• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lesbian teen back at Miss. school after prom flap

texmaster said:
Then accept the consequences with taking that stance. Like making everyone else suffer for your personal preference.
Click to expand...

The only ones making everyone suffer are the administrators who are so rigid in their exertion of moral authority that they stopped the whole prom for fear of a lesbian and a tux.
 
texmaster said:
Then accept the consequences with taking that stance. Like making everyone else suffer for your personal preference.
Click to expand...

So if you ASK a cop if you may jay walk because there's no cross walk near by and you have some friends standing on the corner...

And the cop COMPLETELY over reacts and beats not just you but all your friends with a club.

Then that's your fault and you should accept the punishment because you dared to ASK if you could circumvent a rule and the cop COMPLETELY over reacted and we should in no way focus on the over reacting cop?
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
No. I see them as one and the same.

The only thing that will change my opinion is evidence that being gay is a choice and not a biological issue.
Click to expand...

So during the migration of peoples, where did the gays end up settling?
 
Unconstitutional. I love it when you think you can throw out big words without being challenged. Please cite in the Constitution where all sexual preferences are by law required to be accepted.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

I am not interested in pouring through the Mississippi state constitution. As I quoted from the article:

American Civil Liberties Union told officials a policy banning same-sex prom dates violated students' rights. The ACLU said the district not letting McMillen wear a tuxedo violated her free expression rights.
Click to expand...

If the ACLU was saying that it violated her rights, they surely had some legal ground to stand on. If the Federal/Mississippi constitutions did not provide for any such rights, the school board could have gone on with their homophobic prom. The fact that they were forced to back down is telling. They knew they were out of line, and that if it went to court they would lose.

Until you can understand the difference between what is Constitutional and what is personal preference, stick to teaching the kindergartners finger painting. This requires a bit more thought than you are used to.
Click to expand...

I doubt the ACLU was applying pressure based on "personal preference." They claimed that the school was violating students rights. The school was unable to contest this, so they cancelled the prom.

Now, if you would just show where in the article it said that Constance intended to break the rules if the school board fought the ACLU and won...

Oh wait... you can't.
 
Orion said:
In this case, yeah. This is negative discrimination and there is no logical reason for it that you can put forth.
Click to expand...

So you accept all sexual preferences? They should all be legal?

Good. I hope it comes out of the principal's salary.
Click to expand...

Actually it will come out of the taxes people pay.

This is not the girl's fault. The school made the choice to cancel the event, not her.
Click to expand...

She made the choice to defy the rules the school had in place. Of course it is her fault.

They were so committed to enforcing a bigoted policy that instead of losing face to the media by kicking her out of the prom, they just canceled the whole thing. It's a sick workaround.
Click to expand...

In your opinion. This is clearly her fault because she refused to conform to the society norm. I cite a 0-31 record on gay marriage.

If you cannot see where the responsibility lies in this case, then your denial is more dense than I thought.
Click to expand...

No more larger than your own. All she had to do was bring a dude then enjoy the prom. But no, she had to make everyone accept her regardless of the rules.

Its amazing you don't see that.
 
We should ban people from coming to the prom if they're blonde.

I mean, naturally during the "Migration of peoples" "Blondes" weren't a race but was a trait found in various races and therefore its entirely fine to completely and utterly discriminate for that reason.

:roll:
 
Andalublue said:
Yeah, pretty much. I've visited about 60 countries in my life and I've found gay people in all of 'em.
Click to expand...

I take it Iran wasn't one of those countries. Ahmademontard said there's no gay people in Iran.
 
Erod said:
And that is just ridiculous.

Gay is not a race.
Click to expand...

It's not a race, but the human rights issues are identical. And, I am convinced that being gay is not a choice, but a genetically programmed fact.
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, sorry, scratch my point number two.

I DO feel sympathy for her because she DIDN'T break any rules, she actually FOLLOWED the rules by trying to go about the proper course of getting it reviewed and over turned and the gutless bigoted ****s on the school board instead choose to duck out of the issue and punish everyone else.

But of course, its all the girls fault FOR FOLLOWING THE RULES and absolutely not the extremely over reacting school :roll:
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you and honestly could not have said it better myself.

If my high school prom was cancelled because a lesbian wanted to bring her girlfriend, I would have been pissed off. As a matter of fact it did happen and they came to the senior class and asked if we would rather have the lesbian couple there or cancel prom. We decided to not cancel prom because none of us cared about our lesbian classmate. And you know what it was still a lot of fun and our friend's girlfriend started the 'lets see how many guys we can get to watch us dance' jokes first.
 
Panache said:
I am not interested in pouring through the Mississippi state constitution.
Click to expand...

So you have nothing to back up your claim. Not a shocker at all. There's a 4 year old in the back asking to go "pee"

As I quoted from the article:

If the ACLU was saying that it violated her rights, they surely had some legal ground to stand on. If the Federal/Mississippi constitutions did not provide for any such rights, the school board could have gone on with their homophobic prom. The fact that they were forced to back down is telling. They knew they were out of line, and that if it went to court they would lose.
Click to expand...

And neither you nor they can cite any "rights" within the law that support her in any way shape or form at a state or federal level. At least you are consistent.

I doubt the ACLU was applying pressure based on "personal preference." They claimed that the school was violating students rights. The school was unable to contest this, so they cancelled the prom.
Click to expand...

Then where is the law? Show it to us. If they could quote it, they would have.

Now, if you would just show where in the article it said that Constance intended to break the rules if the school board fought the ACLU and won...

Oh wait... you can't.
Click to expand...

hahaha I see I can't rely on you to follow the logic if she got the ACLU involved she had every intention of breaking the rules.

Until you can cite the law that gives her these "rights" you don't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
 
texmaster said:
So you accept all sexual preferences? They should all be legal?
Click to expand...

Anything that doesn't violate the rights of others, definitely.

Into screwing other people of the same sex, yep should be legal.

Into having your balls stomped on by a dominatrix, yep should be legal.

Into dressing up in womans underwear, yep should be legal.

Into just having standard missionary sex with the opposite sex, yep should be legal.

Into having sex with 4 people at once, yep should be legal.

Want to have sex with an underage person? Nope, should not be legal based on the notion that minors are not wholey responsible for themselves so legally can't make the decision.

Want to have sex with a horse? Nope, because there's no reliable and realistic way to know that the horse consents to such an act because they do not have the type of intelligence required for such and thus would be considered animal abuse and thus not legal.

Want to force someone to have sex with you? Nope, because you're infringing upon another persons rights directly by making them do something physical they do not wish.

She made the choice to defy the rules the school had in place. Of course it is her fault.
Click to expand...

She didn't defy any rules. SHE FOLLOWED THE RULES. She petitioned the school to change the rules, which in and of itself IS FOLLOWING THE RULES.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
It's not a race, but the human rights issues are identical. And, I am convinced that being gay is not a choice, but a genetically programmed fact.
Click to expand...

Thats a belief not evidence.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
In midtown.
Click to expand...

Boystown in Chicago. The Castro in San Francisco. West Hollywood in Los Angeles. The Village in New York. Midtown in Atlanta. And then there's both Palm Springs, Key West, and Provincetown. Oh and Fire Island.
 
texmaster said:
So you accept all sexual preferences? They should all be legal?



Actually it will come out of the taxes people pay.



She made the choice to defy the rules the school had in place. Of course it is her fault.



In your opinion. This is clearly her fault because she refused to conform to the society norm. I cite a 0-31 record on gay marriage.



No more larger than your own. All she had to do was bring a dude then enjoy the prom. But no, she had to make everyone accept her regardless of the rules.

Its amazing you don't see that.
Click to expand...

So since it's ok for a school to ban same sex couples, why isn't it ok for them to ban different kinds of heterosexual couples? How bout no nerd/jock couples? Or no poor/rich couple? Blond/brunette couple? Pretty girl/ugly guy couple? See where this can go.
 
texmaster said:
Thats a belief not evidence.
Click to expand...

It's supported by as much evidence as your claim that being gay is a choice.

Say she wasn't gay, did not have a date for prom, and wanted to go with another girl so that both girls could attend a significant high school event.

Would you still have the same objections?

Not only is she being discriminated against because she's gay, she's being treated with gender bias. There is no good reason that a girl can't wear a tux to prom as long as the clothing is suitable and doesn't violate normal on-campus clothing restrictions.
 
roguenuke said:
So since it's ok for a school to ban same sex couples, why isn't it ok for them to ban different kinds of heterosexual couples? How bout no nerd/jock couples? Or no poor/rich couple? Blond/brunette couple? Pretty girl/ugly guy couple? See where this can go.
Click to expand...

Yo, you know we don't need to be losing no more white girls to them blacks. Lets cancel prom if they try to have an interracial

And I mean, there's not a lot of hot gamer chicks out there and I'll be damned if all the jocks get them. Lets cancel prom if a Jock tries to come with a Geeky Chick, that would make me sad and apparently making someone sad is worth while enough to cancel an entire prom. Why'd they have to shove their Class-crossing relationship in my face
 
Zyphlin said:
Anything that doesn't violate the rights of others, definitely.
Click to expand...

By that logic pedophilia would be legal if a child agrees to it.

Want to have sex with an underage person? Nope, should not be legal based on the notion that minors are not wholey responsible for themselves so legally can't make the decision.
Click to expand...

Don't children make decisions on friends, what to wear, what to eat? Who are you to decide arbitrarily that they cannot think for themselves?

This is where the argument falls apart because there is always a sexual practice you will want to ban based on morality which is why using the argument you are making is so hypocritical.

She didn't defy any rules. SHE FOLLOWED THE RULES. She petitioned the school to change the rules, which in and of itself IS FOLLOWING THE RULES.
Click to expand...

Sorry. She involved the ACLU to force the school to change the rules. That isn't following the rules, thats trying to circumvent them.
 
texmaster said:
Sorry. She involved the ACLU to force the school to change the rules. That isn't following the rules, thats trying to circumvent them.
Click to expand...

So, no rules should ever be changed? No girls and boys wearing shorts or jeans to school? Same rules as we had back in 1910?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom