• 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

In schools where uniforms are required, girls can not wear the boys uniform and boys can not wear the girls uniform.

The only exception to this I can think of is when the student can document transsexualism or GID.

If she's just a lesbian then she still has to dress as a woman.

Please define dressing as a woman for us, Jerry. And sorry, you OWN personal opinion on this is not acceptable. The universal definition is what we need in order for you to prove your position.
 
It's only unconstitutional if there's a right being infringed, and there's only a right being infringed if she can document transsexualism or GID, otherwise her preference in clothing is entirely under her control, is a choice, and therefore is not discrimination.

And yet, until you can define for us all the UNIVERSAL definition of how a woman should dress, she can wear whatever she wants with no violation, unless there is a specific rule in place at that school that denotes that she must wear a dress.

Jerry, your argument is leaking very badly.
 
I'll do BCT at Fort Leonard Wood and AIT at Fort Benning.

I'm a 21E, Heavy Equipment Operator.

I'll become a part of the 842nd Engineer Company, "the deuce", out of Sturgis.

My step mother took this pic of me when I came home from RSP drill last month:

jerry-albums-jerry-s-junk-picture1730-100-3654.jpg


...damn I'm hot :mrgreen:

Man I couldn't lift my arms when that pic was taken, I got in trouble for so much **** :lol:

Jerry. If I didn't know how old you were, I'd swear you were 16 in that picture.
 
Not really or that miss america lady would not have been crucified for stating her personal opinion.

Gay marriage would be a non-issue because anyone of age can currently stand in front of their familiy and friends and declare their devotion and essentially be married.

This is about taking your own views and forcing it upon others.

You cannot have it both ways.



Oh Please....Carrie Prejean was "Crucified" because she tried to play miss high and mighty hypocrite....miss Martyr....miss family values...when she was living a less that righteous lifestyle herself.

As for the marriage issue. If being "married" is simply standing in front of family and friends and declaring devotion, then I assume that you would support government getting out of the marriage business altogether, right?
(BTW: I'd be perfectly fine with that. Leave civil unions to government and let churches marry whoever they want, gays, straights, etc).

And....I'm not asking to have it both ways. I'm saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but where that right ends is when it encroaches on an individuals right to make their own personal decisions.

I may not like Christian evangelical wackos but I live a "live and let live life". I don't try to prevent them from practicing their religion as long as they allow me the same courtesy to live my llife the way that I see fit.
 
Please define dressing as a woman for us, Jerry. And sorry, you OWN personal opinion on this is not acceptable. The universal definition is what we need in order for you to prove your position.

I don't know where Jerry lives, but I don't think Jerry realizes that society's idea of "suitable attire" for females has changed significantly since, oh... the 1950s and 60s.

I, for instance, wear a teeshirt or wifebeater every day of my life. With jeans, cut-offs, or boxers (depending upon the weather, and whether I'm going out in public or just hanging around my own apartment complex).
On cold days, I also wear a flannel or hoodie. The only shoes I own are converse all-stars.

That is my entire wardrobe.
It's more or less identical to my husband's wardrobe, except that he owns some expensive running shoes and some additional lycra sport clothes for working out.

At work, I wear a uniform- khakis and a polo. The uniform is identical for male and female employees.

No one has ever suggested to me that I'm dressed "inappropriately" or "like a man".
I'm very dainty. I'm clearly female, whether or not I'm wearing a dress.
I don't think I dress that much differently than most other women (or men, for that matter).

I think dress code violations in schools these days have to do with students wearing clothing that is too revealing.
I have never heard of a public school penalizing a female student for "not dressing like a woman", and I believe that any school that did so would be in pretty serious trouble.
 
Here's a woman. Notice the mode of dress.

scr_080310-A-2013C-009.jpg
 
I, for instance, wear a teeshirt or wifebeater every day of my life. With jeans, cut-offs, or boxers (depending upon the weather, and whether I'm going out in public or just hanging around my own apartment complex).
On cold days, I also wear a flannel or hoodie. The only shoes I own are converse all-stars.

Sure, but would you wear this to the prom?
 
I don't know where Jerry lives, but I don't think Jerry realizes that society's idea of "suitable attire" for females has changed significantly since, oh... the 1950s and 60s.

I, for instance, wear a teeshirt or wifebeater every day of my life. With jeans, cut-offs, or boxers (depending upon the weather, and whether I'm going out in public or just hanging around my own apartment complex).
On cold days, I also wear a flannel or hoodie. The only shoes I own are converse all-stars.

That is my entire wardrobe.
It's more or less identical to my husband's wardrobe, except that he owns some expensive running shoes and some additional lycra sport clothes for working out.

At work, I wear a uniform- khakis and a polo. The uniform is identical for male and female employees.

No one has ever suggested to me that I'm dressed "inappropriately" or "like a man".
I'm very dainty. I'm clearly female, whether or not I'm wearing a dress.
I don't think I dress that much differently than most other women (or men, for that matter).

I think dress code violations in schools these days have to do with students wearing clothing that is too revealing.
I have never heard of a public school penalizing a female student for "not dressing like a woman", and I believe that any school that did so would be in pretty serious trouble.

What does ghetto attire have to do with this other than it would be inappropriate at a public function?.....:)
Schools should not support deviant behavior & cross dressing is exactly that......
A prom is not the proper venue for girls to dress like boys.....;)
 
Sure, but would you wear this to the prom?

Well, I personally never went to a prom; when I did go to school dances, I wore jeans. Sure.
I went to Catholic school, so it was a little different.
We wore uniforms- traditional ones: green plaid skirt, white button-down shirt- and any opportunity we got to dress like normal kids, in jeans and teeshirts, we jumped at it.
 
What does ghetto attire have to do with this other than it would be inappropriate at a public function?.....:)
Schools should not support deviant behavior & cross dressing is exactly that......
A prom is not the proper venue for girls to dress like boys.....;)

That's not "like a gangster". It's just how people dress around here.
I'm poor. I can't afford fancy clothes. And even if I could, I prefer to spend my money on other things.
Even people with a lot of money seem to dress pretty much like me.
They just have designer labels on their jeans and teeshirts, and fancier shoes.
 
I don't know where Jerry lives, but I don't think Jerry realizes that society's idea of "suitable attire" for females has changed significantly since, oh... the 1950s and 60s.

I, for instance, wear a teeshirt or wifebeater every day of my life. With jeans, cut-offs, or boxers (depending upon the weather, and whether I'm going out in public or just hanging around my own apartment complex).
On cold days, I also wear a flannel or hoodie. The only shoes I own are converse all-stars.

That is my entire wardrobe.
It's more or less identical to my husband's wardrobe, except that he owns some expensive running shoes and some additional lycra sport clothes for working out.

At work, I wear a uniform- khakis and a polo. The uniform is identical for male and female employees.

No one has ever suggested to me that I'm dressed "inappropriately" or "like a man".
I'm very dainty. I'm clearly female, whether or not I'm wearing a dress.
I don't think I dress that much differently than most other women (or men, for that matter).

I think dress code violations in schools these days have to do with students wearing clothing that is too revealing.
I have never heard of a public school penalizing a female student for "not dressing like a woman", and I believe that any school that did so would be in pretty serious trouble.

Everything I've said on this thread regarding dress is as it applies to formal dress, not your every day street cloths or even your business casual.

The OP gives the idea that this girls intends to wear a tux so as to contrast her partner in the way a man's tux contrasts a woman's dress.

If she were merely going to wear a woman's pants suit there would be no reason to mention it at all.
 
Everything I've said on this thread regarding dress is as it applies to formal dress, not your every day street cloths or even your business casual.

The OP gives the idea that this girls intends to wear a tux so as to contrast her partner in the way a man's tux contrasts a woman's dress.

If she were merely going to wear a woman's pants suit there would be no reason to mention it at all.

Women wear "mens" pants and jackets all the time.
They're usually the same as women's, but cheaper.
So what's the problem with a tux? The bow tie?
Does wearing a bow tie mean you've suddenly grown a penis and plan to use it to overthrow society?
 
That's not "like a gangster". It's just how people dress around here.
I'm poor. I can't afford fancy clothes. And even if I could, I prefer to spend my money on other things.
Even people with a lot of money seem to dress pretty much like me.
They just have designer labels on their jeans and teeshirts, and fancier shoes
.

What a sad commentary on today's society that is.....:(
 
Women wear "mens" pants and jackets all the time.They're usually the same as women's, but cheaper.
So what's the problem with a tux? The bow tie?
Does wearing a bow tie mean you've suddenly grown a penis and plan to use it to overthrow society?

No they don't......;)
Real women's jeans will not fit a man & vice versa.....
It's like the ten sizes too big fad......:roll:
 
Women wear "mens" pants and jackets all the time.
They're usually the same as women's, but cheaper.
So what's the problem with a tux? The bow tie?
Does wearing a bow tie mean you've suddenly grown a penis and plan to use it to overthrow society?

You know if I thought you were interested in more then fighting here I would give you a real answer.
 
You have not proved that being heterosexual is genetic, not proved that being homosexual is. You have not proven anything in fact, and keep making wild claims that get proven wrong. You cannot prove that heterosexuality is genetic, and I challenge you to, using sources, just once try and back up your position.

So Redress, you will not admit that procreation requires a male and female to have heterosexual intercourse?

And you will not admit the male sex organ is designed to enter the female sex organ in order for procreation to occur?

Are you really so far gone you can't even admit to basic reproduction?
 
Isn't that a violation of the Mann Act?......;)

Yes, yes it is. It's a reckless violation. But New Orleans is "the city that care forgot."

We just don't care. :roll:
 
So Redress, you will not admit that procreation requires a male and female to have heterosexual intercourse?

Never claimed otherwise. Does not prove or even offer evidence that heterosexuality is genetic.

And you will not admit the male sex organ is designed to enter the female sex organ in order for procreation to occur?

This shows a misunderstanding of evolution. Design requires some one to do the design, which I do not believe in.

Are you really so far gone you can't even admit to basic reproduction?

Never denied basic reproduction, but it has nothing to do with your claim that heterosexuality is genetic.
 
Never claimed otherwise. Does not prove or even offer evidence that heterosexuality is genetic.

LOL Really. Then what does it prove?

This shows a misunderstanding of evolution. Design requires some one to do the design, which I do not believe in.

A misunderstanding of evolution? Can you think of any other way other than using technology to procreate? I'd love to hear this one.

Never denied basic reproduction, but it has nothing to do with your claim that heterosexuality is genetic.

Of course it is. Heterosexual sex is the only means of procreation yet you want to claim the very act of procreation being heterosexual intercourse is not genetic when it is the only way to pass genetics from one generation to another.

How does that not compute in your mind?
 
LOL Really. Then what does it prove?



A misunderstanding of evolution? Can you think of any other way other than using technology to procreate? I'd love to hear this one.



Of course it is. Heterosexual sex is the only means of procreation yet you want to claim the very act of procreation being heterosexual intercourse is not genetic when it is the only way to pass genetics from one generation to another.

How does that not compute in your mind??

It is contrary to the legitimization of homosexuality, that's how....:)
I'd call it grasping at straws.....;)
 
I haven't read all of this, but does anyone think it would have just been easier to let her and her girlfriend come? Bet it would have blow over much easier.
 
LOL Really. Then what does it prove?

It proved that heterosexual sex, which people of either orientation can and do engage in, is required for procreation. That is all it proves.

A misunderstanding of evolution? Can you think of any other way other than using technology to procreate? I'd love to hear this one.

Yes, a misunderstanding, which you continue. Evolution depends on mutations, which are random. Those that enhance survival tend to get passed onto later generations, which have the increased chance of survival again, passing the mutation onto the next generation and so on. There is no design, only random chance. You could argue some creator who designed things, but that is beyond the topic of evolution and unprovable.

You can, as is obviously provable, use the "technology" for things other than procreation. Examples include heterosexual sex while using birth control, masturbation, anal and oral intercourse, and many more.



Of course it is. Heterosexual sex is the only means of procreation yet you want to claim the very act of procreation being heterosexual intercourse is not genetic when it is the only way to pass genetics from one generation to another.

How does that not compute in your mind?

Heterosexual sex is not heterosexuality. You know this. It has been explained to you repeatedly, with sources and examples. Heterosexuality is an orientation, which you have not proven is genetic in any way, shape or form. Homosexuality is an orientation, and you have not proven it is not genetic. In point of fact, no one knows for sure, though genetics is quite likely a part of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom