equality? rights of self serving selfishness

[Deanh]

ok, title is self explanatory and this thread should be a doozie given the volatile subject. Me, personally I am angry, gay Marriage WILL become legalized, mark my words...but I have said before its the tip of the iceberg...after winning that right, whats next on the agenda? And this just made me bubble in anger, CUDOS to the school, they attempted to avoid a potentially volatile situation and cant win for losing...I for one saw this coming... .

[Edstock]

AFAIK, a prom is not part of the curriculum, that which the school is obligated to provide.

[Deanh]

AFAIK, a prom is not part of the curriculum, that which the school is obligated to provide.

I swear, what the hell is happening to this country, driving me nuts...every little nook, crannie, faction, religious sect, and age group, thinks they are special and the world owes them a favor....hell, bring back mandated enlistment...yep, you heard me...the DRAFT....level playing field, and some damn dicipline .

[Deanh]

AFAIK, a prom is not part of the curriculum, that which the school is obligated to provide.

kinda underlines my point...some facets of society just cant understand the word NO.

[RangerM]

I read this story in USA Today while I was stuck at the airport.

 

IIRC, one of the girls was upset that she would not be permitted to accompany her girlfriend while wearing a tuxedo.

 

I don't recall the story saying they couldn't attend the prom, as individuals.

 

In any case, Ed is right. The prom is a privelege, and it has been revoked.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Perhaps it is the school board that overreacted. If they let her take her girlfriend to the prom what would it have hurt? Would the other kids be injured? In all likelyhood many would have ignored the couple some might have voiced an opinion. By making a big deal out of it the school board merely made the whole thing a public cause. The selfserving selfishness was the school board deciding to deprive all the kids of the prom because their precious sensibilities were offended.

[Edstock]

Perhaps it is the school board that overreacted. If they let her take her girlfriend to the prom what would it have hurt?

I agree. Especially when you consider that her proclivities are no secret and not illegal, it shows that the board just doesn't get it. Their offended, unctuous righteousness is offensive in its bigotry. However, her lawsuit may be futile. The thought comes to mind, though, that the board might be liable if it were sued by hetero students, for cancelling the prom.

[stephenhawkings]

Boy oh boy, oops I mean girl oh girl, what has the world come to we dont have anything more juvenile to discuss besides some teen angst?

Ok teen lesbian angst?

Just another reason why BON is a great way to kill brain cells, when i am not being brain dead at work!

[Ford Jellymoulds]

If you insult a Vegan in the UK you will face the full force of British law soon, and could face a prison sentence for doing so under new equality laws being passed at the moment in the UK.

 

Can see Vegan laws forcing places like Mcdonalds into selling having a certain % amout of Vegan food veggie burger, salads etc on their menu or face fines. Next thing will then be some Vegan feels insulted by somebody and plays the Vegan lettuce carrot "they are picking on me" card and the branch of McDonalds will get shut down. So Mcdonalds will end up selling only carrots and lettuce leaf as they won't want to offend any vegan or face big fines and being shutdown for being to anti carrotism and being accused of radishism, meat eaters will have to join smokers and eat burgers outside in the rain as not to offend Vegans, you can see where its all heading, leather in cars banned etc.

 

Daily Mail...

Vegans, teetotallers and atheists are to be given the same protection against discrimination as religious groups, under Harriet Harman's controversial new equality laws.

People who do not eat products and refuse to wear leather have been singled out for inclusion under the new legislation by Labour's super-quango - the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

 

Singling out vegans as meriting protection from religious discrimination, it says: 'A person who is a vegan chooses not to use or consume animal products of any kind.

 

'That person eschews the exploitation of animals for food, clothing, accessories or any other purpose and does so out of an ethical commitment to animal welfare.'

 

A spokesman from the commission explained: 'This is about someone for whom being vegan or vegetarian is central to who they are. This is not something 'thought up by the commission'.

 

'Parliament makes the law, the courts interpret it and the commission offers factual and proportionate guidance to organisations where necessary. We are providing guidance on the implications of the equality bill.'

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz0i6NRi2Mb

Edited March 14, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[jpd80]

If you insult a Vegan in the UK you will face the full force of British law soon, and could face a prison sentence for doing so under new equality laws being passed at the moment in the UK.

 

 

I'll have to remember that, Trekkies will be happy

 

[Ford Jellymoulds]

I'll have to remember that, Trekkies will be happy

 

 

Forgot to mention we would end up with pointed ears JPD.

[RangerM]

Perhaps it is the school board that overreacted. If they let her take her girlfriend to the prom what would it have hurt? Would the other kids be injured? In all likelyhood many would have ignored the couple some might have voiced an opinion. By making a big deal out of it the school board merely made the whole thing a public cause. The selfserving selfishness was the school board deciding to deprive all the kids of the prom because their precious sensibilities were offended.

You refer to their "precious sensiblities", but how do you know it was merely the school board acting on its own behalf, and NOT on the behalf of the electorate?

 

If the public has an expected standard of conduct, then why shouldn't the local school board (who is elected by the public) be sensitive to their demands?

Edited March 14, 2010 by RangerM

[Trimdingman]

ok, title is self explanatory and this thread should be a doozie given the volatile subject. Me, personally I am angry, gay Marriage WILL become legalized, mark my words...but I have said before its the tip of the iceberg...after winning that right, whats next on the agenda? And this just made me bubble in anger, CUDOS to the school, they attempted to avoid a potentially volatile situation and cant win for losing...I for one saw this coming... .

 

I can't see the harm in allowing two girls to attend the prom as a couple. This is mild compared to what goes on afterwards, such as underage drinking and promiscuous sex. As for the issue of same sex marriage, I have a problem with marriage, period. The government gives you a license to be together. What is that? There is way too much government intrusion into our lives. And as for the school prom, the ones in charge are copying the government and giving themselves too much authority over the students. What is stopping them from renting a hall and having a prom on their own terms?

[mettech]

Perhaps it is the school board that overreacted. If they let her take her girlfriend to the prom what would it have hurt? Would the other kids be injured? In all likelyhood many would have ignored the couple some might have voiced an opinion. By making a big deal out of it the school board merely made the whole thing a public cause. The selfserving selfishness was the school board deciding to deprive all the kids of the prom because their precious sensibilities were offended.

 

 

Soon, a gay military member will be able to serve their country in the open. It will be interesting to see the first gay couple at the military ball...

 

The reality is.... It doesn't affect me one bit.

 

The mentality of preventing a gay couple from a public event is similar to the old issue of interracial relationships.

 

IMO, the people that tries to interfere with anyone's freedom and rights.... just can't die off fast enough.

[RangerM]

Soon, a gay military member will be able to serve their country in the open. It will be interesting to see the first gay couple at the military ball...

 

The reality is.... It doesn't affect me one bit.

That is your belief, and you are welcome to it. Many others do not agree. I'm pretty neutral on the subject, because I don't understand why someone who is "outwardly" hetero- or homo- even comes into context in the military. As far as I'm concerned, when you're defending your/my life/country, I don't care WHAT your proclivity is. Under peacetime circumstances, military personnel should be expected to act in a professional, and discreet, manner. So long as the (sexuality-based) behavior is kept out of the military sphere, it isn't an issue.

The mentality of preventing a gay couple from a public event is similar to the old issue of interracial relationships.

I disagree. Race is an aspect of being, not behavior. No one has told this person that she can't be gay. They have decided that there will not be homosexual behavior at the prom. They'd rather destroy the public event, than alter the standards of conduct they hold for it. Everyone is free to call them ignorant, intolerant, etc., but it is their right to hold whatever standards they choose.

IMO, the people that tries to interfere with anyone's freedom and rights.... just can't die off fast enough.

And the people who believe it is not the time/place for such behavior, what about their rights? Just as you have your standards, so do the people of this community. See where I'm going?

 

I'm sure you'd agree that it would be no less unacceptable for one of the kids going around spouting expletives, or playing selected music that has profane language/concepts.

 

The issue seems to be about behavior, and where that line of what is acceptable and not acceptable is set. The locality has said that this behavior is not one it will tolerate. Rightly or wrongly, it is their right.

Edited March 14, 2010 by RangerM

[mettech]

That is your belief, and you are welcome to it. Many others do not agree. I'm pretty neutral on the subject, because I don't understand why someone who is "outwardly" hetero- or homo- even comes into context in the military. As far as I'm concerned, when you're defending your/my life/country, I don't care WHAT your proclivity is. Under peacetime circumstances, military personnel should be expected to act in a professional, and discreet, manner. So long as the (sexuality-based) behavior is kept out of the military sphere, it isn't an issue.

 

I disagree. Race is an aspect of being, not behavior. No one has told this person that she can't be gay. They have decided that there will not be homosexual behavior at the prom. They'd rather destroy the public event, than alter the standards of conduct they hold for it. Everyone is free to call them ignorant, intolerant, etc., but it is their right to hold whatever standards they choose.

 

And the people who believe it is not the time/place for such behavior, what about their rights? Just as you have your standards, so do the people of this community. See where I'm going?

 

I'm sure you'd agree that it would be no less unacceptable for one of the kids going around spouting expletives, or playing selected music that has profane language/concepts.

The issue seems to be about behavior, and where that line of what is acceptable and not acceptable is set. The locality has said that this behavior is not one it will tolerate. Rightly or wrongly, it is their right.

 

Cursing in public is a choice. Being gay is genetic just like being heterosexual is genetic.

 

I have had at least 4 Airman that I know where gay that worked for me. I suspected 3 to 6 more that may have been. For them to live a life of lies and have to cover their genetic behavior is wrong.

 

I expect everyone to conduct their self under the same laws and rules. No PDA... What they do in the bedroom with consiting adults is their business, not mine, not yours, not the governments.

 

I have served 28 years now to defend Americans Rights to be free... Should I reject an American that has a religion I don't like, or prints a statement I don't like, or speaks something I don't like, or hang out with a group?... No... Then why should I reject and American because he/she loves someone?

[RangerM]

Cursing in public is a choice. Being gay is genetic just like being heterosexual is genetic.

No one is arguing that being gay is genetic or not. How one behaves or presents themselves in public is the issue for me.

I have had at least 4 Airman that I know where gay that worked for me. I suspected 3 to 6 more that may have been. For them to live a life of lies and have to cover their genetic behavior is wrong.

I have no problem with someone BEING gay. I have a problem with someone behaving inappropriately.

I expect everyone to conduct their self under the same laws and rules. No PDA... What they do in the bedroom with consiting adults is their business, not mine, not yours, not the governments.

100% agreed. The issue is about behavior, not privacy. Once behavior becomes public (a.k.a. PDA), then it is society's business to determine what is socially-acceptable and what is not.

I have served 28 years now to defend Americans Rights to be free... Should I reject an American that has a religion I don't like, or prints a statement I don't like, or speaks something I don't like, or hang out with a group?... No... Then why should I reject and American because he/she loves someone?

First, thanks for your service.

 

Second, AFAIK no one is asking you to reject anyone. YOU determine what you find acceptable public behavior, and no one else. You aren't "denying" anyone of anything, nor am I suggesting you do.

 

What one community finds acceptable behavior may not be acceptable in another. Tolerance (to me) seems to be acceptance of this. As extreme as this community in Mississippi views on what is socially-acceptable seems, there is the other extreme. The Folsom Street Fair is such an example of behavior done in public on public property. (Here is a link documenting this event. WARNING: Graphic images!) I don't feel the need to go to San Francisco to protest or stop this event, no matter how I may feel about it, but I don't want it in my community, either.

Edited March 14, 2010 by RangerM

[matthewq4b]

Um not sure why the school and school board is even providing a prom with Tax dollars. Not acceptable any way you cut it.

 

Here it is the student council body that organizes the prom and pays for it by selling tickets and with fund raisers student counsil is responsible for all assotiated costs including security, And it is usally held OFF School property.

The only involvement the school has is providing volunteer teachers to help chaperon and help MC the actual event. Also Parents volunteer to chaperon as well.

Graduation ceremonies are done at the school and the dance is at another location.

 

This was done several years ago during cutbacks, it was decided then there was no reason that school board funds should be used to provide graduates with a party. Also having the event off school property absolves the School Board of any liability.

 

A few schools still use alow them to use school facilties but they are rented to the to the student counsil just like any other private organization that wants to use the facilites and are bound by the same rules for use like any other private organization, Security, Food, ETC are the responsibility of student counsil and have to meet the terms of use laid out by the school and school board.

 

That is the only say they have in the matter.

 

 

Matthew

Edited March 14, 2010 by matthewq4b

[mettech]

No one is arguing that being gay is genetic or not. How one behaves or presents themselves in public is the issue for me.

 

I have no problem with someone BEING gay. I have a problem with someone behaving inappropriately.

 

100% agreed. The issue is about behavior, not privacy. Once behavior becomes public (a.k.a. PDA), then it is society's business to determine what is socially-acceptable and what is not.

 

First, thanks for your service.

 

Second, AFAIK no one is asking you to reject anyone. YOU determine what you find acceptable public behavior, and no one else. You aren't "denying" anyone of anything, nor am I suggesting you do.

 

What one community finds acceptable behavior may not be acceptable in another. Tolerance (to me) seems to be acceptance of this. As extreme as this community in Mississippi views on what is socially-acceptable seems, there is the other extreme. The Folsom Street Fair is such an example of behavior done in public on public property. (Here is a link documenting this event. WARNING: Graphic images!) I don't feel the need to go to San Francisco to protest or stop this event, no matter how I may feel about it, but I don't want it in my community, either.

 

 

It appears we are in agreement up to highlighted post. A community of people can not impose their will on a person's basic freedoms. Yes it does happen, and that is why the ACLU is so busy. I don't agree with everything the ACLU does... but it does stand up to tyranny.

[30 OTT 6]

My imagination is currently insisting that those two girls go to the prom together. Unfortunately, my imagination usually fails the reality test when it comes to lesbians.

[RangerM]

It appears we are in agreement up to highlighted post. A community of people can not impose their will on a person's basic freedoms. Yes it does happen, and that is why the ACLU is so busy. I don't agree with everything the ACLU does... but it does stand up to tyranny.

No one is preventing anyone from being themselves, in their private lives. It's when it's PUBLIC that it becomes everyone else's business.

 

Tyranny can only exist in the absence of options. I am FREE to live in a community that imposes Blue Laws, and may choose to do so, because I share much of the same values as the other Red-State folks. I am also FREE to live in San Francisco if I share more in common with their values.

 

We can live in peace and harmony, if we accept the other's existence, even if we don't share their values.

[Mark B. Morrow]

You refer to their "precious sensiblities", but how do you know it was merely the school board acting on its own behalf, and NOT on the behalf of the electorate?

 

If the public has an expected standard of conduct, then why shouldn't the local school board (who is elected by the public) be sensitive to their demands?

 

The public isn't always right. We shouldn't allow majorities to hold sway on minority rights.

 

You may recall that the public, in many places, once demanded segregation of the races, substandard accomodations for black citizens, probibition of interracial relationships, public lynchings, no voting rights for women, ethnic and religious discrimination in employment and housing. The public in many southern states, including Mississippi, had to be dragged kicking and screaming, sometimes by armed troops, into treating people equally. I believe that it will be the same with attaining rights for gays and lesbians in the future. Those who want to discriminate are fighting a losing battle and will be on the wrong side of history. Our children don't care whether someone is gay and their children will wonder what all the fuss was about, much as we look at segregation today.

[Ron W.]

The public isn't always right. We shouldn't allow majorities to hold sway on minority rights.

 

public lynchings,

 

If by public lynching you mean a hanging without a trial I agree, if you mean a public hanging after a trial I disagree. My thoughts are if punishments were carried out in public, including the death penalty people might think twice about committing a crime when they've already seen in person the possible out come.

 

As far as the topic I'll keep my opinion to myself not knowing for 100% sure why the prom was canceled.

[RangerM]

The public isn't always right. We shouldn't allow majorities to hold sway on minority rights.

Especially true when we attempt such "one-size-fits-all" legislation at the Federal level, wouldn't you agree?

You may recall that the public, in many places, once demanded segregation of the races, substandard accomodations for black citizens, probibition of interracial relationships, public lynchings, no voting rights for women, ethnic and religious discrimination in employment and housing. The public in many southern states, including Mississippi, had to be dragged kicking and screaming, sometimes by armed troops, into treating people equally. I believe that it will be the same with attaining rights for gays and lesbians in the future.

There are people who might be referred to as "wiggers" or (coming from the opposite) many blacks who accuse their brethren of "acting white", and neither of those are socially-acceptable, being they refer to unacceptable (in certain contexts) behavior(s).

 

Race is what you might call an "outward characteristic", as opposed to homosexuality which is evident only through behavior. I can look at someone and tell they are of a different race. The same is not true of homosexuality.

 

It is possible for someone to NOT care if someone "looks different" and still not approve of their behavior, and take (legal) steps to suppress it from public consumption.

Those who want to discriminate are fighting a losing battle and will be on the wrong side of history. Our children don't care whether someone is gay and their children will wonder what all the fuss was about, much as we look at segregation today.

The only persons I can name (by name) who are actively fighting are those people from that church who protest at soldiers' funerals. I don't consider THAT behavior acceptable, either.

[Roadtrip]

Three points: Until science proves that (1) homosexuality is an innate condition; (2) until science can explain why some people somehow discover that they are homosexual only after they have entered into heterosexual marital relationships; and (3) until science can explain why some individuals who have previously considered themselves homosexuals now view themselves as heterosexuals -- it's going to be difficult for the scientific communitiy to reconcile point 1 with points 2 and 3.

 

Given the absence of scientific proof, homosexuality can only be construed as a behavioral characteristic, and not rising to the level of a protected class (certain Supreme Court decisions would disagree (see Romer v. Evans as an example -- and I would be a dissenter) such as race, sex, age, creed (religious affiliation, as protected by the First Amendment).

 

Three facts: (1) Homosexuals enjoy the same civil rights in the U.S. as heterosexuals; (2) there are no laws preventing homosexuals from living together; and (3) homosexuals are free to write contracts with one another (such as wills and other agreements). Also, more and more government agencies are allowing their employees to include their homosexual partners in their healthcare coverage. Lots of companies, too.

 

People who want to equate the current "gay rights" movement with the civil rights movement have no historical perspective, and have no sense of shame.