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

This, unfortunately, is not acceptable. The far left brigade will be here shortly to tell you how wrong you are. Being opposed to the school's position is not enough. Unless you agree that the way the girl went about it is entirely nomal and acceptable, and had nothing to do with the prom being cancelled, you are a bigot and a liar.

Liet says so.

And bloody inconsiderate Rosa Parks for holding up those bus passengers right?

Yep, gotta go with the bigoted outlook on this. It's pretty self-explanatory. The real issues is that it would upset the delicate sensibilities of the school. Canceling the prom is intentionally punitive.

Fighting injustice is only OK if it doesn't inconvenience anyone else.

It's quite clearly discriminatory as well despite Asyncritus insisting that their decision to not host a prom rather than having to accept a homosexual couple is not.

If it's not discriminatory then does that mean it wouldn't be discriminatory if next year they put out another memo: Prom will be hosted by school unless homosexual couples wish to attend? So year on year the existence of a prom or not is decided by the willingness of any homosexual couples at the school to avoid the prom?

To bring up buses again, let's say I am a bus operator and coming up to a bus stop. I see that among the people waiting for the bus there is a black person. I announce to the people currently on the bus that I will not be stopping at this stop because of this. Everyone currently on the bus and waiting at the stop is equally affected, so it's not discriminatory right by Asyncritus standards?

Please show me where I said that. I'll be patient while you [-]make it up[/-] look for it.

As for Rosa Parks, I think her solution was much better than that of these girls. She didn't threaten a lawsuit and try to get the rules changed ahead of time (including rules that need not have been changed, the dress code in this case). She just went ahead and took her place the way anyone else could have and should have. Furthermore, she concentrated on the one issue that really was important: discrimination based only on skin color. She did not try to mix a separate issue in there (dress code), thus giving them an out.

If these girls had done that, I would have just said "good for them" and, if they got kicked out merely for being gay (without having acted unbecomingly or going against the dress code, thus making it indisputable that the isse was only discrimination) then I would have cheered them on willingly while they made a stink about it, including taking legal action if necessary.

But that approach seems much too complicated for quite a few people to understand. The left appears to only want to think in black and white: Either you favor discrimination, or you justify all the actions of people who are the objects of discrimination. I prefer a less simplistic approach, but it appears that being less simplistic is not enough for the left. Denouncing discrimination does not suffice; only upholding all the actions of those who suffer from it does.

You have nicely demonstrated the truth of what I said to Muad Dib. And shown how simplistic your thinking is at the same time.

Bailey knows everything that's wrong with America.

You're as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

Do I idolize the Confederacy and Civil War? No. Do I find it one of the most interesting and pivotal periods in American history? Yes.

Do I find it the point in history where everything changed and led to many of the problems that we have today? Yes.

Do I find it the point in history where the nation strayed from the principles of the Founders? Yes.

Drop the hyperbole and prove me wrong. If you can.

Hold up, now we're comparing a canceled prom with the civil rights movement?

Think the analogy through, no really, take a moment ...

Yeah, doesn't quite pan out does it.

Sometimes the pursuit of equality demands that an oppressive majority be inconvenienced.

It was true in Montgomery, and it's true in Itawamba. Keep in mind that it's only necessary because the natives force the issues. The South's been on the wrong side of every social issue for the last two hundred years.

^Hey did you steal that from The Wanda Sykes Show? If I'm remembering correctly she said about the same thing on Saturday.

If you haven't seen the show it's worth a view, she's funny and pulls in some great guests.



Oh and on topic: Co-opting the brutal struggle another group of folks faced and overcame is simply wrong.

Only because many of the things that are wrong with America are also wrong with most of the rest of the world. It's not mutually exclusive you know, it's just that due to the demographics on this forum (and the fact that the USA has such a massive population) most news stories tend to be American. Give an identical story to this involving any other country and my responses would be no different.

Like I said you are too self defensive.

It is possible to compare details of two situations when relevant without saying they are overall analogous to each other.

Muad is the one that said that if standing for your own rights inconveniences anyone else you are yourself an arsehole. I was giving a well known example to ask see if that's actually what he thinks.

It seems I may have misinterpreted this post below of yours then, because when I said that it was discriminatory to cancel an event rather than be forced to allow a homosexual couple it seemed you disagreed.

The two-hundred years thing? I've been saying it for a while (plus it's true) and I don't have tv, but I'll check it out if I get the chance.

On topic: Huh? Pardon me, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. The struggle against bigotry isn't necessarily restricted to one demographic, time, or place; it's ongoing everywhere. Civil rights movements have always been the story of an insecure majority oppressing a weak minority, whether that minority is a religion, race, or sexual orientation. When bigotry is institutionalised like it was in the pre-Civil Rights South or like it is now in this Mississippi school district, the oppressed really have few options aside from taking recourse to the courts and making a nuisance for the majority, and as far as methods go, this is just as legitimate a civil protest as Rosa Parks on the bus.

Async, if you don't like being called a liar, just stop being a liar. Don't blame me for calling you one.

You are in indisputable fact a liar. You know that the actions here were discriminatory and were taken on account of the fact that the couple at issue is lesbian. Your claim to the contrary is a flat out lie, and it takes being a moral midget to characterize your statements in any other fashion.

Start taking responsibility for your failings and stop blaming others for calling you out on them.

Yup. Which is why it's everyone's duty to call Async a liar. He is one. Beating around the bush does no one any good. You can't have a reasonable discussion without calling lies what they are.

He did disagree. No seems about it. He's lying again because he is too much of a mewling coward to admit that he lied. Yes, the lie is ridiculous for being so blatant, but it remains a lie, and Async remains a liar.

Can't prove it wrong, but it's a bit like showing someone a video of an animal that looks like a duck, is quacking and swimming in a pond, then asking them to prove it's not actually a toy boat in disguise.

Whether or not you mean it that way, this is the type of post you make which gives that impression:

What if the South successfully seceded?

Okay, so we agree the two situations are not analogous. Do we also agree that many causes use the suffering of others as a rallying cry?

C'mon bub, don't blame Muad for your posts.

I'm not blaming anyone, I stand by it as a valid question to ask. A claim was made (that standing up for rights makes you an arsehole if you inconvenience anyone else) and I asked that question to refute it.

Maybe I'm giving too much credit here but I chalked up the tuxedo thing more to youthful lack of wisdom than to purposely trying to muddy the water.

With some maturity and judgment, it's pretty easy to see that if you are trying to change perceived discrimination, it's best to very narrowly and clearly focus your challenge so as to set the discrimination in clear view ...but i don't credit her with being that wise.

Most teens are not.

If you think that they were not racist and discriminatory in, for instance, Boston in the 1950's then you really don't pay attention.

there are a shit-ton of places besides the south where the lesbian would have gotten pretty much the same reaction as she got in Mississippi

Well I'm not real comfortable with the civil rights analogies overall for other reasons (mainly because it's been a long time since the fire hoses were turned on anyone)


BUT

No one would have thought such language was appropriate for one little old lady who didn't know her place on a city bus either.

In no way do I think the canceled prom would ever lead to what that event led to, but what I'm saying is that the comparison here isn't really to the WHOLE civil rights movement - just to the small event that touched it off.

[action=Uncle Albert]suddenly finds himself thinking about watching lesbians get freaky while someone sprays them with a garden hose.[/action]

Do you (or do you plan to/have you ever) lived here in The South?
It's not as backward as you think. We have "Gay Pride" parades, a gay resort, etc.

Yes, The South owned slaves for a longer period than did The North.
It's like the guy who quits smoking a week before his buddy quits and thinking he's somehow superior.

How is the view from up on your high horse?

And I bet some of your best friends are gay Negroes, right?

My ancestors never owned slaves, and my home state (Washington) was never a slave state.

I've never lived in the South, but I've been to a few Southern states, and I've lived in Idaho, which is really socially a Southern state in the North. The attitudes were pretty analogous, and they were revolting.

The issue really isn't just that you owned slaves longer, it's that even after Emperor Lincoln forced you to abandon it, you went straight to sharecropping and segregation (and yes the Northeast is guilty of this as well). You then had desegregation forced on you, and as incidents like this petty prom incident show, you continue to drag your heels on every issue of social progress. Bigotry is by no means restricted to the South in this country (again, Idaho as an example, and California passed Prop 8), but the South has historically and currently serves as a bastion of outdated, backwards oppression.

(Note: I don't mean to attack any of wrodforge's myriad of Southerners.)

Not so many up there now? I expect not....but then, there are not so many down here either.
(racists I mean)

The South has more than it's fair share of bigots, but your view of the rest of the country is completely distorted. Chicago was still getting slammed for segregation when I was in high school in the 90's and might still be behind the times for all I know.

And then there's this quote in regards to racism in Boston:

Boston is a city that is defined by racial and cultural segregation. It's just not White vs. Black. It was a shock for me to see how insular the Irish and Italian parts of the city are.

I was talking more specifically in response to this:

A gay couple going to the prom wouldn't be an issue anywhere on the west coast, and I doubt it would be in the Northeast, but maybe I'm wrong.

Ash - Bigotry is an issue everywhere in this country, obviously. The South just seems to be where it's at its worst.

Unfortunately, I've never been to Boston, but I'll take your word on it.