you can go to their official website and learn all about what they “publicly” state is their agenda — introducing very young children to the concepts of gender fluidity and alternate sexualities.
That’s their public statement, and that’s already inappropriate for young children. But who controls what any individual drag queen might say or do in the presence of young children? Is there an advisory board for DQSH that vets these drag queens to make sure they’re not violating personal boundaries? Are there background checks? At our church we have to do background checks on anyone who works with minor children. Shouldn’t the DQSH organization do the same? Shouldn’t the libraries? How did men who are registered sex offenders get past that? Is anyone really vetting these people?
This famous quote definitely applies to libraries.
I realize it’s easier to be dismissive than actually address what’s conveyed in the citation above but that’s a poor reflection on you and indicates that you’d rather not deal with actual examples from me and others that have been presented to you on this thread of how these events aren’t simply a gay man sitting in a chair reading to children.
Oh my god! Acceptance and inclusion. Next thing you know it’ll be peace and love! The perverts!
If you’re gonna drag out the blood libel against gay people I’m just not going to talk to you. Later.
What’s above is a characterization, not an objective fact, and it comes from a publication that I’m familiar with and know is predisposed to get hysterical about this sort of thing. I am not obligated to assume it’s characterization is accurate. As you know, media institutions often publish information that is false, misleading or incomplete. In todays world it pays to be skeptical of any media with a known agenda when it’s playing to type and I am, on both the right and left. I don’t accept First Things characterization of Drag Queen Story Hour uncritically for the same reason I don’t accept CNNs daily dump on Donald Trump uncritically. These are agenda and narrative driven institutions. Both of them. When they publish something that flies in the face of their preferred narratives I think “Hmm, must be true. They’d never have said it unless they had to.” When they publish something that’s basically click-bait for their core audiences my response is “whaddya expect? Typical.”
Only because the perverts are “reading” to our kids in drag. Otherwise, they’re pretty tolerated and included. Although there was that guy who tried to board a commercial airline dressed only in a thong and bra…. He was excluded.
I wouldn’t be comfortable with my male relatives in those poses with my young children! I ask again, who are these parents??!!
When it comes to preschoolers and drag queens, I’m all about Rejection and exclusion. If that makes me a hateful bigoted Nazi in your eyes, I can live with that.
Not a Nazi. That’s a pretty high bar. But narrow minded and intolerant. FWIW I’m in favor of reserving the Nazi epithet for people who actually murder the groups of people they don’t like. If you start doing that, let me know. I’ll call you a Nazi.
…and imbibing the lesson that men dressed like hookers are totally normal and fun! What’s not to love?! “Love is love,” er some other inanity.
Our society could use a whole lot more narrow-mindedness and intolerance.
If objecting to drag queens indoctrinating young children counts as intolerance, then I agree.
The weird thing is 15 years ago, nobody would have considered such a thing. And here we are, not just sliding down the slippery slope, but loading everyone onto the bobsled run to hell.
Yeah. My grandmother used to read to children at the library. I guarantee you that was not sexual.
What I find the most troubling is the speed at which this change has taken place. Albert Mohler discussed DQSH on The Briefing this morning and he made the point that there is a catastrophe that has already taken place in our culture that has led to this and that is “the massive restructuring of the entire moral universe of modern America that makes drag queen story time plausible, and then actual and then celebrated.”
https://albertmohler.com/2019/08/21/briefing-8-21-19
Max has shown up and started deleting my comments for got knows what reason but in any event, I guess that’s the signal to depart. Enjoy all. G’bye.
Good move. Good bye.
Same, brother. Same.
“Drag Queen Story Time” is crazy. Note that Cato Rand didn’t come up with the idea, BTW; he’s saying there are rare circumstances under which it might not be (if the people are related, if it’s not sexual, if it’s being treated as a joke), which I accept could be true.
Drew in Wisconsin makes the most reasonable case against it: okay, even kids can accept gay people for who they are, but this is a library, not someone’s home. There’s no reason why parents who wouldn’t blindly trust teachers, priests or scout leaders to blindly trust the staff of the library to step in and stop anything inappropriate.
I haven’t commented on this thread before because as long as it was about DQST, there wasn’t a lot to disagree about, but in the OP and in some of the comments, there are wider claims about homosexual behavior in general that are utter baloney, as usual for this subject. No reason Cato should let them go by unchallenged.
@garymcvey – Please don’t do that. Don’t posit a vague assertion that some wider claims about “homosexual behavior in general are utter baloney” without responding to them in particular. No one is holding you back. Either make a case here or start a new post about these so-called “baloney claims”. This sort of drive-by commentary is not worthy of you and casts too wide a net over all the participants in this thread without anyone having an opportunity to challenge your assertion with any specificity.
Brian, I’m trying to do you guys a favor by not extending the thread any farther than I had to. Stuff about “grooming”, pontificating claims about “thousands of years” of homo history, false claims of “we were promised that if we let DOMA go”. We could fill hundreds of R> pages arguing about statements like that and in fact we have. I’m not rerunning them all.
No, I’m not starting a post about it. Any longtime reader of Ricochet knows that almost every one of hundreds of posts about it are against Cato’s side. He and Zafar don’t start the fights.
But I do have to tip my hat and thank you for saying it’s not worthy of me; that’s more grace towards an opponent than most internet arguments would allow.
I can speak to the real pressure parents are under these days to be accepting and tolerant. Many have already had to deal with the change in identification of one of their children’s peers.
It’s a super aggressive form of virtue signalling using your child.
I know two mothers who have sons identifying, dressing and behaving as females. Kid not included in the birthday party invitations? Discrimination. Get a weird look from someone who is trying to process what is clearly a male dressed as a female? Discrimination. Don’t want your kid to participate in story hour? Intolerance and closed mindedness.
The two mothers I know are like coiled snakes ready to attack. They listen to every word spoken and will attack for a wrong pronoun. I have had to stop referring with names and now refer to everyone as “honey” or “booshie”. The mothers are on the phone to schools at the drop of a hat. It never dawns on them that their kid is being ostracized because their kid is a jerk or has a sense of entitlement. Or because the mother is someone to be avoided at all costs.
With my family, our rule has not changed one bit, even when dealing with these confusing situations. “There’s no excuse for bad manners.”
Objective is not the same as middle of the road.
I think we are missing an important side of this discussion. The DQST is not just a group of gay men doing storytime. It is exposure to a deeply sexual side of the people in question. It’s not the kind of thing kids should be exposed to – if someone had porn star or exotic dancer story time, you would see the same outrage.
I don’t think that most people would reject a David Rubin or @catorand storytime. Especially given that they would likely be an alternative to a normal liberal librarian.
There are people who think children should be sexualized early on, or that sex and sexual presentation are unrelated. These people are the real problem, regardless of their choice of sex partner.
I don’t think the point of the OP is that drag queens are horrible people. I imagine that population is a mixed bag, pretty much like the rest of us.
The point I take from the post is that we will be made to accept. And frankly I resent any attempt to make me do anything.