Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
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?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.
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?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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?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?
Originally Posted by Goofball:
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.
The right idea but the wrong place, just leave it at that. Why insist to be a part of their world.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.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
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".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?
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.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Why insist to be a part of their world.
What makes you assume that she is some kind of outcast who is not "part of their world"? For all you know she might be treated as "one of theirs" by most other students who might not have cared at all if she had showed up with her date.Why insist to be a part of their world.
I did not read anything that would indicate that other students were upset about the idea of her showing up in a tuxedo - I only read about students who are upset about the stupid idea of canceling the prom.
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane:
I did not read anything that would indicate that other students were upset about the idea of her showing up in a tuxedo - I only read about students who are upset about the stupid idea of canceling the prom.
Guess you didn't notice the 'NO GAYS' signs. There is a time and and place for everyting but not there and not now.I did not read anything that would indicate that other students were upset about the idea of her showing up in a tuxedo - I only read about students who are upset about the stupid idea of canceling the prom.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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?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.
I think they should introduce a new rule for the party saying "No Bigots Allowed".
Haha, now, fighting discrimination and calling fascists fascists is labelled "multiculturalism". Ridiculous.
The gay haters deliver in this thread
The gay haters deliver in this thread
Who are you reffering to? I don't see anyone agreeing with the school
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Guess you didn't notice the 'NO GAYS' signs. There is a time and and place for everyting but not there and not now.
There was a "NO GAYS" sign put up by the other students for the original prom before the school sent the message across that the choice is a "NO GAYS" prom or no prom at all?Guess you didn't notice the 'NO GAYS' signs. There is a time and and place for everyting but not there and not now.
I guess I missed that indeed. Please show me.
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane:
There was a "NO GAYS" sign put up by the other students for the original prom before the school sent the message across that the choice is a "NO GAYS" prom or no prom at all?
Is of no importance for my argumentThere was a "NO GAYS" sign put up by the other students for the original prom before the school sent the message across that the choice is a "NO GAYS" prom or no prom at all?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Is of no importance for my argument
If your argument is that "she was not welcome at the prom anyway, so why should she want to go there" it seems pretty relevant what the other students thought about here before the school screwed this up.Is of no importance for my argument
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane:
If your argument is that "she was not welcome at the prom anyway, so why should she want to go there" it seems pretty relevant what the other students thought about here before the school screwed this up.
Wouldn't she be welcome at the alternative party if the other students supported her? No 'fine we will organize our own prom you backward lunies'. Big fat no gays allowed sign insteadIf your argument is that "she was not welcome at the prom anyway, so why should she want to go there" it seems pretty relevant what the other students thought about here before the school screwed this up.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Wouldn't she be welcome at the alternative party if the other students supported her?
To repeat my previous post:Wouldn't she be welcome at the alternative party if the other students supported her?
the school sent the message across that the choice is a "NO GAYS" prom or no prom at all?" might change the mood a bit.
Also, where did you read anything about a "NO GAYS" sign at the alternative party? The original article certainly does not mention anything like that (it does not even mention that there would be an alternative party:
Originally Posted by article:
Announcing the cancellation, the school board said: "It is our hope that private citizens will organize an event for the juniors and seniors." A private party would circumvent the legal issues.
Announcing the cancellation, the school board said: "It is our hope that private citizens will organize an event for the juniors and seniors." A private party would circumvent the legal issues.
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane:
To repeat my previous post:
the school sent the message across that the choice is a "NO GAYS" prom or no prom at all?" might change the mood a bit.
Also, where did you read anything about a "NO GAYS" sign at the alternative party? The original article certainly does not mention anything like that (it does not even mention that there would be an alternative party:
not my words To repeat my previous post:
the school sent the message across that the choice is a "NO GAYS" prom or no prom at all?" might change the mood a bit.
Also, where did you read anything about a "NO GAYS" sign at the alternative party? The original article certainly does not mention anything like that (it does not even mention that there would be an alternative party:
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
And in case you didn't read the article properly; the straight kids are going to have a private prom with a big sign that says "Gays not allowed"
I didn't read the English article, story also appeared on Dutch media.And in case you didn't read the article properly; the straight kids are going to have a private prom with a big sign that says "Gays not allowed"
I feel bad for the girl, she's going to have tons of abuse heaped on her at school.
Just so we all know that it isn't just "redNeckistan" grappling with this issue, HERE is a summary of a court case in Toronto, Canada from 2002, where one Marc Hall wanted to attend his Catholic HS prom with his 21-year old boyfriend.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Just so we all know that it isn't just "redNeckistan" grappling with this issue, HERE is a summary of a court case in Toronto, Canada from 2002, where one Marc Hall wanted to attend his Catholic HS prom with his 21-year old boyfriend.
Good find there Kukri. Although it's a bit long, I would recommend that anyone who has an interest in this topic give it a read. I was impressed not only with the clear and well thought out arguments made by both sides, but with the respect for each others' dignity the opposing sides showed each other.Just so we all know that it isn't just "redNeckistan" grappling with this issue, HERE is a summary of a court case in Toronto, Canada from 2002, where one Marc Hall wanted to attend his Catholic HS prom with his 21-year old boyfriend.
That having been said, this question is open and shut for me for one very simple reason: in Canada, religious schools are still part of the public school system and receive tax money. For that reason, they don't have a leg to stand on here. If they were completely privately funded, I would have no problem with them telling gay students they can't bring a same sex date to prom.
Good read, movie material
I found this part interesting: "claiming it is the school board's religious right to discriminate. It's an old argument used to justify racial discrimination in the past."
What grounds would a Catholic school have for discriminating against somebody based on their race?
What grounds would a Catholic school have for discriminating against somebody based on their race?
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Nah, even I'll admit that this is petty. But at the same time there's no need for the leftist moral outrage, she could just suck it up and respect peoples traditions, the world doesn't have to change just for her.
She has done no wrong in simply asking for what is hers, which is the same rights and treatment as everyone else.Nah, even I'll admit that this is petty. But at the same time there's no need for the leftist moral outrage, she could just suck it up and respect peoples traditions, the world doesn't have to change just for her.
You wouldn't tell Rosa Parks that she's making a stink about where she sits on a bus, and that she should suck it up. It might be a little thing to you, but it is everything to the oppressed minority. It's certainly not your place to tell this girl what rights she's entitled to that she should ignore. There's every need for the moral outrage, just because you aren't the one being systematically mistreated and oppressed, that doesn't mean there isn't an injustice to be corrected.
Edit: Finally read the thread in its entirety, and as others have pointed out, this is a public school, not a private religious function. Everyone's rights are protected there.
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy:
She has done no wrong in simply asking for what is hers, which is the same rights and treatment as everyone else.
You mean the right to take a person of the opposite sex to the prom, the same way everyone else does?She has done no wrong in simply asking for what is hers, which is the same rights and treatment as everyone else.
lol, I don't really think that, but the school could see things that way.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
You mean the right to take a person of the opposite sex to the prom, the same way everyone else does?
lol, I don't really think that, but the school could see things that way.
You mean the right to take a person to a public event, not a private religious meeting, the same way everyone else does? The girl was doing nothing wrong.You mean the right to take a person of the opposite sex to the prom, the same way everyone else does?
lol, I don't really think that, but the school could see things that way.
The school seems to forget that minorities deserve equal treatment under the law, and they seem to forget that discrimination against gays in this fashion is still illegal, that's why the girl contacted the ACLU when her rights were trampled on. Oh, but they remembered just in time to cover their butts and cancel the event for everyone.
You can legislate changes much more easily than you can educate people to accept the wisdom behind the changes. Give it time. The lass in question has made her point -- internationally -- and it will add to the mix.
This thread reads like the worst of what I've come to expect in political/sociological discourse these days. You've all made intelligent, well-thought out arguments, don't get me wrong...
It just strikes me that there is a presumptive view that everyone must embrace every idea the majority finds favor with.
Of course the high school in question was expressing bigoted behavior. What bothers me is what Seamus hinted at in his last post, and I'll undercore for effect... you don't win arguments by forcing your view on others... you create partisans that way. Democracies aren't about getting 50.1% of the people to craw laws down the throats of the remaining 49.9% population....
Catholic priests won't marry gay couples. Should 50.1% of the population (or some small legislative block) pass laws to throw them in jail for not doing so?
Or should we start a dialogue about these things?
WTF!?
It just strikes me that there is a presumptive view that everyone must embrace every idea the majority finds favor with.
Of course the high school in question was expressing bigoted behavior. What bothers me is what Seamus hinted at in his last post, and I'll undercore for effect... you don't win arguments by forcing your view on others... you create partisans that way. Democracies aren't about getting 50.1% of the people to craw laws down the throats of the remaining 49.9% population....
Catholic priests won't marry gay couples. Should 50.1% of the population (or some small legislative block) pass laws to throw them in jail for not doing so?
Or should we start a dialogue about these things?
WTF!?
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
you don't win arguments by forcing your view on others...
sums it upyou don't win arguments by forcing your view on others...
How many more 16 year olds are going to miss out on a normal, happy life until that other 49.9% figure out that they are children just like all the others, not spawns of Satan? These are real people being ostracized for something as unchangeable as eye color, not some abstract political debate.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
How many more 16 year olds are going to miss out on a normal, happy life until that other 49.9% figure out that they are children just like all the others, not spawns of Satan? These are real people being ostracized for something as unchangeable as eye color, not some abstract political debate.
I just almost completely agreed with PanzerJaeger.How many more 16 year olds are going to miss out on a normal, happy life until that other 49.9% figure out that they are children just like all the others, not spawns of Satan? These are real people being ostracized for something as unchangeable as eye color, not some abstract political debate.
The girl is being oppressed by the bigoted organisation. She is born in that area, raised there, she been to that schooll all her highschool life, then suddenly denied the prom because she prefers the company of other females.
She isn't an outcast, she has as much right as anyone else to be there. It is just plain discrimination against her.
What is there to debate? The school was evidently wrong and both sides as said as much.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO