Hot Lesbian Teen Denied Prom in Mississippi...

[David43515]

I don`t think the school is even against it because they`re encouraging a private group to hold a prom for the kids. The school just doesn`t want to take responsability for saying it`s okay.

 

[Bruno@MT]

It must be because of my uptight Englishness that I don't find Lesbians (TM) the near universal 'turn on' that they seem to be . Less frown inducing than the male version of same-sex intimacy (due to the less unpleasant 'plumbing' interactions) but still a DNA dead-end.

I have all the kids I will ever have so I don't mind the DNA dead end.
Bring it on I say

Mind you, there have been studies that suggest that homosexuality does have a useful role to play, at the community level, when it comes to the reproductive success of the 'tribe' as a whole. It centres around the prescence of additional protectors, carers and providers for children that are not that persons own.

Given that there are hundreds of species that engage in homosexual activities, I'd say nature knows what it is doing. So it is quite ironic that several US states still have laws against same-sex sex and even oral sex for being a crime 'against' nature. If anything, not having oral sex should be a crime against nature... (hm... maybe I should write this down )

 

[Bruno@MT]

and the home of the -

Oh wait. She was brave. to stand up for her rights within a bible belt and say she has a right to bring her loved one to her prom.

Home of the brave, for sure.

Well... yes.

But otoh there is also an entire school board consisting of cowards who are so afraid of public opinion that they cancel the entire thing instead of making a decision.

 

[Blade96]

Well... yes.

But otoh there is also an entire school board consisting of cowards who are so afraid of public opinion that they cancel the entire thing instead of making a decision.

Or.....

it could also be the home of the wusses, too.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Aye, she's better than average and no mistake. Shame she bats for the wrong team .

It must be because of my uptight Englishness that I don't find Lesbians (TM) the near universal 'turn on' that they seem to be . Less frown inducing than the male version of same-sex intimacy (due to the less unpleasant 'plumbing' interactions) but still a DNA dead-end.

Mind you, there have been studies that suggest that homosexuality does have a useful role to play, at the community level, when it comes to the reproductive success of the 'tribe' as a whole. It centres around the prescence of additional protectors, carers and providers for children that are not that persons own.

Its not as if Americans all want to befriend a lesbian. I assure you, none of the lesbians I work with at the factory have to deal with a big fan club. Its just kinda hot on the surface.
Sean

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Its not as if Americans all want to befriend a lesbian. I assure you, none of the lesbians I work with at the factory have to deal with a big fan club. Its just kinda hot on the surface.
Sean

Depends on what kind of lesbians they are. If they're just the sort who share a preference that straight dudes have also, then cool. If they're the sort who hate dudes because they feel that they themselves were cruelly snubbed by God, then they're not much fun to be around. I've met both types, have been friends with the former. The latter scare me. It's like, woah, excuse me, I'm sorry I was born with junk, but that's no reason to hate me, I didn't ask for it any more than you asked not to have any. And some of them could no doubt pound me into the ground like a tent stake; frightening.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Depends on what kind of lesbians they are. If they're just the sort who share a preference that straight dudes have also, then cool. If they're the sort who hate dudes because they feel that they themselves were cruelly snubbed by God, then they're not much fun to be around. I've met both types, have been friends with the former. The latter scare me. It's like, woah, excuse me, I'm sorry I was born with junk, but that's no reason to hate me, I didn't ask for it any more than you asked not to have any. And some of them could no doubt pound me into the ground like a tent stake; frightening.

I have a friend whom worked security for a Lilithe Fair show. She said this one guy would not leave this one Gal's girlfriend alone. She kept warning him to stop but he wouldn't. My friend said she proceeded to beat that guy down. They had to cart him off in an ambulance.
Sean

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have a friend whom worked security for a Lilithe Fair show. She said this one guy would not leave this one Gal's girlfriend alone. She kept warning him to stop but he wouldn't. My friend said she proceeded to beat that guy down. They had to cart him off in an ambulance.
Sean

Well, I would not say that being a lesbian and being able to defend oneself necessarily makes one the sort I was referring to, but let's just say I've met a few women who had bigger biceps than mine, a better bench press, more impressive tattoos, could probably kick my butt all day long, AND who seemed very much to dislike me for the sin of having been born with wedding tackle.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Well, I would not say that being a lesbian and being able to defend oneself necessarily makes one the sort I was referring to, but let's just say I've met a few women who had bigger biceps than mine, a better bench press, more impressive tattoos, could probably kick my butt all day long, AND who seemed very much to dislike me for the sin of having been born with wedding tackle.

Pssst. They are just playing hard to get. Be persistant LOL
Sean

 

[cdunn]

And that is the whole crux of the situation. Folks down dere jes t'ain't at all outta the "do everythin' th' bible tells ya to do (or not do)" and into the 21st century way of modernized thinking.
Basically majority still rules doesn't it? At least we're still a democracy? If most of the folks down there don't want it do they still need to cowtow to the wants and desires of one or two of the minority?
It does suck to be out-numbered but it IS what our society is based on ... isn't it? Or did we turn totalitarian (or is it socialist?) overnight when I wasn't looking?
Laws can be changed anywhere... provided enough people vote for the change. Look at New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The school board makes the final decision and since she is STILL a student there at the school she must adhere to the rules and accept the decision of the present governing body.
Don't like it... move.
On other threads I've mentioned that I'm irked to no end by folks whining that they aren't getting what they want. I think the terminology I used was... Spoiled Brats! (and it's not just gays/lesbians). This is just another case of it. She (and her GF) have lived there long enough to KNOW that they wouldn't be accepted as a couple at the prom. But she went ahead and asked anyway... kudos to her for at least trying... but dollars to doughnuts says she already knew the answer ahead of time.
Again, I've nothing against gays/lesbians ... if it's the lifestyle they choose to live then okay... but until all the laws have been changed everywhere, accept the fact that you're going to have to either move to where it IS accepted (and now-a-days it's a LOT of places to choose from) or accept that you won't be accepted. If you love living in a particular area or have to for some reason or another then deal with how the society you live in is.

Frankly, the rule of the pure majority is naught but anarchy. Unless the rule of the majority is tempered by a rule of law which recognizes the humanity of the minority, then it deserves to be challenged and overthrown.

Oh, and the lesbian couple at my senior prom both wore dresses. It was a lot cuter than one in a tux.

 

[Omar B]

Wow, the two girls you know are not gonna get knocked up on Prom Night can't go, hilarious. I hope they have their own party because the gays really know how to throw a shindig.

 

[Sukerkin]

Just to illustrate how the news media is really an arm of the bread-and-circuses light show, this story is even on the BBC now .

I feel sorry for all wrapped up in this farrago but it's not international news for crying out loud!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yes it is. It's news that as the enlightened nations continue to expand recognized rights and differences, the US continues to hold to ignorance and bigotry while falsely claiming to be a "land of the free", etc etc etc.. Some will latch onto tht, run with it, expand it, embellish it, and so on.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Frankly, the rule of the pure majority is naught but anarchy.

Actually the rule of pure majority is the opposite of anarchy. Just sayin'.

Unless the rule of the majority is tempered by a rule of law which recognizes the humanity of the minority, then it deserves to be challenged and overthrown.

I think challenging it is fine, but laws are not wrong just because they are the rule of the majority. Sometimes the 'humanity' of the minority is icky. I'm not interested in supporting the 'rights' of people who think female circumcision is OK, for example. I don't care if their rights are being trampled or not.

What people generally mean when they defend the rights of the minority is that they want the rights THEY are in the minority about to be respected.

Oh, and the lesbian couple at my senior prom both wore dresses. It was a lot cuter than one in a tux.

Man, I missed out on all the good times.

 

[cdunn]

Actually the rule of pure majority is the opposite of anarchy. Just sayin'.

Not really. It is the rule of the strong over the weak, making things however they want, because the weak have no say in things. The only difference is the definition of strength. The most fundamental law in the US is packed with the recognition of the ability of the majority to wreak wrongs, and it is a primary reason that so much of the highest levels of Government are not directly elected. It is the reason that our most fundamental rights are explicitly named, and ensured.

I think challenging it is fine, but laws are not wrong just because they are the rule of the majority. Sometimes the 'humanity' of the minority is icky. I'm not interested in supporting the 'rights' of people who think female circumcision is OK, for example. I don't care if their rights are being trampled or not.

What people generally mean when they defend the rights of the minority is that they want the rights THEY are in the minority about to be respected.

This is deeply related to my point. The morality of a law, its inherent usefulness in maintaining society, and direction the whims of the majority have involving it are entirely seperate things. All of them have to be considered, and when the other two outweigh the whims of the majority, then, the whims of the majority must be set aside.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Not really. It is the rule of the strong over the weak, making things however they want, because the weak have no say in things. The only difference is the definition of strength. The most fundamental law in the US is packed with the recognition of the ability of the majority to wreak wrongs, and it is a primary reason that so much of the highest levels of Government are not directly elected. It is the reason that our most fundamental rights are explicitly named, and ensured.

I think you may have a different understanding of the word 'anarchy' than I do. It literally means 'no rule'. It's not rule by the strong, it's no rule at all. In a theoretical anarchic state, the moment one group imposes their authority on another group (think warlords in Somalia), then it is not anarchy any longer. Warlordism is chaotic, but not anarchic.

And as I've said before, our fundamental rights are NOT explicitly named and ensured. Our fundamental rights are ALL rights, named and un-named. The Constitution and Bill of Rights contains a list of prohibitions; rights which the federal government is explicitly forbidden to infringe.

This is deeply related to my point. The morality of a law, its inherent usefulness in maintaining society, and direction the whims of the majority have involving it are entirely seperate things. All of them have to be considered, and when the other two outweigh the whims of the majority, then, the whims of the majority must be set aside.

No. The Constitution is the final arbiter. All power flows from the people, and majority absolutely rules EXCEPT where it is a) specifically given to elected representatives to act on our behalf (not by proxy), or b) when such majority rule violates the prohibitions set forth by either the US or respective state constitutions. The law knows nothing of morality, nor should it.

If the majority wishes to do something which is immoral (in your eyes, in my eyes, in anybody's eyes) AND it does so by plebiscite, referendum, or national convention (commonly used by states in the USA), AND it does not violate existing prohibitions in the federal or state constitutions, then it is absolutely legal, and too bad for the minority being whacked with that 'tyranny of the majority' stick.

Your argument would require people to agree on a common moral standard, which we do not, and to set aside the Constitution in favor of what that moral standard sees as 'fair'. This leads us to two problems. First, as mentioned, no one agrees on what moral is and isn't; and second, as morals change over time, our basis of government would change, subject to the ebb and flow of public opinion and popular memes. What seems very cool today might be anathema tomorrow and vice-versa. What happens when some future generation decides that it's perfectly moral to enslave people again?

The Constitution is the bedrock defining basis of our laws. It is not subject to change based on whim or fancy or even 'just' or 'moral' behavior. That means it is sometimes unjust, unfair, even immoral. If the problem is severe, it can be corrected - via amendment. If the people cannot gather together in sufficient numbers to amend the Consitution, then too bad, so sad.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Majority Rule is Mob Rule. The Founders knew that, which is why they designed things the way they did. Damn shame we haven't kept to those ways. Also a damn shame our so called lawmakers worry more about their own asses than doing what is right.

Right now, there is little legally one can do to prevent situations like the OP from happening. Until Gays are universally granted recognition and their rights protected, they, like any other unprotected minority group will have problems.

 

[grydth]

Update: The Associated Press is reporting that the ACLU has now sued in Federal Court to force the school district to hold the prom.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Majority Rule is Mob Rule. The Founders knew that, which is why they designed things the way they did. Damn shame we haven't kept to those ways. Also a damn shame our so called lawmakers worry more about their own asses than doing what is right.

Nevertheless, the plebiscite exists. It has in no way been declared unconstitutional.

Right now, there is little legally one can do to prevent situations like the OP from happening. Until Gays are universally granted recognition and their rights protected, they, like any other unprotected minority group will have problems.

What is the difference between the 'unprotected minority group' of homosexuals and the unprotected minority group of stamp-collectors of pedophiles?

As I mentioned, people tend to want protection of the groups they think are deserving of protection. What is the difference between the groups you want protected and the group I want protected and the group down the street wants protected?

 

[Flea]

Update: The Associated Press is reporting that the ACLU has now sued in Federal Court to force the school district to hold the prom.

Wow. You really DO gotta fight for your right to party!

In my neck o' the woods several years ago some teens had the kryptonite cojones to establish a GLBT student club in their little high school in Appalachia. Naturally the school went through all the same gyrations. The only way they could get out of the discrimination charge was to shut down all student clubs, so they did. Which naturally pissed everyone off, and with good reason - how could these kids get into quality colleges without extracurriculars? So the parents countersued, and the sodomite teens carried the day.

Fred Phelps sealed the deal with a celebratory picket. Perhaps this prom will be so lucky. Or better yet, maybe they'll get Pansy Division to play.