• 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

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

Good she should. Prom isn't about some political stance. It is about you as a class having fun together. If that means there are a few lesbian and gay couples then who cares?
 
By that logic pedophilia would be legal if a child agrees to it.

What this thread needs is an irrational appeal to emotion that has nothing to do with the actual topic.

Oh look, here we go, right there. Thanks for supplying that.
 
It's supported by as much evidence as your claim that being gay is a choice.

Wrong. Choice is the only conclusion when there is a lack of evidence to support a genetic claim.

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?

Did the rules spell that out?

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.

Oh now thats good. A MUCH better argument. The tux argument is hard to defend.
 
What this thread needs is an irrational appeal to emotion that has nothing to do with the actual topic.

Oh look, here we go, right there. Thanks for supplying that.

When you can't debate the point, make fun of it and run away. That ensures you are always right.
 
By that logic pedophilia would be legal if a child agrees to it.



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.



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

Tex, I'd respect you so much more if you just said, "I hate fags, I hate dykes and anything that anyone does to f**k them up is okay by me."

Okay, scatch the bit about respect, but at least it'd be honest.
 
Tex, I'd respect you so much more if you just said, "I hate fags, I hate dykes and anything that anyone does to f**k them up is okay by me."

Okay, scatch the bit about respect, but at least it's be honest.

But I don't hate them at all.

And if you had ever read my arguyments in the gay marriage thread you would see I fully support civil unions so enjoy your fail.
 
By that logic pedophilia would be legal if a child agrees to it.

Nope, because under the law Children do not have the right to determine such a thing.

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?

Actually, no. Children make all those decisions under the assumed legal permission of their parents. For example if you decided to go to a party with a group of friends and are under 18 and you're not allowed theoritically the parent could have the police take you back home. Why? Because technically you DON'T get to make those decisions under the law.

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.

Actually, it isn't where the law falls apart. Not for people that actually are viewing this objectively and actually exercising intellectual honesty instead of being extreme hyper partisan hacks like yourself who instead come to a conclusion and then manipulate, exaggerate, or flat out ignore information to then back up the conclusion you already came to.

Your pedophilia reasoning doesn't work under the law, because children do not have the legal authority to make such decisions.

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

No, that IS following the rules. To "Break the rules" which you REPEATEDLY accuse her of doing...wrongfully and seemingly willfully dishonestly...one would actually have had to BREAK them. She's broken no rules, instead she sought to try and change said rules. There is nothing wrong, illegal, or rule breaking about that.
 
What this thread needs is an irrational appeal to emotion that has nothing to do with the actual topic.

Oh look, here we go, right there. Thanks for supplying that.

Wasn't even a good irrational appeal to emotion, as it basically COMPLETELY ignored the point I made in that post because I circumvented his pathetic attempt at appealing to emotion before he even did it and rather than deal with that he just stuck his fingers in his ears and went "LALALALLAALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and went right on with it like a good little hyper partisan hack.
 
When you can't debate the point, make fun of it and run away. That ensures you are always right.

You did not make a point. Being gay is not being a pedophile. Bringing it up is just an appeal to emotion.
 
You did not make a point. Being gay is not being a pedophile. Bringing it up is just an appeal to emotion.

No, bringing it up goes beyond that. Bringing it up is just a dishonest red herring thrown out there in an attempt vilify one's opponents in a thinly veiled way.

It is hackmanship at its finest.
 
Nope, because under the law Children do not have the right to determine such a thing.

Where does it say that? You aren't citing a law are you?

Actually, no. Children make all those decisions under the assumed legal permission of their parents. For example if you decided to go to a party with a group of friends and are under 18 and you're not allowed theoritically the parent could have the police take you back home. Why? Because technically you DON'T get to make those decisions under the law.

Isn't she under 18? So by your own claim how could she decide for herself she is a lesbian?

Actually, it isn't where the law falls apart. Not for people that actually are viewing this objectively and actually exercising intellectual honesty instead of being extreme hyper partisan hacks like yourself who instead come to a conclusion and then manipulate, exaggerate, or flat out ignore information to then back up the conclusion you already came to.

I know you are frustrated but claiming evidence based on your own personal conclusions of an argument isn't evidence. Stick to citing the law that supports you.

Your pedophilia reasoning doesn't work under the law, because children do not have the legal authority to make such decisions.

Isn't she trying to change the rules the school put forth? Why is one rule more sacred to you than another. Oh thats right. Personal preference :)

No, that IS following the rules. To "Break the rules" which you REPEATEDLY accuse her of doing...wrongfully and seemingly willfully dishonestly...one would actually have had to BREAK them. She's broken no rules, instead she sought to try and change said rules. There is nothing wrong, illegal, or rule breaking about that.

As I've said multiple times and directly to you, she had every intention of breaking the law or she never would have asked the ACLU to try and circumvent it.
 
You did not make a point. Being gay is not being a pedophile. Bringing it up is just an appeal to emotion.

I never said being gay is being a pedophile. Another baseless lie by you.
 
Ooh, now we're getting somewhere. So, what do you most like about them?

You want to continue your epic fail and ignore that I fully support civil unions?


Its your choice but your idiocy and ignorance isn't helping you.
 
Well its been fun kids but 4 pages is enough :)
 
Thats a belief not evidence.

So then we can make you go gay, huh?

Honestly, it doesn't matter if its genetic or not, its still something that they have a right to do. Just like you have a right to date women who are fat or thin, blond or brunette, rich or poor, Asian/black/white/blue. If any of them are willing to date you too, that is. Just like everyone else in the US.
 
No, bringing it up goes beyond that. Bringing it up is just a dishonest red herring thrown out there in an attempt vilify one's opponents in a thinly veiled way.

It is hackmanship at its finest.

I was trying to be understated. I know I can do it if I try hard enough.
 
You want to continue your epic fail and ignore that I fully support civil unions?


Its your choice but your idiocy and ignorance isn't helping you.

T'aint really answering the question now, is it?

I think this thread is sort of cooking now and I'm smelling Southern Fried Texmaster!
 
I never said being gay is being a pedophile. Another baseless lie by you.

So why bring up pedophilia and polygamy in a thread where they are entirely irrelevant? Why do those things get brought up in every single thread like this?
 
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:



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.



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

Until you can cite the law that gives her these "rights" you don't have a leg to stand on.

Ok, fine, you suckered me into it.

Title lX and 14th amendment rights are what you are looking for as I understand it.

Precedent was set for exactly such an application in Fricke v. Lynch.

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.

Could you please demonstrate this? In the vast majority of case where the ACLU has lost in court, those represented by them abided by the ruling, so I don't know where you get this idea that anyone was intending to break the rules.
 
Where does it say that? You aren't citing a law are you?

Sorry, not playing your coy game of "source source source". The notion that Children can not make legal decisions and are under the legal guardianship of their parents until the point that they are considered an adult under the law (in Mississippi "juvenile's" are deemed those 17 and under) is a well known common understanding in this country. Keep whining, but I'm not going to go dig through law code for something that's commonly held and accepted because you can't debate your way out of a wet paper bag.

Isn't she under 18? So by your own claim how could she decide for herself she is a lesbian?

Depends...

Yes, she can decide for herself she's a lesbian. This is a personal individual internal choice. Just like a child could decide they want to become a lawyer when they grow up. Or they could decide they like the color blue.

HOWEVER

No, she could not decide to just start dating and spending time with another women in an intimate way without the consent of her parents or legally do it without her parents permission, even if its simply tacit permission.

For instance most certainly, if their daughter was out at another girls house that was her girlfriend and they found out they would be completely and fully legally allowed to go there and take their daughter from that house because she has no right to see anyone they don't wish her to see.

I know you are frustrated but claiming evidence based on your own personal conclusions of an argument isn't evidence. Stick to citing the law that supports you.

Bull****, you've been making nothing but unverifiable, baseless assertions this entire thread. At least mine are grounded in reality. Back up ANY of the **** you've been spewing that actually has any relevance before you start complaining people don't bother looking up COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD LAW.

You've been the guy FLAT OUT LYING all thread saying she broke a rule when she never did.

Isn't she trying to change the rules the school put forth? Why is one rule more sacred to you than another. Oh thats right. Personal preference :)

Yes. That's how rules change. People strive to change them. They either succeed or they don't. Her rule is no more "sacred" then their rule. She has the right to try and get them the change it, they have the right to deny it as long as its constitutional and legal for them to do such.

As I've said multiple times and directly to you, she had every intention of breaking the law or she never would have asked the ACLU to try and circumvent it.

Completely and utterly unprovable. Pathetic on your part, but not surprising coming from you in the least. That is the word to describe all of your debating skills.
 
Back
Top Bottom