Good job, Mississippi

[FeelingMN 273]

Watch this NSFW video and then tell us that there won't be any nuts out there wanting to marry their pets. NSFW or anywhere for that matter."I Lost My Virginity To A Dog"

 

I didn't watch the video...whatever...you're kinda making my point for me. People will always have the impulse to act irrationally, the rules in place don't discourage that impulse. People are gonna want to do some crazy sh!t whether there are rules in place or not.

 

Also, are you saying marrying your pooch is the same as two consenting adults wedding one another?

 

[jgcrawfish 232]

you homo lovers and gay bashers still squabbling over this thing?

[jets24 6]

I didn't watch the video...whatever...you're kinda making my point for me. People will always have the impulse to act irrationally, the rules in place don't discourage that impulse. People are gonna want to do some crazy sh!t whether there are rules in place or not.

 

Also, are you saying marrying your pooch is the same as two consenting adults wedding one another?

 

 

I know what I'm saying. That I wish somebody would give me a good response why polygamists are not being discriminated against if they are being denied rights like gay people claim?

[FeelingMN 273]

I know what I'm saying. That I wish somebody would give me a good response why polygamists are not being discriminated against if they are being denied rights like gay people claim?

 

If you show me a link where a polygamist couldn't go to a prom, then I guess we could address that issue here...since it would be apples to apples.

 

You seem to be fixating on the whole marriage issue....none of this is about that.

 

[jgcrawfish 232]

If you show me a link where a polygamist couldn't go to a prom, then I guess we could address that issue here...since it would be apples to apples.

 

You seem to be fixating on the whole marriage issue....none of this is about that.

 

 

 

and you seem to be missing the point that this isn't just about the rights of that girl, it's about the rights of EVERYONE else there, and their parents rights since most of the kids aren't of age to decide for themselves. have the girl move to San Fran, or perhaps Minnesota, if she wants to drag her underage lesbian friend with her to the prom in a tux. She should just be happy that living in Missisippi they haven't shot her yet.

[FeelingMN 273]

and you seem to be missing the point that this isn't just about the rights of that girl, it's about the rights of EVERYONE else there, and their parents rights since most of the kids aren't of age to decide for themselves. have the girl move to San Fran, or perhaps Minnesota, if she wants to drag her underage lesbian friend with her to the prom in a tux. She should just be happy that living in Missisippi they haven't shot her yet.

 

Good point. Where ignorance exists, just turn your back on it and hope it goes away.

 

 

Hey, if other folks were bent that lesbians were going to attend, they could have kept their kids at home.....that's cool. But at least they're exercising their right to choose.....there's no school mandate forcing their hand, which is what is exactly happening with the lesbian. Attend with a friend or don't come at all....that's their policy....and it's explicitly dircted at gays.

[GobbleDog 1,019]

I know what I'm saying. That I wish somebody would give me a good response why polygamists are not being discriminated against if they are being denied rights like gay people claim?

 

There's church marriage and then there's legal marriage. Church's can marry whoever they want - although I find it extremely hypocritical after 2,000+ years of preaching it's a sin based on the word of god. What reason could they possibly have for that total misunderstanding? Ugh.

 

Legal marriage is about legal implications/rights. The only qualifications currently needed to enter this contract are: 2 human beings, legal age, not immediate relation, consent, sound mind, male and female.

 

I understand the point of all those qualifications, except "male and female". What practical difference does that make? My fellow Floridians recently passed a constitutional amendment against it. We already had a law banning it, but I guess that wasn't foolproof enough for my fellow bigots. Sorry gay peoples. Even though I think it's a stupid law, I am kinda happy it hasn't been overturned and created droves of gays moving to Florida... (got too many already).

 

Polygamists shouldn't be allowed to go beyond the 2 people rule, because the the contract is essentially designed for two. Maybe if they had a different type of marriage contract, then I could agree.

[jerryskids 7,199]

If you show me a link where a polygamist couldn't go to a prom, then I guess we could address that issue here...since it would be apples to apples.

 

You seem to be fixating on the whole marriage issue....none of this is about that.

 

A polygamist or ghey person can go to any prom.

 

Perhaps a better analogy: a known polygamist goes to the school and says "I plan to bring 4 dates to the prom. They will wear signs that say GF #1-4 respectively. Since it doesn't matter if I make others uncomfortable, I will yell out a GF number at my will to come dance with me, get me some food or punch, whatever. When they are not of use to me they will stand facing the wall. I will also slow dance with as many as all 4 should I choose to do so. They all consent to this. They are all chicks so we are good right?"

 

Thoughts?

[FeelingMN 273]

A polygamist or ghey person can go to any prom.

 

Perhaps a better analogy: a known polygamist goes to the school and says "I plan to bring 4 dates to the prom. They will wear signs that say GF #1-4 respectively. Since it doesn't matter if I make others uncomfortable, I will yell out a GF number at my will to come dance with me, get me some food or punch, whatever. When they are not of use to me they will stand facing the wall. I will also slow dance with as many as all 4 should I choose to do so. They all consent to this. They are all chicks so we are good right?"

 

Thoughts?

 

Hope everyone has a good time?

 

[Me_2006 14]

A polygamist or ghey person can go to any prom.

 

Perhaps a better analogy: a known polygamist goes to the school and says "I plan to bring 4 dates to the prom. They will wear signs that say GF #1-4 respectively. Since it doesn't matter if I make others uncomfortable, I will yell out a GF number at my will to come dance with me, get me some food or punch, whatever. When they are not of use to me they will stand facing the wall. I will also slow dance with as many as all 4 should I choose to do so. They all consent to this. They are all chicks so we are good right?"

 

Thoughts?

He better have a ton of money.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Good point. Where ignorance exists, just turn your back on it and hope it goes away.

 

 

Hey, if other folks were bent that lesbians were going to attend, they could have kept their kids at home.....that's cool. But at least they're exercising their right to choose.....there's no school mandate forcing their hand, which is what is exactly happening with the lesbian. Attend with a friend or don't come at all....that's their policy....and it's explicitly dircted at gays.

 

How can you be so obtuse?

 

Policy/law/rules is an extension of those with power (be it financial, majority, or other). In this case the School policy is a direct extension of the policy of the majority in that area, community, town, etc. I cannot stand when people try to legislate to the exception, rather than the majority. Why should potentially ALL the students (if not at least a majority of them) at the high school have to choose not to go, or be forced not to go by their parents (again the majority of them) , so that one girl might break school rules to attend? Why should all the people following the established rules of society have to bend to the will of one who doesn't? What is the likelihood that there was at least one more lesbian who wanted to go with her girlfriend but opted not to force the issue by wearing a tux or pubically saying she was bringing a same sex date? Guys who go stag and hit the prom with their buddies don't have to announce "we're only here as friends", they just go and don't say anything. This selfish little witch pushed the issue for her 15 minutes of fame and cost ALL the rest of the students at a traditional southern school the chance to have their prom. But you go ahead and side with the whiny, self-centered little tramp..

[FeelingMN 273]

How can you be so obtuse?

 

Policy/law/rules is an extension of those with power (be it financial, majority, or other). In this case the School policy is a direct extension of the policy of the majority in that area, community, town, etc. I cannot stand when people try to legislate to the exception, rather than the majority. Why should potentially ALL the students (if not at least a majority of them) at the high school have to choose not to go, or be forced not to go by their parents (again the majority of them) , so that one girl might break school rules to attend? Why should all the people following the established rules of society have to bend to the will of one who doesn't? What is the likelihood that there was at least one more lesbian who wanted to go with her girlfriend but opted not to force the issue by wearing a tux or pubically saying she was bringing a same sex date? Guys who go stag and hit the prom with their buddies don't have to announce "we're only here as friends", they just go and don't say anything. This selfish little witch pushed the issue for her 15 minutes of fame and cost ALL the rest of the students at a traditional southern school the chance to have their prom. But you go ahead and side with the whiny, self-centered little tramp..

 

Rosa Parks shoulda just sat at the back of the bus too, huh? Not that this lesbian's act of defiance is anywhere near as socially significant as Rosa Parks', but the two are in the same boat with what you wrote above: they should have just subverted their personal freedoms because the masses around them thought differently.

 

And I'm not saying the rules should change for the majority to satisfy one girl. In this instance, a rule change only affects a few lesbians. If she continued to insist on showing up in a tux, then tough sh!t for her....I'd agree with the school if that were the only objection here. But school policy explicitly states you have to show up with a person of the opposite sex....which means, by definition, gays cannot show up with their date. That's a focked up policy....regardless of who drew it up.

 

My high school civics teacher would always repeat....majority rules, but with an insistence upon the minority. Seems about right in this situation.

 

Freedom ain't a popular vote man....it's afforded to whoever has the balls to take it....and that's why I applaud this lesbo....she has the balls to fight for what she thinks is right.

[remote controller 143]

Is this a thread about homos?

 

I'm for banning homos!

[MDC 8,114]

I know what I'm saying. That I wish somebody would give me a good response why polygamists are not being discriminated against if they are being denied rights like gay people claim?

 

If you're talking about marriage, I have no idea why polygamy is illegal unless it's because of the difficulty in establishing a marriage contract between more than two people? Frankly I couldn't give a sh1t if polygamy were legal as long as everyone involved as a consenting adult.

[MDC 8,114]

This selfish little witch pushed the issue for her 15 minutes of fame and cost ALL the rest of the students at a traditional southern school the chance to have their prom.

 

The way I see it, this student stood up for her rights and instead of letting her attend the prom with her partner, the spineless school decided to cancel the prom so that it wouldn't have to risk offending anyone. This student sounds like the adult in this situation. The redneck bigots in her community should get over the idea that everyone has a right to not be offended at all times. There's a whole big world out there and lots to get offended over, if you're a focking pvssy.

[Lackman 0]

A federal court should be forcing the school to put the prom back on any day, now.

 

Jumping Jiminy, torridhusker, do you see how a statement as insane as that could be quoted for decades to come.

 

You want a federal court to force a school to throw a party and waste taxpayer money by bouncing the edict through the court system?

 

Am I taking crazy pills? How about somebody sueing the fat gay broad for the cost of bringing a frivilous lawsuit to the court system and for any depostis made by the school. Let's face it, schools cave at the first sign of controversy. Hey, let's suspend a 4 year old kid who pinched somebody's butt and put them on the Megan's Law list. Are you surprised the same people cancel a prom at the first sign of controversy?

 

I'm not surprised by the usual collection of racists and bigots gathering together to take shots at our Southern citizens. Gee, they have a different opinion that youse guys. Maybe we should stone them or do something else backwards and archaic.

 

I hope that focking b!tch chokes to death on a couple of stray pubes from sucking the lunchlady dry.

[jerryskids 7,199]

Hope everyone has a good time?

 

Perhaps I should have been clearer. Say some kids and parents were concerned about the negative light that girls would be put in, in this scenario. Does the school have a right, let alone an obligation, to not allow such an exhibition?

 

Another example: say a boy is a nudist. Presuming full nudity is illegal, he indicates to the school that he intends to wear the bare minimum, maybe a jockstrap, to meet local laws. Should the school be able to disallow this?

[Lackman 0]

Rosa Parks shoulda just sat at the back of the bus too, huh? Not that this lesbian's act of defiance is anywhere near as socially significant as Rosa Parks', but the two are in the same boat with what you wrote above: they should have just subverted their personal freedoms because the masses around them thought differently.

 

Why should that fock get the best seat on a bus simply due to her race? I'd fight through a gang of AIDS infested yeast speweing hookers to get a seat in the back. Do you even ride a bus? Do you have any idea how valuable the seats in the back are?

[NewbieJr 541]

HAve the courts ordered the school to stop punishing the entire student body and make them reschedule the prom yet? Or are they still afraid that one chick in a tux will throw the world off it's axis?

 

God, I wish this was my daughter's chool and it was her prom being taken away from her. I'd be on CNN.

[Lackman 0]

God, I wish this was my daughter's chool and it was her prom being taken away from her. I'd be on CNN.

 

She'd be on the Home Garden network, as we watched her plow a field by yoking herself and planting a field of beets, Amish boy.

[FeelingMN 273]

Perhaps I should have been clearer. Say some kids and parents were concerned about the negative light that girls would be put in, in this scenario. Does the school have a right, let alone an obligation, to not allow such an exhibition?

 

Another example: say a boy is a nudist. Presuming full nudity is illegal, he indicates to the school that he intends to wear the bare minimum, maybe a jockstrap, to meet local laws. Should the school be able to disallow this?

 

I agree with you. Presumably, most people are born without clothes....so to wear them or not to wear them is a personal decision...it's not a condition you're born with. So to show up half naked implies a decision was made to do that. I guess that's where I distinguish my opinion from other's.....how can you make a policy that singles out someone based on who they are...not by their behavior? Gays are born gay.

 

It'd be like mandating all blonde kids show up with blondes, redheads with redheads, etc. It's a dumb rule.

 

 

Why should that fock get the best seat on a bus simply due to her race? I'd fight through a gang of AIDS infested yeast speweing hookers to get a seat in the back. Do you even ride a bus? Do you have any idea how valuable the seats in the back are?

 

The last time I rode the bus was in school....and yeah, the cool kids sat in back. Keep fighting man...you'll get there someday.

[remote controller 143]

Let's Tax homos heavier.... kind of like the sin tax on booze. Or ban them from all states except Cali! They might could stimulate that economy.

[drobeski 3,061]

HAve the courts ordered the school to stop punishing the entire student body and make them reschedule the prom yet? Or are they still afraid that one chick in a tux will throw the world off it's axis?

 

God, I wish this was my daughter's chool and it was her prom being taken away from her. I'd be on CNN.

selling that deal a meal crap in you silk shorty shorts ?

[gocolts 300]

Are you saying that the only reason people don't marry 2 girls, their sister, or their dog is because there are rules against such behavior?

 

 

Watch this NSFW video and then tell us that there won't be any nuts out there wanting to marry their pets. NSFW or anywhere for that matter."I Lost My Virginity To A Dog"

 

 

I didn't watch the video...whatever...you're kinda making my point for me.

Making your point. I was simply answering your question.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

God, I wish this was my daughter's chool and it was her prom being taken away from her. I'd be on CNN.

 

Stick to getting your panties in a twist here on the geek board, you have more viewers laughing at your arse here than you woulld on CNN.

 

[jerryskids 7,199]

I agree with you. Presumably, most people are born without clothes....so to wear them or not to wear them is a personal decision...it's not a condition you're born with. So to show up half naked implies a decision was made to do that. I guess that's where I distinguish my opinion from other's.....how can you make a policy that singles out someone based on who they are...not by their behavior? Gays are born gay.

Umm... behavior is the crux of this discussion. And I don't want to hijack the thread, but "gays are born gay" is far from proven. Especially if you are trying to claim that every person who exhibits gay behavior is born that way. Even if you make your leap, to exhibit that behavior "implies a decision to do so." Work with me here... If someone is "born" with a predisposition to molest young children, does it make it OK to do so? Of course not. I'm not equating gays with child molesters, I'm merely saying that predisposition does not provide an "a priori" justification for acting on the behavior.

[MDC 8,114]

Umm... behavior is the crux of this discussion. And I don't want to hijack the thread, but "gays are born gay" is far from proven. Especially if you are trying to claim that every person who exhibits gay behavior is born that way. Even if you make your leap, to exhibit that behavior "implies a decision to do so." Work with me here... If someone is "born" with a predisposition to molest young children, does it make it OK to do so? Of course not. I'm not equating gays with child molesters, I'm merely saying that predisposition does not provide an "a priori" justification for acting on the behavior.

 

I can't say that all gays are born gay, but there is overwhelming evidence that it's predominantly something you're born with. Otherwise you'd expect the rates of self-identified gays to skyrocket as society becomes more accepting, but it's stayed pretty consistently in the 5% range. There are also similar rates of homersexuality in apes, so unless you think they're just experimenting it seems to me that in most cases, you're either born with the strong disposition to be gay or you are not.

 

You're totally right that a predisposition is not a priori justification for acting on a behavior. The difference between being gay and being a child molester though is that children can't consent. In this case, the student is only asking to go to the prom with the person of her choice, like every straight student. The school is saying they'll cancel the prom to avoid controversy but I think we know they wouldn't have won a court case with the ACLU because there position is indefensible.

 

Anyways, I respectfully disagree with you but thanks for keeping it polite (from what I can see, didn't read the whole thread). I have a good friend and a family member who are gay and just based on talking with them anecdotally I think it's obvious most gays are born that way and equal rights for the h0mos is today's civil rights movement.

[jerryskids 7,199]

I can't say that all gays are born gay, but there is overwhelming evidence that it's predominantly something you're born with. Otherwise you'd expect the rates of self-identified gays to skyrocket as society becomes more accepting, but it's stayed pretty consistently in the 5% range. There are also similar rates of homersexuality in apes, so unless you think they're just experimenting it seems to me that in most cases, you're either born with the strong disposition to be gay or you are not.

 

You're totally right that a predisposition is not a priori justification for acting on a behavior. The difference between being gay and being a child molester though is that children can't consent. In this case, the student is only asking to go to the prom with the person of her choice, like every straight student. The school is saying they'll cancel the prom to avoid controversy but I think we know they wouldn't have won a court case with the ACLU because there position is indefensible.

 

Anyways, I respectfully disagree with you but thanks for keeping it polite (from what I can see, didn't read the whole thread). I have a good friend and a family member who are gay and just based on talking with them anecdotally I think it's obvious most gays are born that way and equal rights for the h0mos is today's civil rights movement.

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.

[jets24 6]

I agree with you. Presumably, most people are born without clothes....so to wear them or not to wear them is a personal decision...it's not a condition you're born with. So to show up half naked implies a decision was made to do that. I guess that's where I distinguish my opinion from other's.....how can you make a policy that singles out someone based on who they are...not by their behavior? Gays are born gay.

 

It'd be like mandating all blonde kids show up with blondes, redheads with redheads, etc. It's a dumb rule.

 

 

 

 

The last time I rode the bus was in school....and yeah, the cool kids sat in back. Keep fighting man...you'll get there someday.

 

You have proof of this? Ignorant statement to make

[jgcrawfish 232]

Rosa Parks shoulda just sat at the back of the bus too, huh? Not that this lesbian's act of defiance is anywhere near as socially significant as Rosa Parks', but the two are in the same boat with what you wrote above: they should have just subverted their personal freedoms because the masses around them thought differently.

 

And I'm not saying the rules should change for the majority to satisfy one girl. In this instance, a rule change only affects a few lesbians. If she continued to insist on showing up in a tux, then tough sh!t for her....I'd agree with the school if that were the only objection here. But school policy explicitly states you have to show up with a person of the opposite sex....which means, by definition, gays cannot show up with their date. That's a focked up policy....regardless of who drew it up.

 

My high school civics teacher would always repeat....majority rules, but with an insistence upon the minority. Seems about right in this situation.

 

Freedom ain't a popular vote man....it's afforded to whoever has the balls to take it....and that's why I applaud this lesbo....she has the balls to fight for what she thinks is right.

 

I pointed out a LOOOOOONG time ago in the thread, way before you ever played the "Rosa Parks" card, that this was distinctly different than segregation/racism (but it's good to see you guys still follow the gay rights script). The majority of American's wanted racism/segregation ended. And again, the schools policy on same sex dates to the prom is nothing but an extension of the opinion of the majority of the people in that area most likely. It's Mississippi, most likely they're bible thumpers, and they didn't exclude her. The didn't say she couldn't come because she's a lesbian, they said she can't bring a same sex date. As protective educators, administrators and parents they are doing what they feel is correct for their children on the whole. And again, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one.

[jets24 6]

I pointed out a LOOOOOONG time ago in the thread, way before you ever played the "Rosa Parks" card, that this was distinctly different than segregation/racism (but it's good to see you guys still follow the gay rights script). The majority of American's wanted racism/segregation ended. And again, the schools policy on same sex dates to the prom is nothing but an extension of the opinion of the majority of the people in that area most likely. It's Mississippi, most likely they're bible thumpers, and they didn't exclude her. The didn't say she couldn't come because she's a lesbian, they said she can't bring a same sex date. As protective educators, administrators and parents they are doing what they feel is correct for their children on the whole. And again, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one.

 

Thread over. Well said.

[FeelingMN 273]

You have proof of this? Ignorant statement to make

 

jets24 was born heterosexual. No proof, yet an accepted statement.

 

What's the difference? Or should we have to prove that any one of us were born hetero? Or that we learned our sexual behavior from someone?

 

I don't know about y'all....but when I stumbled across my dad's porn stash as like a 4th/5th grader....I was like crackhead...literally....since I didn't know the combo to his briefcase, I tried to pry it open with a butterknife.

 

 

Been hooked ever since....

 

 

Can't help it.....have a strong sexual appetite. And I believe that any human trait falls along a spectrum....sexuality runs the spectrum.....from big pete to Me2006.....from jerryskids to sux.

 

Just the way it is.

[FeelingMN 273]

I pointed out a LOOOOOONG time ago in the thread, way before you ever played the "Rosa Parks" card, that this was distinctly different than segregation/racism (but it's good to see you guys still follow the gay rights script). The majority of American's wanted racism/segregation ended. And again, the schools policy on same sex dates to the prom is nothing but an extension of the opinion of the majority of the people in that area most likely. It's Mississippi, most likely they're bible thumpers, and they didn't exclude her. The didn't say she couldn't come because she's a lesbian, they said she can't bring a same sex date. As protective educators, administrators and parents they are doing what they feel is correct for their children on the whole. And again, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one.

 

And I've been arguing....or at least implying that homosexuality is akin to any other trait you're born with. So keeping with skin color you seem to be alright if the school set a policy in which all blacks had to arrive with other blacks....whites with whites.....goofy to be sure, but hey, once you get inside you can dance with whoever.

 

Also, don't most kids go to prom with their date? I went with my girlfriend....I assume you went with your girlfriend....but gays have to go with a friend? Seems wrong to me.

 

Just wondering, but how is homosexuality distinctly different than racial issues?

[naomi 361]

This student sounds like the adult in this situation. The redneck bigots in her community should get over the idea that everyone has a right to not be offended at all times. There's a whole big world out there and lots to get offended over, if you're a focking pvssy.

 

Something I've seen brought up a lot in this thread is the idea of people being offended by the presence of the girl and her date.

 

On the bottom of page 4 I talked about the overarching reason I would guess most in her general community take issue with it.

 

Personally I wouldn't take issue with it because I'm more geared toward reasoning with people than policing actions, unless immediate harm is taking place. Although I can see the reasoning why a general community would seek to abide in accord with what they believe is right. The only problem is in most places now there isn't a solid gospel foundation even where there is appeal to the gospel. Serving tradition is the motivator and legalism is the result. It's probably hard to be consistent...ie., harp on one thing while turning a blind eye to another.

 

Anyway, I don't think this has to do with people being offended. A gay friend of mine thinks my beliefs about a creator existing, and him having a design for his creation are retarded, as he does my belief that his sleeping with his boyfriend is sinning. I believe what he does with guys is depraved. We call it a truce (though I hope God convicts his heart before he exits this world) and we still value our friendship.

 

Now there might be like two or three kids who'd wind up complaining about it and feeling like their time was spoiled to a degree, but I'd guess the ultimate rationale has more to do with a community not wanting to say 'we accept the homosexual lifestyle' than it does sheltering.

 

If someone is "born" with a predisposition to molest young children, does it make it OK to do so?

 

I know you were saying this for another point but it reminds me of what a friend of mine who works in a boys home for sexual abusers said. They're teenagers who have abused younger kids and the vast majority (like 9 out of 10) of them were abused themselves as young kids.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,711]

Mississippi is my neighbor. Not many of you can say that! At least with a straight face! This is going away! The Jenna Six went away. Remeber them? The south is different. Or did you not get that memo?

 

I read on another site where one poster stated, "I hope your state is bankrupt because of this ordeal!!!!" Really? You want to bankrupt the poorest state in the Union? The first state that will probably become the first one in the union to become a majority black state? That goes over well in what state? Or conversation? I'd like to UP the conversation up in here! Who really cares about this dumb bitchessssss life? None of you! Or me for that matter. In a few weeks, no one will give a damn! The only fawking you reason you care today is; She is on the cusp of being a renegade homo, who hails from the south, and might be a hate magnet. The simple fact is: Nobody hates her stoopid ass! Just shut up and do it!

[Middle Aged Paunch 0]

I think it is an insult to Rosa Parks to compare this issue with what she did. Parks' actions were an instantaneous reaction to an injustice that was presented to her. Although it was possible she had discussed her intent with others prior to her actions, she was not a publicity seeking "hound" but rather a women who believed at the moment her rights should not be determined by the color of her skin.

 

If this girl had quietly requested to bring her "date" and then been forced into the public eye, her actions could be remotely compared to Rosa Parks. But the moment she stated she would be wearing a tux, she showed that this was a premeditated idea based solely on getting her face in the news.

[jets24 6]

Why bother having any rules anymore? There will always be a person who is offended by them and they can always make a big deal if they want. We have dress codes in school. What about the cross dresser who wants to wear a dress to the prom or to school? Schools have an obligation to keep a sense of order in school functions. The're not stopping her from being gay. They didn't kick her out of school. They're not even saying that she can't come to the prom. They're saying you can't come with somebody who is the same sex and she can't wear a tux. Just like boys can't wear dresses to the prom. Can we possibly make a BIGGER deal about this? Comparing this situation to Rosa Parks, even the slightest bit is one of the most insulting things I have ever heard.

[jgcrawfish 232]

And I've been arguing....or at least implying that homosexuality is akin to any other trait you're born with. So keeping with skin color you seem to be alright if the school set a policy in which all blacks had to arrive with other blacks....whites with whites.....goofy to be sure, but hey, once you get inside you can dance with whoever.

 

Also, don't most kids go to prom with their date? I went with my girlfriend....I assume you went with your girlfriend....but gays have to go with a friend? Seems wrong to me.

 

Just wondering, but how is homosexuality distinctly different than racial issues?

 

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.

[jgcrawfish 232]

I think it is an insult to Rosa Parks to compare this issue with what she did. Parks' actions were an instantaneous reaction to an injustice that was presented to her. Although it was possible she had discussed her intent with others prior to her actions, she was not a publicity seeking "hound" but rather a women who believed at the moment her rights should not be determined by the color of her skin.

 

If this girl had quietly requested to bring her "date" and then been forced into the public eye, her actions could be remotely compared to Rosa Parks. But the moment she stated she would be wearing a tux, she showed that this was a premeditated idea based solely on getting her face in the news.

 

 

[NewbieJr 541]

Why bother having any rules anymore?

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.