If it wasn't so mean-spirited, it would be funny...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but I honestly don't understand what kind of sweeping lifestyle change you believe the lesbian girl is trying to force on the conservatives of Mississippi. Please do explain it to me. As far as I can see, all she wants to do is be free to attend a a social event at the school she has attended as a student for the last four years with her girlfriend. She is not asking anyone to become a lesbian. No personal lifestyle change is being forced on any member of the student body by her desire to attend the prom. They can go on being heterosexual, conservative, Christian, Muslim, gun-owners, tea-totallers, or whatever else they want to be, and the lesbian girl and the ACLU won't care. All the girl wants is to go to the dance. She is the one having someone else's lifestyle choice forced upon her.

I agree with most of what you're saying. What the school is doing is petty and wrong. This girls attendance at the event shouldn't really effect anyone.

But to these people it's a big deal, and at the end of the day it is their own private event. I'll condemn their choice, but I don't see it as anyones place to make them change. But if we do at least try to see if from their perspective - the prom is a rare, traditional event. Part of the tradition that reflects the culture of that area is that only heterosexual couples go, due largely to the Christian culture of the place. If you start brining in lesbian couples, you're turning it into something else, it's no longer a Mississipi school prom, it's suddenly an experiment in multiculturalism. Nothing radical to you, but it is for them.

Exactly. Let's say that we meet a conservative, traditional society who has as it's tradition that we don't exist. Are we then in the wrong for violating their traditions? Or are there qualifiers on the extent to which we should respect their traditions, one of them being that they don't interfere with our traditions for no good reason?

Surely this would only be relevant if it affected those peoples freedom in the public sphere. Private functions should not count as part of the public sphere, they should be free for people to be as prejudiced as they like, it's not our place to judge or infringe on that. Although as I said, I wouldnt' use my point here in this case if the prom is funded by the government, but I'm just raising it more generally.

[HoreTore]

But to these people it's a big deal, and at the end of the day it is their own private event.

No it most definitely is not.

It's a public event, run by the state school and funded by taxes paid by the lesbian girls parents. As such we have every right to tell them they're homophobic idiots and force them to allow gays at their prom.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Surely this would only be relevant if it affected those peoples freedom in the public sphere. Private functions should not count as part of the public sphere, they should be free for people to be as prejudiced as they like, it's not our place to judge or infringe on that. Although as I said, I wouldnt' use my point here in this case if the prom is funded by the government, but I'm just raising it more generally.

Why do you say "judge"? Infringe would have more stringent requirements I agree.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No it most definitely is not.

It's a public event, run by the state school and funded by taxes paid by the lesbian girls parents. As such we have every right to tell them they're homophobic idiots and force them to allow gays at their prom.

I've said before several times that if it is indeed funded by the government then they have no right to deny the girl entry. I wasn't sure if this was the case, if it is then there's no debate. My point was just in theory.

Why do you say "judge"? Infringe would have more stringent requirements I agree.

You're right, you can of course judge, we've all condemned it. Multiculturalism is taking its toll on me with its everyone-must-be-right-ism.

[Goofball]

You're right, you can of course judge, we've all condemned it. Multiculturalism is taking its toll on me with its everyone-must-be-right-ism.

Multiculturalism does not demand that everyone must be right, it states that everyone should be tolerated. It doesn't force us to take on the traditions of others, it only allows them to live along side our own, to the extent that they do not infringe on our own personal freedoms or conflict with the laws of our society.

[HoreTore]

I've said before several times that if it is indeed funded by the government then they have no right to deny the girl entry. I wasn't sure if this was the case, if it is then there's no debate. My point was just in theory.

You do raise another interesting question; is it just the state who isn't allowed to discriminate? Are we free to discriminate as long as everythign is private?

Am I free to put a sign that says "No gays allowed" outside my gas station when I go to work tonight? Would you respect my "tradition" if I did?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Am I free to put a sign that says "No gays allowed" outside my gas station when I go to work tonight? Would you respect my "tradition" if I did?

I think you should be. Let people power do it's thing. If people really are offended by this, they would boycott it. Otherwise, do you want to give all the power to the government to pursue social engineering?

[HoreTore]

I think you should be. Let people power do it's thing. If people really are offended by this, they would boycott it. Otherwise, do you want to give all the power to the government to pursue social engineering?

I don't see "government" as any different to "people power".

And I don't believe in "might is right". Whether a significant portion is offended enough to boycott it is irrelevant, as it will only effect a minority that isn't big enough to arrange a boycott.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't see "government" as any different to "people power".

And I don't believe in "might is right". Whether a significant portion is offended enough to boycott it is irrelevant, as it will only effect a minority that isn't big enough to arrange a boycott.

Well if you don't trust people power, and you say the government is no different from people power, then what can you do?

[Goofball]

I agree with most of what you're saying. What the school is doing is petty and wrong. This girls attendance at the event shouldn't really effect anyone.

But to these people it's a big deal, and at the end of the day it is their own private event. I'll condemn their choice, but I don't see it as anyones place to make them change. But if we do at least try to see if from their perspective - the prom is a rare, traditional event. Part of the tradition that reflects the culture of that area is that only heterosexual couples go, due largely to the Christian culture of the place. If you start brining in lesbian couples, you're turning it into something else, it's no longer a Mississipi school prom, it's suddenly an experiment in multiculturalism. Nothing radical to you, but it is for them.

As has been pointed out, this is certainly not a private event. The lesbian girl is just as much a member of the school as any of the other students. She is not trying to change anyone else's lifestyle, or to exclude anyone else from attending. This is being done to her, not the other way around. If your only argument is that tradition trumps personal freedom and basic human dignity, then I suggest you simply haven't thought the matter through in a logical fashion. The question has been asked already in this thread, but is ideally applicable to your comments, so I'll ask it again: Tradition in this same area of the country previously held that blacks could not attend the same schools, play on the same sports teams, sit at the same lunch counters, or even drink from the same water fountains as whites. Should we have simply said "Oh well, that's their tradition, I guess we have to respect that."?