Lesbian, the ACLU Ruin Prom for Mississippi Town...

Some churches would say that when you drank, you were being immoral.

 

I urge you to consider this:

I believe that freedom and morality are incompatible.

Morality is defined as, "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."

Freedom is defined as, "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc."

One can have a free nation or a moral nation but not both. A nation that insists on an unwavering set of moral standards inevitably must eventually resort to totalitarianism to enforce those standards.

Secondly, moral beliefs are derived from religious beliefs. It has been argued repeatedly on Delphi that you cannot have morals without religion. However, there is no unified religious morality. Every religion has a moral code that another religion would find unacceptable. Catholics believe that drinking is moral; many Protestants do not. Jews and Muslims find bacon anathema; Christians find bacon to be almost a necessity.

Therefore, how can you impose a single moral code, and expect everyone to adhere to it, without resorting to use of force, which then results in totalitarianism?

(edit) I see in later posts that you do indeed advocate the use of force in enforcing your moral code, which reinforces what I have said here.

 

Would you then abide by the argument that if you went to an immoral person's house and attempted to be moral, they would then be entitled to harm you as well?

 

Had the same conditions been imposed on an interracial couple, would you then say the school's decision was not based on race?

 

It has been argued repeadedly and forcefully here by a large number of the non-religious and anti-religious that that is not necessarily the case.

Sure, some moral beliefs derive from religious beliefs, because some religions (not all, by any means) include a moral element. But there are also people who at least claim to have no religious beliefs whatsoever who nevertheless argue that they have stong moral beliefs. At least one poster here, RickDeckard, even argues in favor of absolute, objective moral values that derive from human nature, without any reference whatsoever to supernaturalism (which her rejects totally). Oddly enough, there are a number of points on which he and I agree thoroughly concerning moral values, even though we basically represent the extreme opposite ends of the religious-non-religious spectrum.

I, on the other hand, who am a thorough believer in supernaturalism, argue that that is not the basis of my moral values, and even that if that was the basis, that would show those moral values to be arbitrary. I claim instead that, if religious moral values are valid (which is not always the case, by any means), it is because religion reflects true moral values, but does not originate them. (See this thread for details.)

So your attempt to set up a dichotomy that involves religion is premiced on an extremely shaky claim. There are plenty of people, on both sides of the religion debate, who disagree thoroughly that moral beliefs are necessarily derived from religious beliefs.

 

Reducing my whole argument to the conditions imposed on them is still an overly simplistic misrepresentation of the case. It should be noted that I am in no way and at no point saying the school was right in the conditions they imposed. I said specifically that it would have been better all around for them to just accept the lesbian couple and not make a big deal about it and that the progress in their postion towards gays was not as much as one could hope for. But saying "the prom was canceled because they were gay" is still not a true representation of the facts.

If the same thing had been said about an interracial couple, for example that they could come, but not together, and that they should conform to the dress code for everyone else, and not make others uncomfortable, and that resulted in them suing for the right to come together as a couple and wear something other than what was expected of others, and the school cancelled the prom rather than deal with the issue, then I would say the same thing as I say in this case: The conditions imposed are not justified, and it would be better all around to treat them like anyone else, but it would still be too simplistic to say "the prom was canceled because they were interracial."

The prom was canceled because some people thought they could force the school, under threat of lawsuit, to run it their way and, since it is not an integral part of the school program, the school preferred to cancel it. Is the difference between, "You are gay, so we're going to cancel our prom" and: "You are gay and want us to change our rules to accomodate you and are threatening to sue us if we don't so we w're going to cancel our prom instead of dealing with the hassle" really all that hard to understand? One is a simplistic falsification of the situation, that focuses entirely on one aspect of the situation as if it was the entire cause of the situation ("Oh! There is a gay couple in the school! Quick, cancel the prom!", and the other recognizes that that factor is part of a chain of causation, not an isolated element.

You would think that recognizing the difference between those two statements required one to approve the conditions the school imposed, to hear a lot of the posters in this thread.

 

That's an awful lot of words to say "I didn't realize how unpopular my opinion would turn out to be, so I'm backpedaling."

 

Jimmy Valient was the cause of me getting my first job in radio when I was just a kid. I was a huge fan and won a wrestling ticket at a radio station that needed a part time announcer

 

Why are you a fan of such immoral music?

 

I caught the fever of rock and roll in 1976---and who says its immoral.

 

And I can only imagine Async's reaction if a christian couple wanting to go to the prom were told that they couldn't wear any religious jewelry, that they couldn't come as a formal "couple," and that if they made any atheists uncomfortable they'd have to leave, and, when the couple wouldn't agree to those conditions, the prom ended up canceled.

Clearly Async is simply a liar.

 

You can't always have your way, Liet.

At my high school, you weren't allowed to bring a date to the senior prom who wasn't a student or graduate of my school. That was because of a fight that occurred at the prom several years earlier started by a date from another school.

At the time, I was dating a girl who went to a different school in the county, so I had to go to the prom stag.

Did I get pissed off and fuck it up for everybody else? No.

The reasonable approach for this girl would have been to follow the rules and not fuck it up for everybody, and then try to get the rules changed for the future.

 

That's an entirely different situation, your case was a rule that was fairly applied to everyone attending a school function. The rule itself might not have been great, but it was uniformly applied to everyone and wasn't intended to discriminate against any particular students.

The difference here is that her date would have been allowed to attend, arrive with her etc if she was the date of a male student.

She didn't fuck it up for anyone, this is entirely the schools fault.

edit: I do love that your strong constitutional values only extend as far as protecting the right of 19th century landowners to own slaves and of yourself now to own guns. They cancelled the prom after the ACLU said what they were doing was unconstitutional...I thought any and all responses were valid against unconstitutional actions?

 

Perhaps, but I still think my last sentence applies.

 

Possible happy ending anyway:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/new...s-prepare-to-hold-lgbt-inclusive-prom-in-miss

 

It encourages drinking, drug use, premarital sex and dancing, all immoral acts according to some churches.

 

Now you're being stupid. Typical "apples and oranges" Bailey.

Since you brought up slavery, that was changed for the better. Gen. U.S. Grant had to give his slaves up in December 1865, 8 month after the South did.

Constitutionally, slavery was not specifically mentioned and therefore was a right for the states to determine. You might consider that while most, but not all Northern states did abolish slavery, they did so by a process of graduated emancipation that would not have destroyed their economy. Although many of the Northern slaveholders did cheat by working their slaves until almost time to emancipate and then selling them to holders in the slave states, effectively doubling their money.

Unfortunately, the illegal, unfair, and unconstitutional taxation that was imposed on the South and actually caused the war was not specifically resolved at that time. It was later changed to a different tax system. Not that the current system is any less infuriating.

My right to own guns is specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. It's right there in the Second Amendment: "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

As for this girl, she has every right to her sexual preference and I don't have a problem with her sexual orientation or her desire to bring her girlfriend to the prom. I also think the school board was a bunch of dickheads. I'm just saying that she could have handled it better without fucking up the prom for everybody. She might not have personally benefitted, but somebody next year might have.

Moses didn't live to enter the Promised Land, but the Jewish people he led through the desert did. Sometimes you, personally, don't get to reap the benefits of what you sow, but you can make it better for the future.

The needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one.

Didn't those Aborigines whose wells you Aussies poisoned have a right to live? That was plain, old murder. Surely there was a law in place even in Australia against murder.

 

I guess that Rosa Parks should have just moved from her seat, shut up, and not ruined the bus trip for anyone else as well right?

I enjoyed your overreaction (which I expected given my choice of words). My point was purely that you seem to be very random in deciding which things are worth standing up against and which things aren't.

Yes there were. In theory the native people living in any areas of the British Empire were supposed to have the same legal protections as settlers. In practice that was only sporadically enforced and the treatment they received was abysmal and indefensible. Actions like well poisoning are quite obviously acts of murder and if there was anyone still alive who had engaged in such things I would fully support them being prosecuted.

As it is they are all dead, however there are still plenty of people alive who were involved with and were victims of things like the Stolen Generation. The refusal of previous governments to accept responsibility for those policies was disgusting and while Kevin Rudds apology on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia in 2008 was an important step it has been followed up by a disappointing lack of action, and in some cases even a resurrection of policies that while good intentioned are dangerously close to those that have caused much trouble in the past.

I'm quite happy to talk more about this if you would like.

 

It would be a stunning turn of events indeed of a bunch of MS parents let the AHA so much as put up a flyer at their dance, let alone plan and pay for it.

There WILL be a prom - I have no clue whether the parents who organize it will let the lesbians come (I wouldn't be shocked either way) but have the American HUMANIST Association involved?

In MISSISSIPPI??????

 

I agree, but at least now anyone who doesn't want to go to super prom will have to admit it is because they are bigots, and not because Constance McMillen ruined it.

 

No overreaction at all. I simply responded to your post. I rather enjoyed your overreaction to the Aboriginal murders.

I've been consistent with my views. I think unfair taxation and slavery both were wrong. When the North not would agree to a satisfactory resolution for either, the South said, "Bye! See ya!", and then fired a few harmless shots at Fort Sumter and said, "Get out of my yard!"

I've also been consistent in my views on gay rights. I think they have them. They're sexual preferences are their business and I think they have the right to a civil union. I didn't have an issue with this girl wanting to bring her girlfriend to the prom.

Constitutionally, we're guaranteed the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. IMHO that covers consenting adults having sex however they please.

Sometimes you have to work at it to change people's minds without cramming your beliefs down everybody's throat.

Being a Christian, I'd like to see everybody on Wordforge be a Christian too, but that doesn't mean that I'd file a suit against Lanz and cause him to shut down the board on everybody if he disagrees.

Rosa Parks is another of your apples and oranges strawmen. Parks succeeded in changing things for the better by making a stand and without fucking it up for everybody else.

 

They had to stop the bus and call the police to arrest her. How do you think they did that without disrupting the bus trip of anyone else?

Again, Constance fucked up nothing, it was entirely the school boards decision to cancel the prom.

 

Did you Aussies ever resolve that violence against Indians thing?

 

Oh Muad, some day you will realise that an attack on some bigoted rednecks in a random news story is not in fact an attack on you that needs to be deflected.

In regards to your question, it is difficult to pin down how to best resolve the situation. There have definitely been some racially motivated attacks, however overall Indian students are not over-represented in crime statistics. The media echo chamber has certainly created the impression of a larger problem than actually exists. Did you actually read the link you posted? It contains quite a bit of information that answers your question, and I'd rather not just repost parts of it.

 

I deflected nothing, weak troll. I responded to your posts.

By the way, if you all get tired of assaulting Indians, we've got some illegal Mexicans we'll be happy to send you.

 

You didn't respond to anything with that question, in fact you specifically didn't respond to the question I had asked you.

I really do think you invest yourself too emotionally into some things. Whenever someone criticizes another American, or the Confederacy, you seem to take it as a personal attack on yourself and feel a need to retaliate in a "well look at what you do!" type of way.

I criticise these school board members for being assholes, and you seem to absorb some of that and feel a need to deflect by pointing out how the country I live in is not perfect either. The problem is that doesn't work if the person you are responding to has not emotionally vested themselves in the same way.

 

But given that morality, like religion, is based purely on opinions which are arbitrary, the argument stands whether religion is involved or not.

Morality and freedom cannot coexist. At best you can only hope to find a compromise between the two.

A perfectly moral state would be inevitably based on the moral code of a minority, enforced by totalitarian means.

 

When you use attacks on Americans or the Confederacy as tools to attack me, and don't deny that you were trolling, I'll respond.

I also think the school board members were assholes. I also thought the girl in question was an asshole.

When you troll American history, don't be so shocked when Aussie history gets trolled right back at you.

 

For an interesting story along these lines check out this story:

The Baby-Eating Aliens

 

I've explained in the past many times why it gets used against you, because you seem to idolise it.

Story about bureaucracy gone mad? Wouldn't have been like this if the South had won.

Government oppression? All been downhill since 1865.

Hurricane in Florida? Blame Butcher Abe.

I don't troll American history, I troll your idolization of it. Which is why you can't troll me by bringing up Aussie history, because I don't idolize it and in fact I support reparations and the like that based on prior comments of yours I know you would consider extreme.

Answer my question, was Rosa Parks unreasonable? When the other people on the bus were delayed was it her fault, or the fault of the bus company and its policies? By your standards you would have to be saying she was wrong to not get up and move seats so that the journey could continue in peace.