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

it was probably done for her own safety as she has been threatened several times according to her.. And there will be, according to the Tupelo Mississippi newspaper another prom that will not be sanctioned by the school. And at the risk of sounding like a hillbilly--I too am against her lifestyle and wouldnt tolerate it either.

Nova, My friend youre way off base here. The dance was cancelled to keep her sorry ass safe more than likely because she has been threatened since the ACLU stepped in. I know you have found a...ahem..alternative way of.....doing your thing....but dont think for a moment that has anything to do with bigotry. It does have EVERYTHING to do with a way of life that I for one dont want or especially need..And thats ANYTHING that the KJV speaks out against

Really? Who chose to cancel the prom? It wasn't the girls. It was the school. The girls will, however, get the brunt of the anger and resentment. All because they chose to get uppity around decent heterosexual folk.

you have no proof the school pitted anyone against her. Just because you had a lousy time in high school, as did I, by the way, dont mean you have to stick up for every little underdog that comes along. She brought this on herself

and yall make it seem that bigots are exclusive to Mississippi. well they aint

Hell no, they're not exclusive to Mississippi, but right now we are talking about some bigots in Mississippi.

bigotry has got nothing to do with it..Nobody hates this carpet muncher that I know of. But you cant have that behavior for one main reason.. If you dont have morality, you have decadence

Don't you stand here and tell me that bullshit tastes like chocolate sundae. I know better.

You can be as moral or immoral as you want as long as you don't harm anyone else or interfere with their rights. A prom may not be a right, but these girls have the right to freedom of movement just like every other student wanting to go to that prom. Yet since they were gay, the entire prom was canceled. Then they get blamed for what happens afterward.

Sounds to me like when you're faced with adversity, you tuck your nuts between your legs and scurry off.

Restricting decadence is a nice way of saying live how I want you to live. It's an attempt to take my freedoms to fit your morality. Well, I find that both unethical and immoral, and something that flies in the face of the Constitution.

well so far you aint been right about nothing..This included.. Im still gonna take the high moral ground even if you and everybody else on this board stand against me. And you do not have the right to be immoral at any time. And when Im faced with adversity,again, I take the high moral ground

Well yes...except that a tux, in and of itself, is not out of code - one wonders if the code specified gender-specific clothing.

Meh, as long as you don't try to force it on anyone, how you view your morality is irrelevant to me. Practice it all you want, just don't think I'm going to accept it, and don't think I'm going to give it any credence or respect, because it will get none.

Holy shit. I think I just channeled UA. Oh, wait.

You fucker.

Now, I just channeled UA.

Well, to be sure the most of what we have here is speculation - but whatever the intent, the net result is that the girl gets to be the target of everyone's disappointment.

If in fact she was grandstanding (which is also very much a speculative conclusion) then yes, she cannot now claim that it's unfair she take all the blame.

but we have no more evidence that she was grandstanding than we do that the school purposely set her up as the target.

So "brought this on herself" is also an unproven conclusion.

thats fine with me--just dont be immoral around me and my family. If you try and break in my house, thats immoral---and if you try and break into my house I will shoot you

Yyyyeeeaaahhh... um, I'm going to write you off now, because you're a doof.

doof maybe---but a damn good one

The school cited nothing about safety concerns or threats - and one would think they would have been eager to have that pretense to hide behind if it had been true.

I know from my...shall we say "expanded horizons"....that the most "offensive" think that happens to such people is almost always some mocking laughter. Yes, an occasional drunk or terminal asshole goes beyond that but it's so very rare as to be a non-issue. It's more likely that a racist will go off about blacks at "his" prom (especially if they brought a white girl) but proms are no longer canceled because of the occasional racist asshole, are they?

the common (and wise) policy is that the asshole is given the option to get the fuck over it.

Why wouldn't the same apply here?

I have no need to convince you that you want or need lesbians or gays or any other "decedent" think about - but it DOES exist in the world, and such people are not going to go away because someone waves a KJV at them. the thing is, there are folks in the world who want to be rid of Christians too - we all have to tolerate the presence of those we disapprove of.

In any case, at any given prom there is a who lot of "decadence" that will take place and a lot more after folks adjourn elsewhere. If we are going to cancel a prom for "decadence," fine. but you don't have to wait for the Lezzies to stand up in order to have a case for that.

(By the way, in another place and time I'd be happy to take on the notion that the King James Version is the only Bible fit to cite but it would be a massive tangent here)

I don't disagree with the sacredness of a man's own home - but once you go to a public event you don't take your home with you. Part of the price of going out in public is seeing things you'd rather not see. Just like the price of freedom of speech is hearing shit you don't believe in and had rather not hear.

she was quoted in the Tupelo paper saying she was threatened.

axiom made the comment to me that he thought you could be immoral if you wanted to. And I invited anybody to my house to try and be immoral..SMILES..Any takers?

Consider this:

Hundreds of Christian Denominations claim to follow the same Bible, and yet there are dozens of different interpretations of the most important doctrine of all - how one is saved.

They don't agree on Baptisim, security of the believer, and on and on.

And yet we are supposed to believe what any given church tells us the Bible says about morality and decadence? You and I both know there are denominations which consider YOUR behavior decadent. there are denominations that consider your daughter a sinner because she's not in a skirt 24 hours a day.

what makes your definition of decadence right and there's wrong?

See, this is why I have written you off as a doof and consider anything you say to be bullshit. You apparently lack reading skills, or at the very least, you have a very short attention span that prevents you from reading complete sentences.

My quote:

First sentence. Amazing how you missed that.

Before or after the prom was canceled?

Point of order: It was not cancelled because they were gay. Even though it was known they were gay, they were specifically authorized to come to the prom. But there were three conditions: 1) There would be no modification of the dress code for them. 2) They could not come together, as a formal "couple." 3) If they made others uncomfortable (probably by behavior that was uncoming), they might be asked to leave. It will be noted that that third condition really applies to everyone at the prom. So does the first one, for that matter.

So it is clear that opposition to their homosexuality being openly flaunted was part of the decision, but was not all of it by any means. The prom was cancelled because they were going to force the school to change its rules to suit them. The lawsuit filed later specifically wants to force the school to host the prom, let them come, and let them dress how they want. If for no other reason than the implications of this last point, the decision to cancel the prom was justified.

"The prom was cancelled because they were gay" is thus the kind of deceptively simplistic summary that actually prevents the real issue from being discussed meaningfully, rather than helping.

This is pretty much grasping at straws. It is almost certain that the code said something along the lines of "formal dresses for the girls and tuxedos for the guys," the way those things are always put.

It's still accurate, if simplistic. They couldn't come together as a formal couple. Was this applied to straight couples? The dress code could not be modified? I would be interested in seeing a dress code so specific that a girl can't wear a tuxedo. As for the third stipulation, how long would they have been there before being kicked out for, say, dancing together? You know, what straight couples like to do at Proms. When you get down to the core issue, it was because they were gay. Anything else is a smokescreen. We wouldn't tolerate it if that couple were black (or at least shouldn't), and we shouldn't tolerate it because the couple is gay.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I cannot disagree more. Grasping at straws is what the school is doing in an attempt to hide their prejudice. It is not reasonable to enforce such a strict dress code. Having been to quite a few Proms and even chaperoning a couple for different schools, not once have I ever seen such a dress code. I haven't even seen anything along the lines of "Formal attire required".

I am quite sympathetic to the points here, even though I don't think it was proper to cancel it. I think "looking the other way" would have been the easiest and wisest solution, but I don't really agree with the idea that it is lawsuit territory.

If the suit had been filed before the prom was canceled, I'd probably have sided with the school.

I'm not really arguing here that the girls had a RIGHT to come to the prom as a couple, one in a tux. I don't believe that is true. I simply think that in this day and age, it would have been a far wiser handling of the situation to NOT over-react and thus bring on all the drama.

I can virtually guarantee that if they had shrugged and looked the other way at the couple (assuming they behaved appropriately as is required of all) that no one would have much noticed except for the grumbling of a few malcontents. and if the girl is or was playing for attention, her play would have failed which is as it should be.

If so then so be it. I'm not familiar with and haven't read any such dress code, but my assumption would be something like "jacket and tie for me" and something about the length of skirts for girls....but nothing that would have specifically said a guy couldn't wear a skirt or vice versa - because the one who wrote the code way back when wouldn't have anticipated it ever being an issue.

I do know that at our Senior event (which was a banquet - no dancing at our god-fearing school!) there were several girls who wore pants outfits and not skirts ad that was almost 30 years ago. but they were not "manly" outfits.

See, Mewa? This is how you do a troll thread.

Pick an interesting topic, come up with a slightly inflammatory headline, and let the posters take it.

I think this is the second post I've made in this thread. It's gone 4 pages in a day, and I haven't popped in here every other post to go "Yoyoyo, whassup wit dat? "

Agreed.

But the whole point is that, since the threat--one could even say the intent--to file the suit was made before the prom was canceled, it pretty much comes down to the same, doesn't it?

Agreed.

Agreed.

I am not defending the opposition to allowing homosexuality. I have no problem with opposition to homosexuality; people have a right to their opinions. But one's opinion does not give one the right to impose one's choices on others.

I am simply pointing out that the school attempted to "not make a big deal out of it," and the girl insisted on doing so, by demanding some changes and threatening with a lawsuit if they were not met. Under those conditions, I fully agree with the school cancelling the prom, and disagree fully with Axiom's assessment that it was cancelled "because they were gay." As I said earlier, I thoroughly disagree with the "we have a right to a prom" mentality, and especially I will never agree with the "we have a right to a prom the way we want it, but you still have to organize it and pay for it" mentality.

To pretend that all of that didn't figure into the school's decision to cancel the prom, and that it was only "because the girls were gay" (when they had explicitely allowed them to come, which appears to be a change with past policy, albeit not as radical a change as one might wish), it to cloud the issue just as much as those who say that "it was the right decision because this is immoral and I have the right not to see immorality." In my mind, a lot of what is associated with a prom is immoral already, but that is not my problem. I am the only one who has to live by my moral values. Others can make their own choices, as long as they don't harm anyone in doing so. They are the ones who have to live with those choices, not me.

the newspaper didnt say if it was before or after--I assume it was after

as for you argument on decadence I would think that your point might been better served had you mentioned she had her first child out of wedlock and is getting divorced... And yes there are several around here who think I need a "morality check". My point was if you live by the sword you also have to die by it.