What's the deal with drag queens everywhere?

[Sojourner]

I mean it seems everywhere you look these days drag queen events are being hosted. It started with public libraries hosting "drag queen story hour." Then they started being hosted at stadiums, parks, zoos, and other public venues. Drag queen shows were even green-lighted at military bases until a group of GOP Senators introduced legislation to stop the pentagon from funding such events on the taxpayer's dime. (Recently-retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley said he wasn't even aware those types of shows were being hosted at military bases, but somebody approved it).

The University of Notre Dame recently decided to host a drag queen symposium, but is getting push back from right-minded students. Even some churches are now hosting drag queen events. These gender-bending "drag artists" appear to be goodwill ambassadors furthering the LGBTQ agenda of blurring the line between male and female. While it is meeting with some resistance by saner folks, many otherwise rational people are embracing and celebrating these oddball performances. I don't get it. What exactly is the appeal of men prancing around masquerading as women?

[Slug1]

We're watching Paul's lesson from Romans 1 play out more and more.

[Athanasius]

Iunno, it's a disgusting caricature.

[Sojourner]

God designed us to be either male or female, and intended for there to be a clear distinction between the two, which includes the wearing of appropriate apparel:

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing, for whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)

What we are seeing today with the whole licentious LGBTQ maelstrom is rebellion against God's authority and natural order. Our country has left its moral and ethical moorings, and the shadow of God's judgment is already upon us. The current political, economic and social turmoil we're experiencing are ignored warnings that His judgment is imminent.

[Athanasius]

God designed us to be either male or female, and intended for there to be a clear distinction between the two, which includes the wearing of appropriate apparel:

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing, for whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)

What we are seeing today with the whole licentious LGBTQ maelstrom is rebellion against God's authority and natural order. Our country has left its moral and ethical moorings, and the shadow of God's judgment is already upon us. The current political, economic and social turmoil we're experiencing are ignored warnings that His judgment is imminent.

Do you know the problem with one-verse theologies? The rest of Deuteronomy 22.

If we statically apply Deuteronomy 22:5 as above, then why has virginity testing stopped?

How come we don't stone women given away in marriage who weren't able to prove their virginity?

What of the city gates? Do we stone men and the virgin women they sleep with, who were pledged for marriage?

But if the act happens in the country, we're only to kill the man. And don't forget if the woman screamed or not, because that matters.

Well, are we in favour of rapists marrying the women they rape for a small fee?

How about ensuring our clothes have 4 corners now, which have tassels?

Do we avoid wearing clothes that are made of mixed fabric?

How about planting different seeds together...?

Ah, making sure the roof of one's house has a parapet around the roof?

Are we also doing these things, or are we just conveniently glossing over them in favour of verse 5? And by the way, what were the clothes like in the ANE, anyway? I mean, skinny jeans and cropped tops didn't exist (but don't tell those 80s hair metal bands). And when it comes to fashion, a lot of the stuff women wear today (let's say) is what men used to wear, like high heels, and makeup, and whatever else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending what's going on with so-called drag queens or the rest of the social hysteria. I am asking what's a proper application of scripture and whether there are separate issues here that are being confused for the same thing (clobber clobber Romans 1). And like, there are people who affirm God's created order and intention and the value and differences between males and females and men and women (apprecations that extend beyond whatever the current social values are).

People like me.

And to be perfectly clear, I'm a target of this one-verse theology because I wear women's clothing. And I wear women's clothing because it fits better. And it fits better because the only thing that's worked to treat my "dysphoria" is feminising HRT. And because I'm on feminising HRT, I more or less have a female morphology and phenotype (read: body), and when I go outside, people don't look at me or hear me and think, "man".

And that's not to defend all the LGBTQIwhatever stuff that's going on. But that's the 'choice' I had to make after ~20 years of trying not to and exhausting options.

[Sojourner]

God designed us to be either male or female, and intended for there to be a clear distinction between the two, which includes the wearing of appropriate apparel:

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing, for whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)

What we are seeing today with the whole licentious LGBTQ maelstrom is rebellion against God's authority and natural order. Our country has left its moral and ethical moorings, and the shadow of God's judgment is already upon us. The current political, economic and social turmoil we're experiencing are ignored warnings that His judgment is imminent.

Do you know the problem with one-verse theologies? The rest of Deuteronomy 22.

If we statically apply Deuteronomy 22:5 as above, then why has virginity testing stopped?

How come we don't stone women given away in marriage who weren't able to prove their virginity?

What of the city gates? Do we stone men and the virgin women they sleep with, who were pledged for marriage?

But if the act happens in the country, we're only to kill the man. And don't forget if the woman screamed or not, because that matters.

Well, are we in favour of rapists marrying the women they rape for a small fee?

How about ensuring our clothes have 4 corners now, which have tassels?

Do we avoid wearing clothes that are made of mixed fabric?

How about planting different seeds together...?

Ah, making sure the roof of one's house has a parapet around the roof?

Are we also doing these things, or are we just conveniently glossing over them in favour of verse 5? And by the way, what were the clothes like in the ANE, anyway? I mean, skinny jeans and cropped tops didn't exist (but don't tell those 80s hair metal bands). And when it comes to fashion, a lot of the stuff women wear today (let's say) is what men used to wear, like high heels, and makeup, and whatever else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending what's going on with so-called drag queens or the rest of the social hysteria. I am asking what's a proper application of scripture and whether there are separate issues here that are being confused for the same thing (clobber clobber Romans 1). And like, there are people who affirm God's created order and intention and the value and differences between males and females and men and women (apprecations that extend beyond whatever the current social values are).

People like me.

And to be perfectly clear, I'm a target of this one-verse theology because I wear women's clothing. And I wear women's clothing because it fits better. And it fits better because the only thing that's worked to treat my "dysphoria" is feminising HRT. And because I'm on feminising HRT, I more or less have a female morphology and phenotype (read: body), and when I go outside, people don't look at me or hear me and think, "man".

And that's not to defend all the LGBTQIwhatever stuff that's going on. But that's the 'choice' I had to make after ~20 years of trying not to and exhausting options.

Athan, I love and respect you as a friend, and I'm sorry you were offended by my citing of Scripture. I completely empathize with you in your frustrating circumstances and do not question the reality of your dysphoria. I cannot imagine the emotional trauma experienced by those who truly suffer from it. I commend you for maintaining your faith and Christian perspective in the face of your ordeal. But we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the veracity and relevance of Deut. 22:5 in our troubled era.

[Athanasius]

God designed us to be either male or female, and intended for there to be a clear distinction between the two, which includes the wearing of appropriate apparel:

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, and a man must not wear women’s clothing, for whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5)

What we are seeing today with the whole licentious LGBTQ maelstrom is rebellion against God's authority and natural order. Our country has left its moral and ethical moorings, and the shadow of God's judgment is already upon us. The current political, economic and social turmoil we're experiencing are ignored warnings that His judgment is imminent.

Do you know the problem with one-verse theologies? The rest of Deuteronomy 22.

If we statically apply Deuteronomy 22:5 as above, then why has virginity testing stopped?

How come we don't stone women given away in marriage who weren't able to prove their virginity?

What of the city gates? Do we stone men and the virgin women they sleep with, who were pledged for marriage?

But if the act happens in the country, we're only to kill the man. And don't forget if the woman screamed or not, because that matters.

Well, are we in favour of rapists marrying the women they rape for a small fee?

How about ensuring our clothes have 4 corners now, which have tassels?

Do we avoid wearing clothes that are made of mixed fabric?

How about planting different seeds together...?

Ah, making sure the roof of one's house has a parapet around the roof?

Are we also doing these things, or are we just conveniently glossing over them in favour of verse 5? And by the way, what were the clothes like in the ANE, anyway? I mean, skinny jeans and cropped tops didn't exist (but don't tell those 80s hair metal bands). And when it comes to fashion, a lot of the stuff women wear today (let's say) is what men used to wear, like high heels, and makeup, and whatever else.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending what's going on with so-called drag queens or the rest of the social hysteria. I am asking what's a proper application of scripture and whether there are separate issues here that are being confused for the same thing (clobber clobber Romans 1). And like, there are people who affirm God's created order and intention and the value and differences between males and females and men and women (apprecations that extend beyond whatever the current social values are).

People like me.

And to be perfectly clear, I'm a target of this one-verse theology because I wear women's clothing. And I wear women's clothing because it fits better. And it fits better because the only thing that's worked to treat my "dysphoria" is feminising HRT. And because I'm on feminising HRT, I more or less have a female morphology and phenotype (read: body), and when I go outside, people don't look at me or hear me and think, "man".

And that's not to defend all the LGBTQIwhatever stuff that's going on. But that's the 'choice' I had to make after ~20 years of trying not to and exhausting options.

Athan, I love and respect you as a friend, and I'm sorry you were offended by my citing of Scripture. I completely empathize with you in your frustrating circumstances and do not question the reality of your dysphoria. I cannot imagine the emotional trauma experienced by those who truly suffer from it. I commend you for maintaining your faith and Christian perspective in the face of your ordeal. But we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the veracity and relevance of Deut. 22:5 in our troubled era.

Thank you, and I think Deuteronomy 22 is relevant, just not in a one-verse theology kinda way.

[Sojourner]

Thank you, and I think Deuteronomy 22 is relevant, just not in a one-verse theology kinda way.

Duly noted, brother.

[Fenris]

Thank you, and I think Deuteronomy 22 is relevant, just not in a one-verse theology kinda way.

From the local Jewish guy

If you see your fellow Israelite’s ox or sheep straying, do not ignore it but be sure to take it back to its owner.  If they do not live near you or if you do not know who owns it, take it home with you and keep it until they come looking for it. Then give it back.  Do the same if you find their donkey or cloak or anything else they have lost. Do not ignore it.

Still in effect

If you see your fellow Israelite’s donkey or ox fallen on the road, do not ignore it. Help the owner get it to its feet.

Still in effect

A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

Still in effect

If you come across a bird’s nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young.  You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go, so that it may go well with you and you may have a long life.

Still in effect

When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof.


Still in effect


Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled.

Still in effect

Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.

Still in effect

Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.

Still in effect

Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.

Still in effect. I'm wearing a pair right now.


If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her  and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,”  then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin.  Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her.  Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him.  They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

Not in effect, inasmuch as there exists no legal entity with the power to enforce such decisions.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found,  she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

As above. The issue here is not premarital sex. In ancient Israel, a couple was betrothed, and therefore legally married, for a time before the marriage was completely consummated and they lived together. If the woman was not a virgin, the assumption was that she engaged in intercourse during that period, and was therefore an adulteress. 

Nowadays the entire marriage takes place during the wedding ceremony, so it isn't an issue.

If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Not in effect, inasmuch as there exists no legal entity with the power to enforce such decisions.

If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her,  you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Not in effect, inasmuch as there exists no legal entity with the power to enforce such decisions.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor,  for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Not in effect, inasmuch as there exists no legal entity with the power to enforce such decisions.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Not in effect, inasmuch as there exists no legal entity with the power to enforce such decisions.

This seemingly strange ruling applied in the ancient word because all a woman had was her virtue. Once that was taken away, she had nothing to appeal to. So she at least gets a marriage from it. Obviously we live in a different world today.

A man is not to marry his father’s wife; he must not dishonor his father’s bed.

Still in effect.

[teddyv]

It just seems to be a reactionary thing.