Good job, Mississippi

[FeelingMN 273]

BS, complete and utter BS. Again, right to script with the gay rights supporters, next stop on the train...Nature vs Nurture. Not every gay is born gay, and there's science supporting the premise that those "born gay" actually had fetal developmental issues that were the root of it.

 

I read a research paper years ago where scientists intensely studied rats and their fetal development cycle. They determined that male rats obviously had higher levels of testosterone at birth, but that they were flooded with it two very specific times during their in utero development. So they took a rat egg, fertilized it with XY chromosome laden rat spooge, and then deprived it of the testosterone at those two specific times. Weeks later when baby rat was born, it came out with male parts, but exhibited female mannerisms, including the urge to mate with other males. Genetically it tested as an XY male rat, but had the tendencies and brain structure of a female rat. Then they did the reverse with XX female rats in utero. The gave them testosterone injections meeting the average levels of what they had studied at the specific intervals. They made XX female rats, again, complete with female reproductive systems, but they acted like male rats. They fought aggressively and tried to mate with females and had a brain structure of a typical male rat.

 

For some reason, many families seem to have an abnormally high # of gay individuals within their family tree. For years people have claimed this is the "gay gene", however, mapping of the human DNA sequence via the Human Genome Project failed to reveal any such gene. In fact, it's much more likely that a faulty programming instruction during fetal development is responsible for those "born gay".

 

I used to work with a lesbian at a previous job. She and her mother were both gay, and her sister was for a time before that. Come to find out that her dad used to abuse her mother, and a few times held a loaded handgun to her mother's head while making her and her sister watch. She got married pretty young and ended up, of course, in an abusive relationship of her own, as did her sister. They were products of their environment, nurture. And that's a choice one makes. I've already covered the nature part. Your argument doesn't hold weight, and you're really reaching with the comparison to Rosa Parks. This isn't something that's genetically programmed in like skin color. It's a condition, a developmental variable that could more than likely be "cured" if monitored in utero and adjusted accordingly.

 

So this research paper of yours...as well as your statement about many families seeming to have an abnormally high number of gays in their family trees....together these serve as your evidence as to why gayness is not determined biologically? Wow.

 

Who cares if there is no gene for gayness....there's no gene for having an arm either....there's no gene for thinking either....there aren't genes for traits.....genes encode for proteins, and how those proteins interact with one another determines the human animal. And of course there's epigenetic and environmental factors that play a part in determining the genes that get expressed, it's a way in which nature diversifies.

 

So your research here just lends credibility to my point that gays are born that way. And your "cure" you mention.....it reeks of eugenics.

 

The fact I mentioned Rosa Parks was not to compare her with this lesbian, and I made sure to create some distance between her situation and Rosa Parks' struggle...and it was every bit a struggle. Rosa Parks, the very mention of that name should invoke a sense of courage and independence. The fact that I haven't mentioned the lesbian as anything other than 'lesbian'....I don't know her name....I don't care.....should show that I don't equate the two women in any way. The only reason I mentioned her was to show that "going with the flow" or following the rules instituted by the majority is an impotent endeavor....that nothing is ever accomplished by playing by the rules that counter your own personal freedom. And when a school explicitly states that persons must attend prom with dates of the opposite sex, it smacks of ignorance and restricts the personal freedoms of gays.

 

Now the whole tux thing....I don't have much sympathy for the broad wanting to show up in a tux....and if that's the thrust of her issue....if she's making that be the cross she wants to bear, then screw her. Then I'd agree with most here....and maybe that's the issue at hand....I don't know, I haven't followed this thing....I haven't watched any interviews....I don't care about any of that. For me it's about ensuring that everyone gets a peice of the American dream....if you're not harming anyone....if you're basically a good person, you have the right to lead your life in pursuit of happiness.

[Lackman 0]

Rules are great, but this isn't 1953. You can't make rules that discriminate against people because of their age, race, or sexual preference.

 

Affirmative Action.

 

FACE.

 

BEEP. BEEP. HERE COMES THE FAILDOZER.

[gocolts 300]

Rules are great, but this isn't 1953. You can't make rules that discriminate against people because of their age, race, or sexual preference. If the rule says says your date must be a member of the opposite sex, then that's discriminatory. You don't have to like gays to realize that. It's just a fact. The prom committee also knew that, so they just cancelled the whole thing. It sucks much worse for the hundreds of other kids who had nothing to do with it and now can't have their prom. Much ado about nothing, but the antiquated school in an antiquated area just couldn't accept it.

And that is one of the biggies in this whole gay debate. They gays are not happy with tolerance, they want everyone to accept them.

[NewbieJr 540]

And that is one of the biggies in this whole gay debate. They gays are not happy with tolerance, they want everyone to accept them.

Is there a big difference between tolerence and acceptance? I'm sure they'd have been happy with either one. The two girls wanted to go to the prom. It had to be tolerated or accepted. Didn't matter to them which one (still not sure there's much difference). Instead, every single student gets the prom pulled out from under them. The dumbest story I've heard all year.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Is there a big difference between tolerence and acceptance? I'm sure they'd have been happy with either one. The two girls wanted to go to the prom. It had to be tolerated or accepted. Didn't matter to them which one (still not sure there's much difference). Instead, every single student gets the prom pulled out from under them. The dumbest story I've heard all year.

 

Thanks to the ACLU

[MDC 5,901]

I agree with most of the above. I may have said it here, but my kids have had gay teachers, and a lot of the women I know in our taekwondo schools are gay, I couldn't care less, much like the girl in this situation. That being said, I think you are being disingenuous with "is only asking to go to the prom with the person of her choice," since she approached the school about going in a tux as the "male-ish" in her lesbian relationship. She clearly wanted to make a statement here, I don't think you can rationally argue with that. Also, I would argue with the nature vs. nurture conclusion; I don't want to hijack the thread as we've been down that road and could each supply plenty of links to support either argument. At the end of the day, acting gay does not help to propagate our species, and as such is not a behavior to be encouraged.

 

My only question with this story is whether the school explicitly barred same sex dates or if they didn't have a clear dress code before they found out this student's intentions. If the school barred this student on the grounds that her date attending in a tux was a violation of a dress code that one thing. But based on what little I've read, I suspect they barred her because she intended to bring a female date and concocted the dress code after the fact, unless they explicitly said that women had to attend in a dress. I doubt they had that kind of dress code in place. Whether the student wanted to make a statement is IMO immaterial.

 

I also don't see what propogating the species has to do with anything. Couples who either can't or don't want to have children don't propogate the species either. Unfit parents propogate the species, but is that a good thing? I'd argue that marriage -- which encourages monogamy and financial and family stability, benefits society more than arbitrary laws that encourage promiscuity and discourage commitment among loving adult couples. Unless you want to get into the government legislating which couples are / aren't good for the species, this is a pretty weak condemnation of homosexuality.

 

For the record, I think allowing states to decide whether to recognize gay marriage is probably the way to go for now. And I expect that within our lifetime, most if not all states will recognize at least some form of civil unions if not outright marriage. The fact that we're even having this discussion shows that's the direction we're moving in.

[jets24 6]

Rules are great, but this isn't 1953. You can't make rules that discriminate against people because of their age, race, or sexual preference. If the rule says says your date must be a member of the opposite sex, then that's discriminatory. You don't have to like gays to realize that. It's just a fact. The prom committee also knew that, so they just cancelled the whole thing. It sucks much worse for the hundreds of other kids who had nothing to do with it and now can't have their prom. Much ado about nothing, but the antiquated school in an antiquated area just couldn't accept it.

 

You're kidding yourself if you think we don't follow rules everyday. Of course its not 1953 and that's silly for suggesting. It's a rule. You wanna create a fight to change the rule, there are avenues to do so. Breaking it is not an option. These kids follow rules all day long at school. This is a rule. The girl loved creating this fight and the liberal ACLU saw a golden opportunity to exploit this situation.

[Chronic Husker 85]

You're kidding yourself if you think we don't follow rules everyday. Of course its not 1953 and that's silly for suggesting. It's a rule. You wanna create a fight to change the rule, there are avenues to do so. Breaking it is not an option. These kids follow rules all day long at school. This is a rule. The girl loved creating this fight and the liberal ACLU saw a golden opportunity to exploit this situation.

So it's not an avenue to change the rule?

[jets24 6]

So it's not an avenue to change the rule?

 

No. Not at all. You walk in a month or so before the prom and tell them that you plan on breaking the rule? No, that is not the avenue Chronic. Not at all.

 

This stuff takes time. It needs to go the School Board or the state. There needs to be discussion about it. Coming in and telling them that you plan on breaking the rule is unacceptable. Period.

[Chronic Husker 85]

No. Not at all. You walk in a month or so before the prom and tell them that you plan on breaking the rule? No, that is not the avenue Chronic. Not at all.

 

This stuff takes time. It needs to go the School Board or the state. There needs to be discussion about it. Coming in and telling them that you plan on breaking the rule is unacceptable. Period.

So, if the girl does it your way, she goes to the school board and state (who won't listen to her) and she ends up not being able to go to prom with whom she wants.

 

If instead, she goes through federal court, she gets her rights instated in time for prom and can go with whomever she wants.

 

Hmmmmm.....which way would I go about it if I were in her shoes?

[jets24 6]

So, if the girl does it your way, she goes to the school board and state (who won't listen to her) and she ends up not being able to go to prom with whom she wants.

 

If instead, she goes through federal court, she gets her rights instated in time for prom and can go with whomever she wants.

 

Hmmmmm.....which way would I go about it if I were in her shoes?

 

First of all, she could have attended her prom. That was her choice to choose to break the rules. Secondly, the answer is yes, she must sacrifice whom she wants to go with to the prom if she is true to her cause. The rule has been in place since the beginning. It will take some effort on her part to have it changed. Perhaps if people would stop jamming everything down the throats of those opposed, we would accomplish something.

[Chronic Husker 85]

First of all, she could have attended her prom. That was her choice to choose to break the rules. Secondly, the answer is yes, she must sacrifice whom she wants to go with to the prom if she is true to her cause. The rule has been in place since the beginning. It will take some effort on her part to have it changed. Perhaps if people would stop jamming everything down the throats of those opposed, we would accomplish something.

How about she stays true to her cause, goes with whomever she wants, and sets precedent for young men and women in her shoes in the future?

 

Why should she have to sacrifice going to prom with her girlfriend when she's the one being discriminated against?

 

Because you want time to talk about it?

 

 

The fact is that you see the writing on the wall. You know the ACLU is going to win this case and the girl is going to go with her girlfriend. I know you'll attribute it to the ACLU's deep pockets. What I'll attribute it to is the girl's civil liberties and progress in this country.

 

I know you think gays should have to hide who they are and abide by a Christian based set of values that doesn't include them.

 

Join the 21st century, jets.

 

It's a brave new world.

[itsbigmoni 1]

I'm disappointed i missed this thread until now.

 

If we're keeping score, i'm on the side that thinks this girl should've been able to go in a tux.

[jets24 6]

How about she stays true to her cause, goes with whomever she wants, and sets precedent for young men and women in her shoes in the future?

 

Why should she have to sacrifice going to prom with her girlfriend when she's the one being discriminated against?

 

Because you want time to talk about it?

 

 

The fact is that you see the writing on the wall. You know the ACLU is going to win this case and the girl is going to go with her girlfriend. I know you'll attribute it to the ACLU's deep pockets. What I'll attribute it to is the girl's civil liberties and progress in this country.

 

I know you think gays should have to hide who they are and abide by a Christian based set of values that doesn't include them.

 

Join the 21st century, jets.

 

It's a brave new world.

 

And if next year, she wants to take two girls? Does the school need to change the rule?

[NewbieJr 540]

And if next year, she wants to take two girls? Does the school need to change the rule?

No, because no one...heterosexuals or homosexuals, are allowed to take two dates.

 

In this instance, only straight students are allowed to bring their dates.

 

Terrible analogy.

[Snoopy 0]

No, because no one...heterosexuals or homosexuals, are allowed to take two dates.

 

In this instance, only straight students are allowed to bring their dates.

 

Terrible analogy.

 

So next year she will bring a pig cause she is an "animal lover"

[jets24 6]

No, because no one...heterosexuals or homosexuals, are allowed to take two dates.

 

In this instance, only straight students are allowed to bring their dates.

 

Terrible analogy.

 

And why is that? Wait for it.....

 

Because it is the RULE. Just like the rule that is being discussed about bringing dates of the opposite sex. So, you are ok with a rule that discriminates against a kid wanting to bring two dates or whatever? It's not a terrible analogy at all. People have different behavior. This girl claims that she is being discriminated against because her behavior is not being considered. How is that different from the kid who wants to bring two dates? And don't tell me because it's against the rules. You've lost that argument already.

[NewbieJr 540]

And why is that? Wait for it.....

 

Because it is the RULE. Just like the rule that is being discussed about bringing dates of the opposite sex. So, you are ok with a rule that discriminates against a kid wanting to bring two dates or whatever? It's not a terrible analogy at all. People have different behavior. This girl claims that she is being discriminated against because her behavior is not being considered. How is that different from the kid who wants to bring two dates? And don't tell me because it's against the rules. You've lost that argument already.

Dude, WTF are you even talking about?

 

I know they're both against the rules, duh. Being gay is not against the law. And proms are for bringing dates. It's not that difficult to understand.

 

And, no, you're not this dumb. You have to be putting me on.

[FranksTanks 0]

And why is that? Wait for it.....

 

Because it is the RULE. Just like the rule that is being discussed about bringing dates of the opposite sex. So, you are ok with a rule that discriminates against a kid wanting to bring two dates or whatever? It's not a terrible analogy at all. People have different behavior. This girl claims that she is being discriminated against because her behavior is not being considered. How is that different from the kid who wants to bring two dates? And don't tell me because it's against the rules. You've lost that argument already.

Jets, what if instead of saying no one is allowed to drink, they said everyone can drink except the guys? Would that be ok just because its a rule? You're missing the point that the rule isn't fair to everyone. No one can bring two dates and its fair because its a rule for everyone. If they said no one could come with their dates it would be fair, but since they've said only straight kids can and gay kids can't, its not. Does that make sense?

[jets24 6]

Dude, WTF are you even talking about?

 

I know they're both against the rules, duh. Being gay is not against the law. And proms are for bringing dates. It's not that difficult to understand.

 

And, no, you're not this dumb. You have to be putting me on.

 

 

I'm completely serious. A guy is in love with two girls and wants to bring them both to the prom. Why shouldn't he be allowed? Why can't people give a real answer to this? Either that or you can answer Snoopy's question about bringing a pig next year because they are an animal lover.

 

Calling me names doesn't help your case at all.

[Chronic Husker 85]

And if next year, she wants to take two girls? Does the school need to change the rule?

The school can do whatever the fock it wants. You think the ACLU is gonna get involved with that one?

 

 

Before, you were whining that the ACLU had too much money and that's why the school would cave in this case.

[FranksTanks 0]

I'm completely serious. A guy is in love with two girls and wants to bring them both to the prom. Why shouldn't he be allowed? Why can't people give a real answer to this? Either that or you can answer Snoopy's question about bringing a pig next year because they are an animal lover.

 

Calling me names doesn't help your case at all.

A consenting adult is different than an animal. Do we really need to expand on that?

[NewbieJr 540]

I'm completely serious. A guy is in love with two girls and wants to bring them both to the prom. Why shouldn't he be allowed? Why can't people give a real answer to this? Either that or you can answer Snoopy's question about bringing a pig next year because they are an animal lover.

 

Calling me names doesn't help your case at all.

It'd be nice to have five wives, but that's against the law.

 

And really? A pig? Comparing a lesbian to an animal focker? I'll pass on stooping to grade school analogies.

[jets24 6]

Jets, what if instead of saying no one is allowed to drink, they said everyone can drink except the guys? Would that be ok just because its a rule? You're missing the point that the rule isn't fair to everyone. No one can bring two dates and its fair because its a rule for everyone. If they said no one could come with their dates it would be fair, but since they've said only straight kids can and gay kids can't, its not. Does that make sense?

 

I have no problem understanding that rules aren't fair to everyone. They seldom are. That's why we need rules. I'm saying, all students in the school have to follow the same rule. Period. If they want to change the rule because a girl with a different behavior than the norm wants it changed, then why can't we change it for the guy who is in love with two girls?

[NewbieJr 540]

I'm completely serious. A guy is in love with two girls and wants to bring them both to the prom. Why shouldn't he be allowed? Why can't people give a real answer to this? Either that or you can answer Snoopy's question about bringing a pig next year because they are an animal lover.

 

Calling me names doesn't help your case at all.

Why don't we ask what's different if a 19 year-old wants to bring a two year-old baby and bang her afterwards? As long as you're just seeing how provacative and moronic you can be, why the hell not?

[FranksTanks 0]

I have no problem understanding that rules aren't fair to everyone. They seldom are. That's why we need rules. I'm saying, all students in the school have to follow the same rule. Period. If they want to change the rule because a girl with a different behavior than the norm wants it changed, then why can't we change it for the guy who is in love with two girls?

What rules aren't fair to everyone?

eta: specifically high school related

[jets24 6]

It'd be nice to have five wives, but that's against the law.

 

And really? A pig? Comparing a lesbian to an animal focker? I'll pass on stooping to grade school analogies.

 

I never mentioned having multiple wives, you did. Also, isn't gay marriage against the law in many places?

[jets24 6]

Why don't we ask what's different if a 19 year-old wants to bring a two year-old baby and bang her afterwards? As long as you're just seeing how provacative and moronic you can be, why the hell not?

 

 

Ahh...more name calling. Nice job. So, you don't want to have a serious discussion about this. I understand.

[Chronic Husker 85]

It'd be nice to have five wives, but that's against the law.

 

And really? A pig? Comparing a lesbian to an animal focker? I'll pass on stooping to grade school analogies.

This is where the GOP always carries their anti-gay argument on the Fox shows Jets has been watching.

 

"If we allow two girls are we going to allow three? What about animals? What about family members?"

 

They tie homosexuality in with beastiality and incest and think they have a case against it.

[jets24 6]

What rules aren't fair to everyone?

eta: specifically high school related

 

My son loves hats. He has an awesome collection of cool hats. They don't allow them in high school. That rule is not fair to him.

[FranksTanks 0]

My son loves hats. He has an awesome collection of cool hats. They don't allow them in high school. That rule is not fair to him.

But no one can wear hats. Please tell me you understand what fair means.

[jets24 6]

This is where the GOP always carries their anti-gay argument on the Fox shows Jets has been watching.

 

"If we allow two girls are we going to allow three? What about animals? What about family members?"

 

They tie homosexuality in with beastiality and incest and think they have a case against it.

 

 

Holy Repetition Batman! How many times are you going to spout this GOP crap? Instead of spewing this venom, why not offer a cohesive thought to the discussion?

[jets24 6]

But no one can wear hats. Please tell me you understand what fair means.

 

And NO ONE can bring a date of the same sex to the prom.

[FranksTanks 0]

And NO ONE can bring a date of the same sex to the prom.

I guess this is where we look at it differently in this discussion and I guess we're not going to get past it.

To me, everyone can bring their date, except the gay kids.

[jets24 6]

I guess this is where we look at it differently in this discussion and I guess we're not going to get past it.

To me, everyone can bring their date, except the gay kids.

 

 

And the polygamists.

[NewbieJr 540]

My son loves hats. He has an awesome collection of cool hats. They don't allow them in high school. That rule is not fair to him.

But he should be allowed to bring his boyfriend to the prom if he wants.

[NewbieJr 540]

And the polygamists.

...and the pig fockers.

 

 

Sorry, namecalling is required here. You're a focking retard.

[jets24 6]

...and the pig fockers.

 

 

Sorry, namecalling is required here. You're a focking retard.

 

 

Well, congratulations. Your parents must be proud.

[jerryskids 5,213]

...and the pig fockers.

Sorry, namecalling is required here. You're a focking retard.

Sorry, but jets has done an admirable job of defending his position here. Why should polygamism, or pig focking, be treated different than homosexuality? From a liberterian perspective, they are all consenting adults (or animals whom we presume they have a bond with).

[NewbieJr 540]

Sorry, but jets has done an admirable job of defending his position here. Why should polygamism, or pig focking, be treated different than homosexuality? From a liberterian perspective, they are all consenting adults (or animals whom we presume they have a bond with).

If you want to compare pig fockers with homosexuals, than you will always think that way. There's nothing that can be done for you. So why even argue the issue? Why not add child molesters to the mix?