• 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

Give an inch.....;)

Or refuse to give an inch, and end up losing your job as a high school administrator and attempt to support your family on what you can make as a Walmart greeter.
A prudent decision, I must say. :roll:
I hope this soon-to-be-former principal's children enjoy the taste of self-righteous bigotry, because that's what they're going to be eating for dinner from now on.

Meanwhile, the two lesbians will soon be off to college (where the former principal won't be able to afford to send his own children now), where they will no doubt be lauded as heroes by professors and fellow students alike.

Yeah, this principal really did something awesome, alright.
He's really taking a stand for fundamentalist conservatism. He's really single-handedly holding back the tide of social progress. What a guy.

The only explanation for his behavior, as far as I'm concerned, is that he somehow thought he'd get away with it, and that there would be no repercussions.
Which is ludicrous, and all the more reason he shouldn't be involved in education anymore. He's stupid, and he's out of touch with reality.
 
Last edited:
Do you think its a compliment to call somepne homophobic? All that takes is a yes or no answer...no left wing spin........yes or no?

No, of course it isn't, because it's nothing to be proud of.

Just like it's not a compliment to call someone ugly, even if by all standards they are ugly.

But that doesn't make it an insult.

The difference? You can change being a homophobe.
 
For one it has been the basis for the family unit since this country and dozens of other countries have used for thousands of years.

And homosexuality threatens this how?

It is genetic. I can prove quite easily that heterosexual sex is the foundation for procreation.

This has been addressed numerous times. See earlier in the thread.

Homosexuality has never been proven to be genetic and therefore can never be elevated to the heterosexual level.

Neither has heterosexuality.

There are many alternative lifestyles out there and not one has been proven to be genetic ergo the label "alternative" lifestyles.

Sexual Orientation =/= Goth

Why do you feel (and it is feel since you have no factual basis) that this one alternative lifestyle should be equal to heterosexuality?

We hold these truths to be sef-evident that all men are created equal
 
Or refuse to give an inch, and end up losing your job as a high school administrator and attempt to support your family on what you can make as a Walmart greeter.
A prudent decision, I must say. :roll:
I hope this soon-to-be-former principal's children enjoy the taste of self-righteous bigotry, because that's what they're going to be eating for dinner from now on.

Better to stand by your beliefs rather than do something you know to be morally wrong....
Meanwhile, the two lesbians will soon be off to college (where the former principal won't be able to afford to send his own children now), where they will no doubt be lauded as heroes by professors and fellow students alike.

Of couse, this fits in nicely with the social engineering that is part of the Liberal agenda......;)

Yeah, this principal really did something awesome, alright.
He's really taking a stand for fundamentalist conservatism. He's really single-handedly holding back the tide of social progress.What a guy
Progress maybe, but not in a positive direction.......;)

The only explanation for his behavior, as far as I'm concerned, is that he somehow thought he'd get away with it, and that there would be no repercussions.

Why should there be repercussions?....
He has a responsibility to protect the students from exposure to deviant behavior.....;)
Which is ludicrous, and all the more reason he shouldn't be involved in education anymore. He's stupid, and he's out of touch with reality.

I wonder how the majority of the parents at that school feel about his decision?...
I would imagine that they are angered that it had to be done this way...;)
 
I wonder how the majority of the parents at that school feel about his decision?...
I would imagine that they are angered that it had to be done this way...;)

Perhaps. Perhaps they're the same Mississippians who were "angered" that racial integration of schools (and all other public places) had to be "done this way", ie by force.
You'd think, after a certain number of generations, they'd get the message: act right or we'll force you to.
Don't violate people's civil rights, or you'll be punished.
 
Some of us don't like being called names when we have a different opinion:doh....that is not tolerance..:doh.

Pointing out that your views on Homosexuality have no logical basis and shouldn't be forced on others by government institutions isn't intolerance.
 
It proved that heterosexual sex, which people of either orientation can and do engage in, is required for procreation. That is all it proves.

The very ACT of continuing the genetic line isn't genetic according to you. Unbelievable.

Yes, a misunderstanding, which you continue. Evolution depends on mutations, which are random.

So now procreation is random. Do you ever quit with the dishonest conclusions?

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.

So you have zero evidence of any mutation to which you speak of and expect everyone to buy this nonscense because you say so.

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.

None of which are natural which you know was and is my point. You are simply not honest enough to admit it.

Heterosexual sex is not heterosexuality. You know this. It has been explained to you repeatedly, with sources and examples.

No it hasn't. Another dishonest statement with no fcatual evidence to support it whatsoever.

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.

Heterosexual sex is the ONLY means of procreation naturally. You have zero evidence of any natural purpose of homosexual sex.

That was and is the nail in your coffin to this pitiful display of trying to find a natural or genetic reason for homosexuality.
 
And homosexuality threatens this how?

I never said it did. Please stick to the subject.


This has been addressed numerous times. See earlier in the thread.

I have addressed it yes. No one can disprove it because it is fact.

Neither has heterosexuality.

Yes it has as the only natural way to pass genetic material to the next generation through procreation. Amazing how basic sex ed is lost on you.

Sexual Orientation =/= Goth

And that means what?

We hold these truths to be sef-evident that all men are created equal

And where does it say sexual orientation is part of that? Oh thats right, it doesn't.

But it is amusing watching you try in vain to find acceptance for something that is 0-31 with the public :)
 
The very ACT of continuing the genetic line isn't genetic according to you. Unbelievable.

Nice spin, too bad it is not what I said.



So now procreation is random. Do you ever quit with the dishonest conclusions?

Hey look, another misrepresentation. Procreation is part of a random process, that being evolution.

So you have zero evidence of any mutation to which you speak of and expect everyone to buy this nonscense because you say so.

Of course I can prove mutations happen. How many examples would you like? How about the Pseudomonas bacteria, which mutated an ability to "eat" nylon. How many more would you like?

None of which are natural which you know was and is my point. You are simply not honest enough to admit it.

And yet some of these do happen in nature: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals]Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Kinda hard to argue that nature is not natural.

No it hasn't. Another dishonest statement with no fcatual evidence to support it whatsoever.

Actually, I know both CC and I have explained the difference, and shown sources to back it up. No dishonesty on my part.

Heterosexual sex is the ONLY means of procreation naturally. You have zero evidence of any natural purpose of homosexual sex.


That was and is the nail in your coffin to this pitiful display of trying to find a natural or genetic reason for homosexuality.[/QUOTE]


Which is relevant how? No one has argues this point, yet you keep bringing it up like it proves your point. Further, I have not claimed that homosexuality was genetic, why do you keep claiming it? You have claimed it was not genetic, and that heterosexuality is, and yet you have yet to offer once source to back up either claim.
 
It this really that important?

Do people have nothing else to worry about than some gay girl going to a prom?
These 'issues' are such distractions to much more important things.

Actually, yes, I think it is that important. Treating people as they should be treated is something I think is important.
 
It this really that important?

Do people have nothing else to worry about than some gay girl going to a prom?
These 'issues' are such distractions to much more important things.

It's a civil rights issue.
In retrospect, was allowing some black girl to sit at a white lunch counter "that important"?
I'm sure we all had much more important things to worry about. :roll:
 
Actually, yes, I think it is that important. Treating people as they should be treated is something I think is important.

It's a civil rights issue.
In retrospect, was allowing some black girl to sit at a white lunch counter "that important"?
I'm sure we all had much more important things to worry about. :roll:

I guess I should have been more clear.

What does it solve for religious types to bitch and moan about a gay girl.
As if they are going to change her sexuality by denying her the privilege to go to her prom.

There are more serious things to attend to than dumping on gay people.
 
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?

What this proves is that you have zero understanding of the difference between procreation and genetics. The two are NOT the same. You are proving that you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Yes it has as the only natural way to pass genetic material to the next generation through procreation. Amazing how basic sex ed is lost on you.

Amazing how basic biology, sex ed, and logic is lost on YOU. The two concepts, procreation and genetic are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Answer this question... if the only way to pass genetic material to the next generation is through procreation, tell us all, specifically, what is the genetic material that is passed that is the indicator for heterosexuality? Unless you can identify the specific genetic material that determines that one is heterosexual, your foolish presentation of this... one that you keep erroneously doing, is completely false.

So, here's the question, and each and every time you make this presentation, I will respond with this question:

If the only way to pass genetic material to the next generation is through procreation, tell us all, specifically, what is the genetic material that is passed that is the the indicator for heterosexuality?
 
I never said it did. Please stick to the subject.

Then why does acceptence of homosexuality worry you? Just because something was the only way in the past doesn't make it more relevant now. No one is forcing you to be tolerant of them. If you don't want associate with them, fine. If you or others want to force your morality on others than I have a problem.

I have addressed it yes. No one can disprove it because it is fact.

No, it has been shown by many links and posts that no one really knows where sexual orientation comes from.

Yes it has as the only natural way to pass genetic material to the next generation through procreation. Amazing how basic sex ed is lost on you.

You are being willfully ignorant. Everyone here knows how babies are made. Being disadvantageous toward passing on one's genes =/= something not being genetic.

And that means what?

Sexual orientation has been shown to not be a choice, genetic or not.

And where does it say sexual orientation is part of that? Oh thats right, it doesn't.

The term is unconditional. It says "ALL men..." not "Some men..." Yes, no society can honestly say that it has fully lived up to those ideals, but that is no excuse to not try.

But it is amusing watching you try in vain to find acceptance for something that is 0-31 with the public :)

Argument from popularity.
 
You are being willfully ignorant. Everyone here knows how babies are made. Being disadvantageous toward passing on one's genes =/= something not being genetic.

As has been pointed out, homosexuality is not disadvantageous to the perpetuation of the species (which is the actual point of existence, not individual reproduction).

Many researchers believe, as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, that gays, as nonprocreative adults, served a specific purpose in prehistoric times: they helped raise and support their siblings' families, or the children of other members of their tribe.
This would've been crucial to the continued existence of a community, back in the days when so many people died at a young age and left their children orphaned.

I believe texmaster is being willfully obtuse.

By the way, the spell-check on this forum has a few bugs.
It indicates that the word "wilfully" is a misspelling, when it isn't; it's actually a valid alternative spelling:

wilfully - definition of wilfully by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
wilful - definition of wilful by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
 
Last edited:
You know I have to ask this, why is the argument always made that since the anti-gay crowd thinks that homosexuality is a choice, and not something they are born as, then it is automatically not protected as a civil right? I constantly hear this argument, "it's a choice so it shouldn't be considered the same argument as race".

I can name something else that is a choice. Religion. That tells me that it doesn't matter if they were born that way or if they are choosing to be that way. Its in the same protections as race and is a choice.

So how's this argument for you? Should it be okay for a public school to ban couples of different religious beliefs from going to prom together? It's not like their religious beliefs would be really violated, especially considering there are several religions that consider it wrong to date someone not of your faith.
 
You know I have to ask this, why is the argument always made that since the anti-gay crowd thinks that homosexuality is a choice, and not something they are born as, then it is automatically not protected as a civil right? I constantly hear this argument, "it's a choice so it shouldn't be considered the same argument as race".

I can name something else that is a choice. Religion. That tells me that it doesn't matter if they were born that way or if they are choosing to be that way. Its in the same protections as race and is a choice.

So how's this argument for you? Should it be okay for a public school to ban couples of different religious beliefs from going to prom together? It's not like their religious beliefs would be really violated, especially considering there are several religions that consider it wrong to date someone not of your faith.

Excellent point.
 
You know I have to ask this, why is the argument always made that since the anti-gay crowd thinks that homosexuality is a choice, and not something they are born as, then it is automatically not protected as a civil right? I constantly hear this argument, "it's a choice so it shouldn't be considered the same argument as race".

I can name something else that is a choice. Religion. That tells me that it doesn't matter if they were born that way or if they are choosing to be that way. Its in the same protections as race and is a choice.

So how's this argument for you? Should it be okay for a public school to ban couples of different religious beliefs from going to prom together? It's not like their religious beliefs would be really violated, especially considering there are several religions that consider it wrong to date someone not of your faith.

That is a very good point, but sadly I remember growing up that certain people weren't allowed to join student activities because of religion. It was never stated that they weren't allowed in because they were black or Muslim, but it was well known that was the reason. Thankfully those who made such decisions have left their positions and now it is much more open for everyone.
 
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.

I wear men's pants all the time. Because they're ****ing comfortable. I buy men's swim trunks, boxer, and men's lounge pants. For MYSELF.

And I LOVE flannel. Flannel sheets, flannels shirts, flannel pants.

Oh, and my ballcap :)
 
We should not limit someone's freedom to express love towards another (so long as it is decent, I am not advocating public sex) and cancel the whole prom because of a lesbian couple. I don't support gay marriage or the homosexual agenda, but it's going to far to close a prom because of a lesbian couple and ruin it for everyone. Even though I think homosexuality is wrong I think people's rights should be protected. If someone chooses to be gay they shouldn't have people forcing them against that. Now I'm not for extending marriage benefits to homosexual couples, but I also don't believe in oppressing them or telling others who they can and can't have a relationship with. It's not my place and what this school did was wrong. Not only on the part of discrimination, but also publicly humiliating a lesbian couple and placing the blame on them for a canceled prom when really it's the high school that has the problem. You can be against the homosexual agenda without being against homosexual people.
 
Last edited:
You know I have to ask this, why is the argument always made that since the anti-gay crowd thinks that homosexuality is a choice, and not something they are born as, then it is automatically not protected as a civil right? I constantly hear this argument, "it's a choice so it shouldn't be considered the same argument as race".

I can name something else that is a choice. Religion. That tells me that it doesn't matter if they were born that way or if they are choosing to be that way. Its in the same protections as race and is a choice.

So how's this argument for you? Should it be okay for a public school to ban couples of different religious beliefs from going to prom together? It's not like their religious beliefs would be really violated, especially considering there are several religions that consider it wrong to date someone not of your faith.

I know it's already been said, but I must say it also, excellent point! I don't believe it's a choice but if one is going to argue it is, I'd like to see a reply to your post and see how they would argue against it.

Well done!
 
I wear men's pants all the time. Because they're ****ing comfortable. I buy men's swim trunks, boxer, and men's lounge pants. For MYSELF.

And I LOVE flannel. Flannel sheets, flannels shirts, flannel pants.

Oh, and my ballcap :)

Around the house, I wear boxers. They're comfy.
Clearly, they're "men's pants". They have a slit in the front, lol.
Other than that, I wear Levis. I think all the jeans I have currently are women's, but I've gotten boys' Levis before because they were cheaper, and I don't see much of a difference. I'm built more like a boy anyway: no hips, no butt, not much of a waist indention.
Women's pants tend to fit me ridiculously: tight in the waist, so baggy in the butt it looks like I've got a gigantic saggy balloon back there. Levis seems to be about the only jeans manufacturer that doesn't assume all women have an hourglass figure.

I don't know what that dude was talking about, saying men's pants and jackets don't fit women. They come in all sizes.
The school's more likely to send kids home if their clothes are too tight, than if they're too baggy. :shrug:
 
We should not limit someone's freedom to express love towards another (so long as it is decent, I am not advocating public sex) and cancel the whole prom because of a lesbian couple. I don't support gay marriage or the homosexual agenda, but it's going to far to close a prom because of a lesbian couple and ruin it for everyone. Even though I think homosexuality is wrong I think people's rights should be protected. If someone chooses to be gay they shouldn't have people forcing them against that. Now I'm not for extending marriage benefits to homosexual couples, but I also don't believe in oppressing them or telling others who they can and can't have a relationship with. It's not my place and what this school did was wrong. Not only on the part of discrimination, but also publicly humiliating a lesbian couple and placing the blame on them for a canceled prom when really it's the high school that has the problem. You can be against the homosexual agenda without being against homosexual people.

I applaud your outlook. Would that others with the same point of view felt and did the same in protecting the rights of these Americans.

It was very punitive of the school to handle it the way they did. They speak of distracting from the learning process, well, I don't see that they helped in that the girl in question has been told to her face that SHE ruined their senior year. Very shameful on the part of the school and their district.
 
Back
Top Bottom