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

Dual the greatest semite of all time

Daniel Day Lewis and Murray Rothbard disagree!

How do you explain the fact that the South's slaves were freed in April 1865 with the surrender of the Confederate armies, but the slaves that remained in Northern states weren't freed until 8 months later when the ratification of the 13th Amendment forced them to?

How do you explain the fact that when, early in the war, U.S. Grant was interviewed by a newspaper reporter and asked if he thought that the war was over slavery, Grant replied that if he thought the war was over slavery, he would surrender his sword and fight for the other side?

How do you reconcile slavery as the cause of the war when it is a documented fact that the South, which only had a GDP of about 1/5 of the state of New York alone, was funding 85% of the Federal government's total revenue through taxes and tariffs?

How do you reconcile the fact that Robert E. Lee freed the Custis family's slaves in 1862, but Grant did not free his slaves until December 1865?

How do you reconcile your beliefs about the South's "oppression" when practically all of the importation of slaves from Africa was done by New England shipping companies, hence the term "Yankee slave traders"?

How do you consider the fact that practically every officer in the Union army owned slaves and had them as servants traveling with the army?

How does the fact that even after the war, most Northern states would not allow blacks to vote or serve on a jury play into all this?

My major point in all of these threads on the subject for all these many years has been simply this: get your facts straight.

When you do, a totally different picture emerges.

[EDIT]Oh, yeah, and if the South was so oppressive, why did somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 Southern blacks volunteer for service in the Confederate army? Don't believe that? Go look up some Confederate pension records. You'll find that the pension number is prefixed by the letters S, W, or C. S=Soldier, W=Widow, C=Colored. Why were the Southern states paying pensions to black soldiers if there were no black Confederates?

You were forced to lose your slaves because you lost a war. Our elected government freed ours when we won.

Obviously slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War, but that's irrelevant. Think of the social issue of slavery separate from the war; it's clear that the North was going to abolish it (following the suit of several states) altogether while the South would never willingly give it up - your economy couldn't survive without it. Let's not even bring up that certain letter written by Stephens.

How much of New York's GDP do you think came from the export of Southern cotton?

Lee was a better man than Grant?

You really seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing for the infallibility of the Union in the Civil War, or conversely, for the evils of the CSA. Didn't my reference to Emperor Lincoln suggest that?

The fact is that the movement for abolition would never have been embraced freely by the South, and it never would've been imposed on you without the majority of the North supporting it. Of course there were plenty of Northerners who were in support of slavery and plenty of Southerners who despised it, but the fact of the matter is that the impetus to change the status quo came from the North, and the reactionary resistance against that had its citadel in the South. If gay rights are ever embraced on a national level, I'm sure that they'll be imposed on you from the West and the North yet again. Can you really deny that the Confederate states haven't been dragged kicking and screaming to become a modern society?

I'm fully aware that freedmen fought for the Confederacy.

It is idiotic to compare a canceled prom with hundreds of years of slavery.

They are not equivalent. Not even close.

Ever hear of Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

"Slavery in America" is on its way to becoming Godwin's law 2.0.

Basically when you call somebody else Hitler you look like dumbass, well, same goes when you liken your cause to slavery.

Fair enough what about the first question I asked:

"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?"

Yes, although it wasn't the case there when you thought it was.

Persecution of homosexuals has never been as bad as that of some racial groups, however you cannot dismiss it just as "a canceled prom". Besides, the Rosa Parks thing had nothing to do with slavery. Whether or not you agree with the idea of such things as homosexual marriage, it affects homosexual couples just as much as rules against interracial marriage affected those couples fifty years ago. A lesbian not allowed to bring her date to the prom is affected just as much as a white student not allowed to officially bring her white boyfriend, or vice versa.

It was as recently as a couple of decades ago that in many western countries homosexuality was considered a mental illness, in some cases even requiring mandatory "treatment", along with a massive amount of laws to make sure homosexual couples were punished for their existence. Even now in the US (using your own country as an example since you seem to be speaking from that viewpoint) there are thousands of homosexuals who have lost their jobs purely for the crime of being gay.

The cause of the conflict was state's rights, but the hot button issue which led to the disagreement on state's rights was slavery.

The biggest problem with this argument is that people usually assume that both sides were fighting for opposite sides of the same reason. It isn't the case. The South was fighting to protect slavery under the guise of states rights, and the North was fighting to protect their power over states under the guise of slaves rights.

I like laws (Parkinson's Law amuses me particularly) so I did a quick search on Godwin and came across this bit-

Thank you, that's all I was saying.

We've had this trouble before, I suspect it's merely a dialect type of problem.

To me, a red flag goes up whenever I hear someone claim they know what someone else was thinking. I have trouble taking subsequent comments seriously.

I agree and that relates directly to my overall objection: folks using the suffering of others as their own to promote their cause.

Another red flag. Of course I can dismiss any situation as I see fit. Doesn't mean I'm right but it's well within my ability.

Now this bit is flat out wrong. There is an obvious series of causal events linking slavery and being legally deemed a second class citizen.

I've made my opinion on the subject quite clear. Boils down to the government having no business punishing or rewarding folks based on their marital status regardless of sexuality.

We agreed the two situations are not analogous.

This bit doesn't make sense I suspect a typo is to blame.

You are all over the map here. I can believe that homosexuality was treated as a mental illness but skin color? No. And who are these thousands of homosexuals who have lost their job because of their sexuality?

Again, we agree that the two situations are not analogous. And we agree many causes use the suffering of others as a rallying cry.

^ I blame those evil White Anglo Saxon Protestant devils.

In that post I was only disagreeing with the general principle you made, as a way of "shortcutting" your argument. You were trying to demonstrate the discrimination involved in the cancellation of the prom (a point with which I do not disagree) by introducing a principle I do not consider valid. And I often disagree with logical errors even when they are used in support of conclusions which I find valid in themselves. It's just because arguing for rigorous, sound logic is also something that interests me. In fact, it interests me more than redneck proms...

I do not disagree that there was discrimination there, or that it was a major factor in the prom being cancelled. But I did and still do disagree with your general principle that "it is pretty well established through precedent that canceling/withholding something from everyone because you are prohibited from discriminating against some people is in itself discrimination." I even gave an example of how that was not necessarily the case.

The statement that I do not agree that that is a general principle, however, in no way implies that that is never the case. In this particular case, it is clear that there was discrimination, and that that discrimination was a major factor in what traspired.

I find it amusing, however, that so many people (I will exclude you here, since you showed yourself willing to see if you had perhaps misunderstood the point) on the left can see only in black and white. "Either you are with me or against me. Either you back the girls up on everything, or you are on the side of the school board." It seems to me that there is room for disagreeing with some of what they did, while at the same time disagreeing with the school board. I am used to the "you are either my loyal friend or my sworn enemy" from some neocons, but I find it amusing to see it so clearly displayed by some of the most left-leaning posters on the board.

I still disagree with you though and think that if you do something for a discriminatory reason, that act itself can be considered discriminatory.

Let's say that she had then said she was withdrawing her request to attend as a homosexual couple and they had said they would hold the prom. Would that make it a discriminatory act? What if she then changed her mind again and said she wanted to attend and they cancelled it again?

I look at employment as an example. In most places you do not have to give a reason for not employing someone and can choose not to do so for any reason, however if that reason is suspecting as being discriminatory in nature you may find yourself having to explain it or face legal consequences.

edit: very disappointed to see you reducing this to a commentary on left/right politics, especially when dealing with people from multiple countries where the same political boundary descriptions don't apply.

Bigotry has everything to do with it. You own posts show this fantastically.

And using a slur is a great way of showing how this is about bigotry and nothing else for your part.

So?

Bigots like you have no moral high ground.

If you kept yo your own house and never left it, then there wouldn't be an issue. SO go for it, stay home and never, ever leave your property again.

It was cancelled because the school board would rather do something spiteful like that than allow one lesbian couple to attend the prom openly, the same as any heterosexual couple.

None of which were reasonable.

Why should anyone be threatened by a woman wearing a tux? Why was this even an issue?

Why not? Other couples can come together as a formal couple, why can these two people not?

This is also unreasonable, as they would have been asked to leave thanks to there being enough bigots who would have been "uncomfortable" at the sight of two women dancing together as a couple.

Yeah it was. Everything about it shows this to be the case.

They cancelled it out of spite because they were going to be "forced" to treat a homosexual couple the same as a heterosexual couple, complete with one of the two wearing a tux. Instead, the only ay they were going to be "allowed" to go to this prom would have been to pretend they were straight and to pretend they weren't a couple, something no other couple was being forced to do in order to attend this prom. Do you really see this as reasonable?

Bigots always hate the idea of a free society. They can't force their backwards world views on anyone in a free society.

O RLY? How?

Well of course. That is basically a tautology.

But that was not your original statement, the one with which I disagreed (and still do). What you wrote was the following:

I gave you as a counter-example, in order to invalidate that as a general principle, the case of a school forbidding girls to wear beards, because the guys weren't allowed to and someone decided that rule was discriminatory because it only targeted guys. Are you claiming that in that case, the ruling that no one is allowed to wear beards is discriminatory?

You do not seem to see the difference between "doing something for a discriminatory reason" (which by definition is discriminatory) and "you are prohibited from discriminating against some people." But that difference is there and is real. In one case, it is your motivation that is discriminatory. In the other case, it is someone else's evaluation of your motivation. Now, it should be obvious that your motivation, and someone else's evaluation of your motivation, can often be the same. But it should be equally obvious that they are always the same.

Why do you always come back to the case that happens to suit your principle, instead of addressing the counter-example? Do you think that by ignoring it, you make it go away?

It is as if you said, "It is well established that all dogs have four legs," and I responded with, "I disagree, because there are some dogs that only have three legs." And then you just keep coming back to, "Well, my dog has four legs so that proves that all dogs have four legs." No it doesn't. For a principle to be a general principle, and not just an explanation for some cases, it has to explain all the data.

So either explain how your principle that "canceling/withholding something from everyone because you are prohibited from discriminating against some people is in itself discrimination" applies to not allowing girls to have beards because someone ruled that it was discriminatory to make such a ruling only for guys, or else admit that the principle is not valid in every case. If you can do the former, you will have shown me to be wrong. If you admit that it is not valid in every case, then you will be saying the exact same thing I am saying.

It's amazing how much you have invested in what sort of cloth someone chooses to drape on their bodies.

Context is important. If you can show me that the case arose because a girl was allowed to wear a beard while a male was not, then I will concede the point. It sounds to me though that it was instead a case of trying to beat a rule on a technicality where they had never thought to include girls in the beard ban because it never occurred to them that a girl would have one.

13,000 people have been kicked out of the US armed forces for being gay in the past 20 years.

I'm sure we also agree that vitamin C is an important component of a healthy human diet, and that has as much relevancy.

You will then insist that the American Legion stop putting on dances that allow divorced people to attend, correct? You will be shunning all those adulterers wherever you find them?

You are a person who never utters the smallest of untruths? You never lust for women who are not your wife? You have never taken a single thing that doesn't belong to you?

If you have even told a single lie, you are no different than her. To God all sin is the same. You should have the same compassion for her, that you wish for yourself. You should also leave the judging of sin to God and God only. If you don't, you may find He will use your standards against you in the end.

What I think can be agreed on from this thread is that no matter how she had gone about trying to stand up for her rights, there would be some who insisted she is doing it the wrong way.

We have some who say she should have just accepted the rule, others who say she should have waited until after the prom and then challenged the rule, others who say she should have gone to the prom and then made a stand of refusing to leave if the school authorities decided that having a lesbian couple on the dancefloor was too much for the other students to deal with.

He also listens to the devil's music.

I'd bet he eats bacon and mixes fabrics, too. Doesn't observe the sabbaths and owns idols.

I mean he doesn't want anything KJV speaks out about...that goes for both testaments and what a heavy burden he has taken on.

Really odd how he only wants to rail on gays though. Even odder that he calls Nova friend considering his strict adherence policy.

It was. And that's my point. Your principle was too broad, and does not take into acount the fact that there are times when someone is "not allowed to do something because it is discriminatory," but it was not in fact discriminatory.

Another shortcoming of your prinicple is that it happens fairly often that some people could be allowed to do something, but some cannot. However, we live in a more and more restrictive world, because it has been decided that if some cannot do something, then no one should be allowed to do it. So many laws deprive everyone of the right to do something, because it would be discriminatory to deprive only some of that right.

For example, no one is allowed to drive faster than the speed limit, even though a lot of people could safely do so, knowing when and how it could be done without danger and when it could not be done. But trying to make a law that allows some leeway for "good drivers" is discriminatory, so speed limits are simply set up for everyone. By your principle, speed limits are therefore themselves discriminatory.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where it is widely acceptable to deprive everyone of some liberty, because some would abuse it. If your principle was in fact a general principle, all such laws would be discriminatory. But they are not.

If a school could afford to pay for a trip for some of the kids, but not all of them, just choosing some of them to go would be discriminatory, and they are not allowed to do that. So they don't have the trip for anyone. By your principle, not having the trip would itself be discriminatory, since the reason they deprived everyone (when they could have done it for some, at least) of a trip was because they were not allowed to discriminate. But in fact not having the trip for anyone is almost certainly the very best decision, because only having it for the number they could afford to take along would be discrimnatory.

It seems to me that you made a quick, generalized principle, without thinking it through, and are now not willing to admit that there are valid exceptions to it.

Note very carefully that I am not claiming that the prom that is the subject of this thread is one of those exceptions. That is not and never has been my point in bringing this up. I'm just saying that your principle is not a valid way of demonstrating the discrimination. In the case of the prom, the discrimination doesn't even have to be demonstrated, IMO, since it is pretty blatant.

I don't care if two girls or two guys attend together (as a homosexual couple, or even as friends without dates.) No biggie.

What irked me was the chick wanted to wear a tux. Yes, I'm sexist, but to me, prom = tux for guys, gown for girls.

Although my daughter told me I'm wrong and she should be able to wear a tux. Because many girls dress as sluts and I'm sexist about clothes.

I guess I am. But then again, I'd ban the really trashy gowns.

Fair point. That whole "don't ask, don't tell" policy is rather idiotic. But keep in mind that heterosexuals have been booted for having sex as well. Seems adultery isn't smiled upon in the US military.

Deeming a view as irrelevant is fine, yet it is no refutation.

I stand by what I already said, and how it relates to accurately describing this specific instance.

Moreso when it involves people in the same chain of command, or officer/enlisted fraternization than anything else. Or during training, when no sex is allowed at all. At least that's how the Air Force was. They also get butthurt when female airmen pose in Playboy, but that's another story.

first of all find me a quote in the KJV that bans dancing and music. And I am much more truthful now than I ever have been. Hence this firestorm against me. And I have NEVER taken anything that didnt belong to me or helped others do so. I do not have compassion for her. The Bible says it is an abomination against God. Read 2 Corinthians and Romans. I will pray for her and hopes she finds the error of her ways. But I feel no compassion fpr people who are hypocrites. She can say shes a Christian all she wants to, but until she gets out of this "lifestyle"......

Shepnova knows how I feel about his.....attitudes. Because I have told him so in no uncertain terms. When he came to me and told me of his choices, he asked me when would this become a problem for me. I responded you mean, like now? And show me in the KJV where it forbids eating bacon or mixing fabric. I can point to several verses that speak out against homosexual behavior