RuPaul's Drag Race *Drag Race Season 10!*

[Virtual Mannequin]

Rose die Valkyrie

The song was complete crap, especially as a choice for a LSFYL.

I don't even know who that judge was or why she was there.

I think Willam won simply because she worked the entire runway area and she has the country-chic thing down pat. I think it was Dida who commented on how much Willam looked just like a country pop-starlet doing her thing.

Plus I think at that point Jiggly had just given up.

For some reason I've grown to quite like Dida after this episode. She just seems genuinely nice and pleasant. She needs to step up her game, but I do usually like her runway looks. Kenya can eat it, I loved Dida's teddy-bear skirt. I think she deserves credit for being a *cute* drag queen which isn't something you see normally.



And dear god I hope Willam starts using real drag make-up. I'm gunning for her and America's drag superstar can't be rockin' no Thundercat jowl.

First of all: LOL
Second of all: I had the same experience with Dida. I didn't much care for her until I saw how much compassion she had for Jiggly (even though Jiggly was being a bad friend)
Message to Jiggly: IF YOU CAN'T LOVE YOURSELF, HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GONNA LOVE SOMEBODY ELSE!?

[Virtual Mannequin]

Sifen Yamishi

Who do you guys want to see in the All-Stars season?

Raven, Ongina, Yara, Manila, and I know she's not all that popular but Shannel (she's just such a sweetie)

[Rose die Valkyrie]

Virtual Mannequin

Message to Jiggly: IF YOU CAN'T LOVE YOURSELF, HOW THE HELL ARE YOU GONNA LOVE SOMEBODY ELSE!?

AMEN!

[Rose die Valkyrie]

Pr0dlgy

I agree whole-heartedly with Latrice. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. However, if us gays would start fighting for the meaning and not the word then it would be a happy medium between those who feel that same-sex couples shouldn't be married and the ones who feel like they should be united as one.

Politically, there would be no issues except for the bigots in society. Shut the "sanctity of marriage" people up with a twelve-inch toy because they'll be no backing sans "the bible says" and there is the separation of church and state. So what next?

This isn't the ED so I don't want to derail the thread with a long winded debate, but I will say that I am just *curious* as to why anyone who identifies as gay would feel that the concept of marriage just isn't applicable to two people of the same sex.

It doesn't anger me (though I admit it does) so much as baffles me to be honest.

Marriage has many different meanings and definitions depending on the society and culture you're talking about. In medieval Europe marriage was historically linked to the Catholic Church, but the institution and concept itself was not nor ever was based on religion. It was based usually on economics and ideally on love, almost never truly about satisfying a religious organization.

Marriage is simply a union between two people recognized by society as legally binding. Religion has no place in civilized politics and we should not be patterning our governance after such concepts as it goes against the very spirit of our nation's founding and our principles of freedom and liberty.

Pandering to radical minorities at the expense of human rights goes against the spirit of the Constitution and the moral and ethical standard we as a nation hold ourselves to.

We are not living in a theocracy and we shouldn't be defining and interpreting our laws based on such things.

I don't care if some people are bigots, they don't deserve any leeway because they are WRONG and their radical and immoral opinions go against the intentions of the Constitution. We didn't give the racist bigots any leeway during the Civil Rights movement and we shouldn't now.

[Lusty Lush]

Rose die Valkyrie

HAHAHAHA! It's Williono!

I agree with you about Dida, she's cute, but needs more than that to be a real contender.

Xeno Incognito

Yeah, Willam's dragazine concept just seemed too confusing.
I think sometimes she gets lost in the "this is about me" thing and focuses on just showing herself off instead of what the challenge is actually about.
Which, works sometimes but won't always.

Latrice seems to be serving the same dish over and over, and I'm getting bored with it...

Gothic Ballet Boi

PLEASEEEEE!!! Noooo more Shangela!!!!!She gets on my nerves way TOO much.
It's sad that that's how she is becoming "famous", by being "that annoying queen" but I guess as long as she's making money she's okay with it.

Raja...Oh Raja...I LOVED Raja!
I remember being super excited to see her looks too.
I like what she comes up with, and I agree I haven't seen anyone come close to what she does.

That fart... rofl
Sharon, so hilarious, even on accident! ^^

[Virtual Mannequin]

Rose die Valkyrie

I agree with you

I think that all marriages, straight AND gay, should be called "civil unions"
Marriage may not be an exclusively religious term, but it does have that connotation.
I think, legally, calling all marriages civil unions would be reasonable, sensible, and pc

HOWever. I DO NOT think it is okay for gay marriages to be called civil unions and straight marriages to be called marriages. It is, in my opinion, unequal. As Ellen DeGeneres has said, it is like saying, "you can sit there, but you just can't sit there." Which is reminiscent to segregation.
They should both be called the same thing, weather it be a "marriage" or "civil union"

[Xeno Incognito]

Rose die Valkyrie

Pr0dlgy

I agree whole-heartedly with Latrice. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. However, if us gays would start fighting for the meaning and not the word then it would be a happy medium between those who feel that same-sex couples shouldn't be married and the ones who feel like they should be united as one.

Politically, there would be no issues except for the bigots in society. Shut the "sanctity of marriage" people up with a twelve-inch toy because they'll be no backing sans "the bible says" and there is the separation of church and state. So what next?

This isn't the ED so I don't want to derail the thread with a long winded debate, but I will say that I am just *curious* as to why anyone who identifies as gay would feel that the concept of marriage just isn't applicable to two people of the same sex.

It doesn't anger me (though I admit it does) so much as baffles me to be honest.

Marriage has many different meanings and definitions depending on the society and culture you're talking about. In medieval Europe marriage was historically linked to the Catholic Church, but the institution and concept itself was not nor ever was based on religion. It was based usually on economics and ideally on love, almost never truly about satisfying a religious organization.

Marriage is simply a union between two people recognized by society as legally binding. Religion has no place in civilized politics and we should not be patterning our governance after such concepts as it goes against the very spirit of our nation's founding and our principles of freedom and liberty.

Pandering to radical minorities at the expense of human rights goes against the spirit of the Constitution and the moral and ethical standard we as a nation hold ourselves to.

We are not living in a theocracy and we shouldn't be defining and interpreting our laws based on such things.

I don't care if some people are bigots, they don't deserve any leeway because they are WRONG and their radical and immoral opinions go against the intentions of the Constitution. We didn't give the racist bigots any leeway during the Civil Rights movement and we shouldn't now.

I agree completely. Make it all marriage, don't try to give a different name. "Seperate but equal" was what bigots were peddling around before the civil rights movement, in order to justify their views. And I got a little miffed at Latrice for thinking that way because it's just giving them more ammunition in their attempts to subjugate the LGBT community.

[Majikal Mayhem]

Rose die Valkyrie

Pr0dlgy

I agree whole-heartedly with Latrice. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. However, if us gays would start fighting for the meaning and not the word then it would be a happy medium between those who feel that same-sex couples shouldn't be married and the ones who feel like they should be united as one.

Politically, there would be no issues except for the bigots in society. Shut the "sanctity of marriage" people up with a twelve-inch toy because they'll be no backing sans "the bible says" and there is the separation of church and state. So what next?

This isn't the ED so I don't want to derail the thread with a long winded debate, but I will say that I am just *curious* as to why anyone who identifies as gay would feel that the concept of marriage just isn't applicable to two people of the same sex.

It doesn't anger me (though I admit it does) so much as baffles me to be honest.

Marriage has many different meanings and definitions depending on the society and culture you're talking about. In medieval Europe marriage was historically linked to the Catholic Church, but the institution and concept itself was not nor ever was based on religion. It was based usually on economics and ideally on love, almost never truly about satisfying a religious organization.

Marriage is simply a union between two people recognized by society as legally binding. Religion has no place in civilized politics and we should not be patterning our governance after such concepts as it goes against the very spirit of our nation's founding and our principles of freedom and liberty.

Pandering to radical minorities at the expense of human rights goes against the spirit of the Constitution and the moral and ethical standard we as a nation hold ourselves to.

We are not living in a theocracy and we shouldn't be defining and interpreting our laws based on such things.

I don't care if some people are bigots, they don't deserve any leeway because they are WRONG and their radical and immoral opinions go against the intentions of the Constitution. We didn't give the racist bigots any leeway during the Civil Rights movement and we shouldn't now.

Personally, I HATE getting into debates in which the topic deals with religion or politics... this touches on both. So I am dropping the subject after my next post. I can't elaborate like I want to in great nauseum, but will after class (hence NEXT post).

As for me, I was born and raised (going to college in elsewhere) in one of a few states where the state constitution defines marriage solely as one between a man and a woman. I think there are three now, but I have class soon and don't have time to look right now.

Let's just say that I suffer from a bit of tunnel vision due to what has been taught. Am I "uneducated"? When it comes to the rest of the country, sorta. But I do believe that same-sex couples have just as much of a right to be together as straight ones do. They also have the right to be bonded legally. Does it have to be through "marriage"? No. But give us something that has the same rights and privileges that marriage does. Once again, give me the definition, you can keep the word.

If the idea of same-sex marriage comes to vote where I am now, I would vote for it being legalized solely on the premise of equal rights. I would only be at the alter because marriage grants benefits that a domestic partnership won't (for now, mark my words). But if the same domestic partnership already granted those same perks then I wouldn't waste my time, energy, and money to get a piece of paper that tells me what I already know... I love my boyfriend.

For the record, gays having the right to marry isn't a cure-all. We'll still be thought of as second class... the only difference is a ring on the finger. The root of the issue will still be there and I want that gone more than anything right now.

[Rose die Valkyrie]

Pr0dlgy

Rose die Valkyrie

Pr0dlgy

I agree whole-heartedly with Latrice. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. However, if us gays would start fighting for the meaning and not the word then it would be a happy medium between those who feel that same-sex couples shouldn't be married and the ones who feel like they should be united as one.

Politically, there would be no issues except for the bigots in society. Shut the "sanctity of marriage" people up with a twelve-inch toy because they'll be no backing sans "the bible says" and there is the separation of church and state. So what next?

This isn't the ED so I don't want to derail the thread with a long winded debate, but I will say that I am just *curious* as to why anyone who identifies as gay would feel that the concept of marriage just isn't applicable to two people of the same sex.

It doesn't anger me (though I admit it does) so much as baffles me to be honest.

Marriage has many different meanings and definitions depending on the society and culture you're talking about. In medieval Europe marriage was historically linked to the Catholic Church, but the institution and concept itself was not nor ever was based on religion. It was based usually on economics and ideally on love, almost never truly about satisfying a religious organization.

Marriage is simply a union between two people recognized by society as legally binding. Religion has no place in civilized politics and we should not be patterning our governance after such concepts as it goes against the very spirit of our nation's founding and our principles of freedom and liberty.

Pandering to radical minorities at the expense of human rights goes against the spirit of the Constitution and the moral and ethical standard we as a nation hold ourselves to.

We are not living in a theocracy and we shouldn't be defining and interpreting our laws based on such things.

I don't care if some people are bigots, they don't deserve any leeway because they are WRONG and their radical and immoral opinions go against the intentions of the Constitution. We didn't give the racist bigots any leeway during the Civil Rights movement and we shouldn't now.

Personally, I HATE getting into debates in which the topic deals with religion or politics... this touches on both. So I am dropping the subject after my next post. I can't elaborate like I want to in great nauseum, but will after class (hence NEXT post).

As for me, I was born and raised (going to college in elsewhere) in one of a few states where the state constitution defines marriage solely as one between a man and a woman. I think there are three now, but I have class soon and don't have time to look right now.

Let's just say that I suffer from a bit of tunnel vision due to what has been taught. Am I "uneducated"? When it comes to the rest of the country, sorta. But I do believe that same-sex couples have just as much of a right to be together as straight ones do. They also have the right to be bonded legally. Does it have to be through "marriage"? No. But give us something that has the same rights and privileges that marriage does. Once again, give me the definition, you can keep the word.

If the idea of same-sex marriage comes to vote where I am now, I would vote for it being legalized solely on the premise of equal rights. I would only be at the alter because marriage grants benefits that a domestic partnership won't (for now, mark my words). But if the same domestic partnership already granted those same perks then I wouldn't waste my time, energy, and money to get a piece of paper that tells me what I already know... I love my boyfriend.

For the record, gays having the right to marry isn't a cure-all. We'll still be thought of as second class... the only difference is a ring on the finger. The root of the issue will still be there and I want that gone more than anything right now.

I agree that legalizing same sex marriage won't fix everything and I don't think anyone would seriously think that. Just because a ring on the finger won't fix everything though doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to have that ring put there.

I appreciate that we are on the same side and we both believe same sex relationships are just as valid as heterosexual ones, I just can't help but feel that the opinion that we shouldn't be fighting for full social equality is misguided and missing the point. I understand why it may seem like pandering to the conservatives would expedite the process of allowing for legal civil unions, but in reality it won't. People against gay marriage think that if same-sex relationships aren't downright evil, then they are shameful and a perversion of hetero-normality.

They will never see them as equal to their own pure relationships and will fight to see that they remain a target of scorn and revulsion.

Give them an inch and they will take a mile and leave nothing for you.

[Sifen Yamishi]

I'll put in my two cents to the debate:

As a trans guy who is dating a trans girl, we do not have rights in Texas. Gay marriage is illegal not by state law but in our state constitution as well. Given how she does not plan to have the SRS, our relationship is looked at as a gay relationship either way you slice it.

Sure, we are planning to move to a state that treats us as equals, but we'll still be treated as lower class citizens no matter how you look at it.

[Now let's stay on track please]

[Majikal Mayhem]

Rose die Valkyrie

I agree that legalizing same sex marriage won't fix everything and I don't think anyone would seriously think that. Just because a ring on the finger won't fix everything though doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to have that ring put there.

If you TRULY believed what you just said then you wouldn't give a s**t about what it was named. Some people have been so engulfed in "give us gay marriage". I, personally, can care less about the name, give me something to where I can make sure my man is taken care of when I kick the bucket. I want to know that when I die, I can leave whatever I want to him without my family coming after him because legally it should go to next of kin. I don't give a DAMN what you call it, just give it to me.

That's the point I'm making and that's why I can care less if it's called marriage/domestic partnership/ civil union/ potato salad.

Quote:

I appreciate that we are on the same side and we both believe same sex relationships are just as valid as heterosexual ones, I just can't help but feel that the opinion that we shouldn't be fighting for full social equality is misguided and missing the point. I understand why it may seem like pandering to the conservatives would expedite the process of allowing for legal civil unions, but in reality it won't. People against gay marriage think that if same-sex relationships aren't downright evil, then they are shameful and a perversion of hetero-normality.

Touche, but just because I don't care about (the specific name of) unions doesn't mean that I am against it altogether. What people think is what they think. No one's opinion should have to be challenged because they don't mesh. Sharon questioned Latrice and now you're questioning me... two cases in point.

Quote:

They will never see them as equal to their own pure relationships and will fight to see that they remain a target of scorn and revulsion.

Give them an inch and they will take a mile and leave nothing for you.

There are bigger fish to fry in my opinion. Can gay marriage be used as a leverage for equal rights? AB-SO-friggin-LUTE-LY. But I feel that the second gay marriage is legalized, about half of the people fighting will sit on their laurels and not care about another equality issue again just because they got that piece of paper.

Now, I'm officialy dropping the subject...

[Virtual Mannequin]

Soooo, just to get us back on topic here- Who do you guys think will sashay away next week? surprised

[Sifen Yamishi]

Dida and Latrice look to be in the bottom 2.

[eating the rude]

Hopefully Dida, never cared for her; should of left earlier.

[Virtual Mannequin]

wayward victorian girlx

Hopefully Dida, never cared for her; should of left earlier.

Yeah I agree, except I like her more now than I did before.
I just don't think she's a Queen