|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 18:32:24 GMT
once again, the anti civil liberties union demonstrates it's abject stupidity. we also have another case of homosexuals trying to get superior rights instead of the totally equal rights that they already have. it's a travesty for this dyke to screw up the prom for the whole class, but, class is nonexistent with those such as her What a complete misunderstanding of equality you have! If there were "totally equal" anything, this wouldn't even be an issue. "Equal" would mean that everyone in the class could attend the dance with or without the permission of the principal. If homosexuals are allowed in the school, it is blatant and disgusting discrimination to make them beg for a place at the school prom. The two people concerned are both students. The fight for women to be allowed to wear trousers was won long ago. The school deserves a good smack. The tuxedo issue is so passé. Here's Diane Keaton at the Oscars. no, YOU don't understand equality. gays have EXACTLY the same rights as normal people do. they are perfectly free to marry anyone of the opposite sex just as every heterosexual is. in this case, this dyke has exactly the same right to wear a prom dress as all the other girls. NOTHING unequal or discriminatory about it
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2010 18:40:01 GMT
That's a biut like saying that someone in a wheelcahir has just the same rights to go through a door as anyone else; all they have to do is get out of their chair and walk through!
But I still (sort of) feel uneasy about the girl insisting on wearing a tuxedo, which is the accepted dress for the boys. It may have been because that is what she always wears to funtions - otherwise it sounds just a teeny bit confrontational.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 18:40:28 GMT
If I were a lesbian american schoolgirl I would want the tuxedo bit too. I woud want to look as glorious as any date, and nothing cries glamour like a tux. As a protest, when they do relent and allow the prom all the kids should wear tuxedos there will NOT be a school sponsored prom, thanks to this dyke. ]hopefully, the parents and others will get a prom organized that is not held at the school, and the whole thing will be moot. the suit is a loser from the gate, except to once again prove the abject stupidity of the aclu. there is NO requirement that a school host a prom to begin with
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 18:42:07 GMT
Jean, I think that sort of stand smacks of the insistence of Muslim girls to wear veils in class; it is comes uncomfortably close to attention seeking behaviour. Perhaps there is better reason to ban face coverings than there is to refuse to allow a girl to wear a boy's dress; but perhaps the authorities are concerned that if everyone just throws the traditions out of the window, the spirit of the prom will be lost. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing, come to think of it. Why not allow boys to wear what they like as well (yes, including frocks); they don't seem to have a choice, and hiring tuxedos they will wear only once must come expensive. because, as you said, it is tradition, and tradition trumps the stupidity of the nutjobs who try to change it
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 18:45:59 GMT
we also have another case of homosexuals trying to get superior rights instead of the totally equal rights that they already have. What superior right are they trying to get? All she want to do is take her partner to a dance? What person could possibly object to that? what is so difficult to comprehend about such a simple reality? EVERYONE, without exception, has the unequivocal right to bring any partner of the opposite sex to the prom that will go with them. it is really so simple, any first grader can comprehend it
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 19:09:23 GMT
I share your opinion of this case, but it's important not to write off all Americans as nut-jobs. It's a big country, with all kinds of different people living there. Oh I have met some lovely Americans - hopefully the members here will start pasting a few inspiring stories about the good things that happen. Of course I am handily ignoring that the posters probably think these stories are the good things ;D handily ignoring reality is NOT a good thing
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 19:14:09 GMT
"turbo-folk" Is it fuel injected? sounds right to me
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 19:16:04 GMT
The ACLU said a school policy banning same-sex prom dates violated McMillen's constitutional rights.If that was true wouldn't every state have same-sex marriage and adoption policies. I don't think that homosexual behaviour is particularly protected by the constitution, is it? not at all. it is only in the feeble minds of the not so bright that it is
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 19:20:53 GMT
once again, the anti civil liberties union demonstrates it's abject stupidity. we also have another case of homosexuals trying to get superior rights instead of the totally equal rights that they already have. it's a travesty for this dyke to screw up the prom for the whole class, but, class is nonexistent with those such as her It is very likely that if homosexuals were granted the right to take a person of the same sex to the prom, the official wording wouldn't actually state that this privilege applies to homosexuals only - heterosexuals would presumably also have the option, if they wished. In other words, all that would change is that one equality would be substituted for another, with it remaining the case that no-one would have 'superior' rights to anyone else, on the grounds of their sexuality. the point is that heterosexuals do NOT have the right to take someone of the same sex to the prom. obviously, neither do homosexuals. as i said, the whole gay trip is in trying to get rights that normal people don't have
|
|
|
Post by o on Mar 13, 2010 19:32:55 GMT
hi, jumbo - i am a newbie here so am at a bit of a disadvantage, but i think that i am right in saying that you are american? you have probably noticed that a lot or even all of the uk folks here are a bit mystified by this whole 'prom' thing.
so could you fill us in, jumbo, and tell us all in a sentence or two what the prom thing is all about - what's the point of it?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 20:17:56 GMT
That's a biut like saying that someone in a wheelcahir has just the same rights to go through a door as anyone else; all they have to do is get out of their chair and walk through! But I still (sort of) feel uneasy about the girl insisting on wearing a tuxedo, which is the accepted dress for the boys. It may have been because that is what she always wears to funtions - otherwise it sounds just a teeny bit confrontational. that's the ONLY thing it was. she was on the early show yesterday morning, and was wearing a dress.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 20:25:52 GMT
hi, jumbo - i am a newbie here so am at a bit of a disadvantage, but i think that i am right in saying that you are american? you have probably noticed that a lot or even all of the uk folks here are a bit mystified by this whole 'prom' thing. so could you fill us in, jumbo, and tell us all in a sentence or two what the prom thing is all about - what's the point of it? really, there isn't a point to it. it is essentially a formal dance for the graduating class. in a long of schools, there is also a junior prom. the big one though, is the senior prom, and it is a big party. most of the time, the school does sponsor it, and there is usually a student/faculty committee that makes the preparations. still, the reality is that it is just a big party, which realistically costs each participant several hundred dollars to attend.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Mar 13, 2010 20:26:54 GMT
by the way, contrary to what some folks here would have you believe, i really am the nicest guy in the world
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 13, 2010 20:26:59 GMT
What a complete misunderstanding of equality you have! If there were "totally equal" anything, this wouldn't even be an issue. "Equal" would mean that everyone in the class could attend the dance with or without the permission of the principal. If homosexuals are allowed in the school, it is blatant and disgusting discrimination to make them beg for a place at the school prom. The two people concerned are both students. The fight for women to be allowed to wear trousers was won long ago. The school deserves a good smack. The tuxedo issue is so passé. Here's Diane Keaton at the Oscars. no, YOU don't understand equality. gays have EXACTLY the same rights as normal people do. they are perfectly free to marry anyone of the opposite sex just as every heterosexual is. in this case, this dyke has exactly the same right to wear a prom dress as all the other girls. NOTHING unequal or discriminatory about it lol I think skylark answered that one so perfectly that I'll just refer you to her.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 13, 2010 20:27:36 GMT
Jean, I think that sort of stand smacks of the insistence of Muslim girls to wear veils in class; it is comes uncomfortably close to attention seeking behaviour. Perhaps there is better reason to ban face coverings than there is to refuse to allow a girl to wear a boy's dress; but perhaps the authorities are concerned that if everyone just throws the traditions out of the window, the spirit of the prom will be lost. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad thing, come to think of it. Why not allow boys to wear what they like as well (yes, including frocks); they don't seem to have a choice, and hiring tuxedos they will wear only once must come expensive. because, as you said, it is tradition, and tradition trumps the stupidity of the nutjobs who try to change it "Tradition" You sound like the guy in 'Fiddler on the Roof'. Adapt or die. Just because your grandmother went to the prom in a frilly dress, it doesn't give any - ANY - inherit merit in you doing the same.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Mar 13, 2010 20:28:05 GMT
because, as you said, it is tradition, and tradition trumps the stupidity of the nutjobs who try to change it Tradition doesn't make something automatically right. Whatever it is may well be not wrong, but if it isn't then it isn't because it is traditional.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 13, 2010 20:31:09 GMT
by the way, contrary to what some folks here would have you believe, i really am the nicest guy in the world You should show it more then!! Listening to other peoples' viewpoints might be a start!
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Mar 13, 2010 20:32:42 GMT
the point is that heterosexuals do NOT have the right to take someone of the same sex to the prom. obviously, neither do homosexuals. as i said, the whole gay trip is in trying to get rights that normal people don't have You seem to be very certain that gays not only want the option to take a same-sex partner but also want this new choice to not be offered to heterosexuals. Which is the only way the current equality could be changed to an inequality. Even if some actually do want the situation to be as you describe, that is just them - they do not speak on behalf of all homosexuals and I'm sure plenty would not want the new choice to be unequally restricted to gays only.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 13, 2010 20:37:03 GMT
It is very likely that if homosexuals were granted the right to take a person of the same sex to the prom, the official wording wouldn't actually state that this privilege applies to homosexuals only - heterosexuals would presumably also have the option, if they wished. In other words, all that would change is that one equality would be substituted for another, with it remaining the case that no-one would have 'superior' rights to anyone else, on the grounds of their sexuality. the point is that heterosexuals do NOT have the right to take someone of the same sex to the prom. obviously, neither do homosexuals. as i said, the whole gay trip is in trying to get rights that normal people don't have You're confusing it all by making up 'rights' surrounding petty details that make up the habits of proms. There are no such 'rights'. The only thing approaching a right is the right for two lesbian students to attend their own school prom, together, without having to pretend they are not lesbians. And it seems that there is no law against what these two women are trying to do, merely a subjective little distaste on the side of a principal and her misguided posse. Had the school made no issue of it, just live and let live etc, what would the problem be?
|
|
|
Post by june on Mar 13, 2010 21:07:43 GMT
Tradition trumps change? What utter bilge.
Jim - any point you were trying to make has just been destroyed by that ridiculous statement.
|
|