• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

I hate bigotry. So much.

I am sure there is another discussion behind this other than what we can read from the article. No school will cancel a big event just as that.
So when the facts clearly disagree with you, you decide that there must be other facts that we're not being told.

I gather you've never been to the American Bible Belt. I grew up there, and I can completely believe that a southern school would cancel a prom rather than allow a lesbian couple to attend.

We're talking about a region in which the governor of Arkansas once called out the National Guard to stand in front of a school with rifles to prevent black children from attending. And Arkansas is generally considered forward-thinking by comparison to Mississippi.

The plain fact is that school policy forbids same-sex couples. It doesn't surprise me at all that a Mississippi school board would cancel a dance rather than change that policy. If that surprises you, then you've never been there.
 
^ That is your judgement. You mean the facts disgrace me?
The facts disgrace a little school district in Mississippi. They disagree with you. Two different words.

You stated that if only this girl would wear a nice "lesbian dress" (whatever the heck that is) then there would be "no problem." I showed you that that was not true: that the school district's policy forbids same-sex dating no matter what they wear.

That is a fact. It disagrees with you. That's not my "judgment," not a matter of opinion. It's reality.

So this thread is all about your exclusive discussion then.
Um, are you writing this sober?

Anyone can have a discussion on this thread that wants to. But if they claim that the sky is green I'll point out a window. And if they claim that the school cares only about who wears a tuxedo, I'll show why that's wrong too.
 
Quite a bit of drama over a prom canceling.
You'd think someone was tied to a whipping pole.
Nothing quite like making a mountain out of a mole hill.
How did racial discrimination get brought into this?
Do Catholic schools discriminate because they require a uniform?
People have gotten lawsuit happy in the US over the most ridiculous things.
There are discrimination issues in the world that are much more important than a couple of whiny white lesbos in Mississippi.
Try to have some perspective, people.
 
Quite a bit of drama over a prom canceling.
You'd think someone was tied to a whipping pole.
Nothing quite like making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Well, now, a senior prom is the last big dance of a student's high school career. We can debate how important that is, but that's a subject for another thread. Whatever you might think about it, I guarantee you it's a big deal to the affected students and to the school. And the social attitudes that are revealed by the fact that a school would cancel such an event rather than allow a lesbian couple to attend are pretty important.

How did racial discrimination get brought into this?
Because discrimination is wrong no matter why it's done. Racial discrimination is simply a clear example that few would argue with (at least, not in public - I wouldn't care to guess about you in private). Essentially the issue is, if it's wrong to forbid, for example, interracial couples from a prom, then why isn't it wrong to forbid same-sex couples?

The obvious answer is, "It is wrong."

Do Catholic schools discriminate because they require a uniform?
Catholic schools don't spend public money on those policies. And sexual orientation isn't something that you can take off and put on like a suit of clothes.

This is why a dress code is not discriminatory in and of itself, although it does restrict free expression, and as a result does have Constitutional limits. But clothes are something you wear, not something you are. Hence the analogy to racial discrimination.

At one time, Mississippi schools forbade black and white students from dating each other. Now, one could look at that and say, "If a black boy wants to date, he can date a girl of his race, just like a white boy can. Everyone has the same rights here, so how is that discrimination?" And in a similar way the two girls in this case could just date boys, same as straight girls could.

It's discrimination because it's hiding behind a little lie. It's pretending that what's important is dating someone - anyone. If that were the real issue, then it wouldn't matter - just find someone of your own race, or someone of the opposite sex. They're all the same anyway, right?

Well, no. The real issue is being able to date the person you care about, regardless of the color of their skin or what they carry between their legs. Any reasonably intelligent person understands that, but talking about "special rights" can distract someone who isn't paying attention.

There are discrimination issues in the world that are much more important than a couple of whiny white lesbos in Mississippi.
Ah, that sentence explains a lot about your attitude. And the sad part is you probably don't know why.
 
Last edited:
Let's look for a moment at this issue outside the box of political correctness.

Connie and her girlfriend could have each registered to go to the prom as single attendees. They would have still been able hang out and dance together.

But no, that wasn't good enough. They wanted to be registered as a couple, probably to make some kind of political statement. When the school said no, they went and involved the ACLU.

The ACLU threatened the school with litigation they knew the school could not afford. The school board had a choice. Succumb to the strong-arm tactics of the town bully, or maintain their established protocol and shut down the prom. They chose the latter, and I have the utmost admiration for them doing so.

As a result the prom was ruined for all the students. The blame now properly rests where it should. On the shoulders of Connie McMillen and the ACLU. They will now be looked upon as the scourges of the town.

Sometimes justice actually does prevail.

Sorry I'm late, I was drunk, . . . . . . .You are absolutely ridiculous!
 
Quite a bit of drama over a prom canceling.
You'd think someone was tied to a whipping pole.
Nothing quite like making a mountain out of a mole hill.
How did racial discrimination get brought into this?
Do Catholic schools discriminate because they require a uniform?
People have gotten lawsuit happy in the US over the most ridiculous things.
There are discrimination issues in the world that are much more important than a couple of whiny white lesbos in Mississippi.
Try to have some perspective, people.


Come now Nostra, you don't believe anything you just said. You're a good person with a good heart and you don't support such discrimination, you're just trying to rile people by supporting your friend because you're both still upset with your original names being disallowed. He's one thing, but I expect better from you.
 
Quite a bit of drama over a prom canceling.

Uh, yeah....that's how it made international news.

You'd think someone was tied to a whipping pole.

No, but whoever made this horrible decision should be

Nothing quite like making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If it were trivial, it wouldn't have made INTERATIONAL NEWS would it?

How did racial discrimination get brought into this?

Just goes to show that Mississippi not only has a racial discrimination issue, but is also homophobic as well. Way to go with cancelling an entire school prom in order to avoid a lawsuit because they were.....DISCRIMINATING based on sexual orientation. Somewhere there is a law forbidding such, isn't it??

Do Catholic schools discriminate because they require a uniform?

Apples and hand grenades; as Redmage already stated, Catholic schools are private institutions and do not take public tax money to be funded. And even many public schools have a uniform policy so again, what is your point?

People have gotten lawsuit happy in the US over the most ridiculous things.

Civil rights violation is not a ridiculous thing, especially when sexual orientation is a federally protected class. You certainly wouldn't feel that way if your were gay/bi/etc.......

There are discrimination issues in the world that are much more important than a couple of whiny white lesbos in Mississippi.

Whiny white lesbos?? Wow! Guess you should be glad they're not your daughters; you'd want someone to have some compassion for them even if you didn't think homosexuality was acceptable.

Yeah, you're right.....wonder why this is even an issue in 2010 anyway. But it is and attitudes that demean, insult, bellitle, or make their plight any less than the majority opinion is called what exactly??

Try to have some perspective, people.

You'd best serve yourself by following your own advice.
 
I think the real question is should anything said by one with the "creative" name of Master Baiter be taken remotely seriously?

Grow up kid and learn a little something called empathy. I'm sure that's much too large a word for you however and am not holding my breath anytime soon.
 
This whole clam trap could have been easily avoided.
A little compromise goes a long way, but when both sides are stubborn, unfortunate things usually happen.
The real victims here are not the lez couple, but their classmates, who were robbed of their prom.
They should have paid separately, worn the dress, did whatever they had to and worked it out.
It's called compromise ... and it's a lost practice.
After prom, go ahead and sue the hell out of each other, but pulling other innocent people into your beef just isn't a good idea.
No wonder those girls are treated like shit.
They are getting what they deserve. Life is funny like that.
 
Well, at least we know of two girls who won't get pregnant on prom night.




What, too soon? 😀
 
This whole clam trap could have been easily avoided.
A little compromise goes a long way, but when both sides are stubborn, unfortunate things usually happen.
The real victims here are not the lez couple, but their classmates, who were robbed of their prom.
They should have paid separately, worn the dress, did whatever they had to and worked it out.
No compromise was possible. The school's rules forbid same-sex couples, whether they get together inside the gates or come in together.

After prom, go ahead and sue the hell out of each other, but pulling other innocent people into your beef just isn't a good idea.
The school district did the harm, not the girls. The district had the option to suspend their discriminatory practices. They chose instead to cancel the dance. It was that decision that cost the other kids their prom, not the girls' decision to fight for their rights.

The school district is in the wrong here. The girls bear no blame for insisting that they be treated like everyone else.
 
The Itawamba County School Board's behavior in this instance is abominable. What if two straight girls who couldn't get dates wanted to go to the prom together? It probably wouldn't have been an issue. It only became an issue because the school knew about their relationship, and that's problematic. The government has absolutely no business regulating interpersonal relationships. Letting it do so, even in a relatively minor instance like this one, is a step down a slippery slope that potentially ends with government regulation of whom you may and may not associate with. I'm pretty sure nobody wants to open that particular door.

Similarly, however, I don't think the court has any authority to force the school to hold what is, essentially, a frivolous extra-curricular activity. Unless the school was somehow contractually or legally obligated to hold prom at the time that they decided to cancel it, then they acted within their rights. Forcing a party to carry on with a voluntary activity against their will would set a horrible precedent. The ACLU's suit needs to be tossed out, and they should be instructed to refile it requesting something else. Sanction or remove the school board, by all means... But don't do something that is going to have unsavory ramifications later.
 
Wrong. FYI, there is a HIGH body in every government that regulates a privileged person's interpersonal relationships. A privileged person is a professional or public person committed to deliver highest service to his community. A professional or public servant/leader by practice has to adhere by strictest standard to code of ethical conduct and MORALITY, otherwise, his/her license to practice will be revoked.

The government has a big stance on ETHICS. Most of you here can't understand why some body cling to their principles, and you simply say that no one must impose rules as they like. Talk about real power and not layman's imposed power.

Wait until you elect a gay or lesbian PRESIDENT. If I am wrong, tell me who that person is.

It takes time to change practices that are discriminatory. Who knows, maybe someday we will have a gay or lesbian President. Fifty years ago, if you asked a black person if they thought there would ever be a BLACK PRESIDENT, they'd probably think it would never happen. Yet on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama, a black man, was sworn in as President of the USA.
 
Wrong. FYI, there is a HIGH body in every government that regulates a privileged person's interpersonal relationships. A privileged person is a professional or public person committed to deliver highest service to his community. A professional or public servant/leader by practice has to adhere by strictest standard to code of ethical conduct and MORALITY, otherwise, his/her license to practice will be revoked.


I think you're mistaken here. You seem to be referring to professional organizations like the various state bar associations (to name a well known example). While they have the power to issue and revoke professional credentials, these entities are not part of the government. Furthermore, I really can't think of a recent instance in which someone has lost a license to practice professionally merely for carrying on a relationship with someone deemed unsavory. Can you cite an example to clarify what you mean, please?
 
Wrong. FYI, there is a HIGH body in every government that regulates a privileged person's interpersonal relationships. A privileged person is a professional or public person committed to deliver highest service to his community. A professional or public servant/leader by practice has to adhere by strictest standard to code of ethical conduct and MORALITY, otherwise, his/her license to practice will be revoked.
OK, there's a glaring problem here.

Someone who requests a government license of any sort is voluntarily agreeing to abide by whatever conditions the state sets as terms of the license. If you want a driver's license, for example, you have to meet certain qualifications and abide by certain rules, or it can be revoked.

This is an agreement between the government and the licensee. That's far different from the government claiming the right to control interpersonal relationships when no agreement has been made.

Wait until you elect a gay or lesbian PRESIDENT. If I am wrong, tell me who that person is.
Sorry, but why is this relevant? Are you saying that gays should not expect an end to discrimination until they make it to the White House? If that is what you mean, then that's ridiculous. Getting elected President would be the culmination of the battle against discrimination, not the beginning. But if that's not what you mean then this assertion makes no sense to me at all.

You have quite a bee in your bonnet on this subject. I'm not sure why, but it's leading you to make some very peculiar and illogical claims.
 
Last edited:
(And yes, I know that many feel it's not right to compare gay and lesbian discrimination with racial discrimination. I'm an African-American bisexual and I'll make the comparison if I damn well please 😉 )

discrimination is discrimination no matter what reason you're being discriminated against. It's all equal to me, it's all the same... No type of discrimination is worse than the other...
 
This whole clam trap could have been easily avoided.
A little compromise goes a long way, but when both sides are stubborn, unfortunate things usually happen.
The real victims here are not the lez couple, but their classmates, who were robbed of their prom.
They should have paid separately, worn the dress, did whatever they had to and worked it out.
It's called compromise ... and it's a lost practice.
After prom, go ahead and sue the hell out of each other, but pulling other innocent people into your beef just isn't a good idea.
No wonder those girls are treated like shit.
They are getting what they deserve. Life is funny like that.

I just want to point out that someone.. um.. you... need to look up what a compromise. Them paying seperately, wearing dresses is not a compromise. That's doing exactly what the law of the stupid school says... A Compromise is both groups coming to an agreement that both sides might not totally want but can kinda agree on, like the girl that wants to wear a tux gets to but they have to go seperately, or being able to come together but both in dresses... that would be what a compromise is...
 
^ Asu, Bill Clinton and Prince Charles are examples of a public leaders/figure who have been tried because of their "unethical/immoral" extra-marital affairs, so they claim. Then, I know licensed professionals (teachers, doctors, etc) who lost licenses to practice because of interpersonal affairs. The ETHICS authorities take charge of this.

I don't know the deal with Prince Charles, but I suppose Bill Clinton is a good example... except that yeah he was tried but we didn't get him out of office... we found him not guilty so nothing happened to him so I guess that's really not a good example..

As far as teachers go, they only get in trouble if they date their students and there is a good reason for that... for one thing High school and younger their students are really young, and another reason is because of favortism. Can't allow teachers to favor students over others (Even though it happens whether they're dating or not). But I don't think that's the same thing as saying two lesbians shouldn't date just because they're the same sex. If one was male they'd be allowed to date. If them being female is the only reason that's not a good reason. They're around the same age, one is not in a possition of authority of the other.
 
^ Asu, Bill Clinton and Prince Charles are examples of a public leaders/figure who have been tried because of their "unethical/immoral" extra-marital affairs, so they claim. Then, I know licensed professionals (teachers, doctors, etc) who lost licenses to practice because of interpersonal affairs. The ETHICS authorities take charge of this.

I don't follow the royal family, so I'm not sure about Prince Charles... But the basis for Bill Clinton's impeachment trial wasn't simply his extra-marital affair. The allegation against Clinton was perjury, or lying under oath in a court of law. (in Clinton's case, the testimony in question was in regards to his extramarital affair) Perjury is generally considered a criminal act, not simple immorality.
 
Special Treatment

Lesbians don't have exclusive rights.
They cannot legally marry in almost every state, theirs included.
These particular lesbians are also minors, so they have even fewer rights.
So before you start screaming irrationally about their "rights" consider that.
The school hosted the prom, and they set the rules that all of the other students must abide by.
Why should these two be any different?
Just because a public school is federally funded doesn't change anything.
No one forced them to attend this particular school, and when their parents decided to, they agreed to abide by the rules the school district set forth.

That's the problem I have with all of this.

The lesbians think they're above the rules and "special" because of their sexual orientation.
The school district was well within their rights to do what they did when faced with legal action from the ACLU.
The lesbians in question brought this upon themselves, and must now face the wrath of their classmates, who somehow, did manage follow the rules.
It's just that simple.
No special privileges for anyone ... even lesbians.
 
Lesbians don't have exclusive rights.
They cannot legally marry in almost every state, theirs included.
These particular lesbians are also minors, so they have even fewer rights.
So before you start screaming irrationally about their "rights" consider that.
The school hosted the prom, and they set the rules that all of the other students must abide by.
Why should these two be any different?
Just because a public school is federally funded doesn't change anything.
No one forced them to attend this particular school, and when their parents decided to, they agreed to abide by the rules the school district set forth.

That's the problem I have with all of this.

The lesbians think they're above the rules and "special" because of their sexual orientation.
The school district was well within their rights to do what they did when faced with legal action from the ACLU.
The lesbians in question brought this upon themselves, and must now face the wrath of their classmates, who somehow, did manage follow the rules.
It's just that simple.
No special privileges for anyone ... even lesbians.


As much as I disagree with you, I have to applaud how well you've articulated what I believe to be the basic POV of those who oppose what these two girls are doing. Well done. Now having said that, It's difficult to understand how you can have this POV in 2010. These girls aren't asking for Special Lesbian Privileges. They're asking that the rules be updated so that people of their orientation can have the SAME privileges. I actually agree with you that the school was well within its rights. That doesn't mean that what they did was right; it was in fact heartless and cruel and a shame, but sadly it was within their right to be so. What's wrong is that the rules of the school are such that these girls have to buck them just to have what's fundamentally the *same* rights of their classmates: to attend the prom dressed as they identify and with the person they choose. That shouldn't be a special privilege, it's just common sense until discrimination rears it's ugly head. Of course the straight kids don't have a problem following these rules; the rules were written with only them in mind! And that's simply not right, and it's up to strong young people to fight for change so that in the future there won't even be a question. Good for them.

And yes, the fact that the school is publicly funded does indeed make a difference. Private organizations are just that, private. They can make their own rules just as one can decide what happens in one's own home. A public facility has far more responsibility to hold to equality for all, and this school is sorely lacking in that department.

And one more thing: I don't think you're trying to be nasty, I imagine you're simply being passionate like the rest of us...but when you refer to these young girls as "lez" and say things like
No wonder those girls are treated like shit.
They are getting what they deserve.
you're representing the mean spirited, name calling people that makes your side of the discussion seem so narrow-minded and backward and vile and that makes people want to support these young people all the more.
 
Last edited:
Lesbians don't have exclusive rights.
They cannot legally marry in almost every state, theirs included.
These particular lesbians are also minors, so they have even fewer rights.
So before you start screaming irrationally about their "rights" consider that.
The school hosted the prom, and they set the rules that all of the other students must abide by.
Why should these two be any different?
Just because a public school is federally funded doesn't change anything.
No one forced them to attend this particular school, and when their parents decided to, they agreed to abide by the rules the school district set forth.

That's the problem I have with all of this.

The lesbians think they're above the rules and "special" because of their sexual orientation.
The school district was well within their rights to do what they did when faced with legal action from the ACLU.
The lesbians in question brought this upon themselves, and must now face the wrath of their classmates, who somehow, did manage follow the rules.
It's just that simple.
No special privileges for anyone ... even lesbians.

The declaration of independance gets a wee bit in your way.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

Now ofcourse these 2 are women, but humans none the less, and the school's bigotry (and yours) gets in the way of their pursuit of Hapiness.

The fact that bigotry has gotten into State law does not make it less bullshit.
 
Lesbians don't have exclusive rights.
What's an "exclusive right?" Do you mean a right that no one else has? If so, then perhaps you're in the wrong thread. This one is about giving gays the same rights that everyone else has.

They cannot legally marry in almost every state, theirs included.
How does citing another example of discrimination justify the first one?

These particular lesbians are also minors, so they have even fewer rights.
And fewer rights than straight minors, which is why we call it discrimination.

In point of fact, however, Constance McMillen is 18.

The school hosted the prom, and they set the rules that all of the other students must abide by.
Why should these two be any different?
Because the rules treat them differently than other students, for no justifiable reason. Having rules does not mean that you can have any rules you want. Some rules are wrong.

Just because a public school is federally funded doesn't change anything.
Of course it does. It means that it's using my money to do this. More to the point, though, a public school is an agency of government, and government does not have the same leeway as a private agency. In this country, our government must treat everyone equally - even lesbians.

The lesbians think they're above the rules and "special" because of their sexual orientation.
The school thinks they're "special" just because of their sexual orientation. That's why it has special rules just for them.

That's the problem, you see. Or perhaps you don't.

The school district was well within their rights to do what they did when faced with legal action from the ACLU.
Within their legal rights? Oh, absolutely. They can cancel a dance any time they want to, for any reason.

Some reasons are stupider and less ethical than others, of course. An example would be throwing a hissy fit and canceling a dance just so no one would see two girls dancing together.

No special privileges for anyone ... even lesbians.
Are other students forbidden from registering the date of their choice? If not, then what "special privileges" are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
^ Asu, Bill Clinton and Prince Charles are examples of a public leaders/figure who have been tried because of their "unethical/immoral" extra-marital affairs, so they claim.
Those who hold public office are literally public employees. The public can fire them if it wishes to do so.

However Bill Clinton was not impeached for his extra-marital affair. The government does not have the right to do that. He was impeached on charges of perjury, which is a legal matter, not an ethical one.

Then, I know licensed professionals (teachers, doctors, etc) who lost licenses to practice because of interpersonal affairs. The ETHICS authorities take charge of this.
Yes, see below about licenses.

Driver’s license... Okay, okay. :jester: :roflmao:
Are you laughing at yourself?

Any license at all represents an agreement between the licensee and the state. The state grants the licensee the right to do certain things, such as practice law or drive a car. In exchange the licensee agrees to give the state certain powers of supervision over his or her behavior.

The point is that agreement: that is the only thing that gives the state the power to regulate the licensee's interpersonal relationships. No such agreement is in force with regard to lesbian students. Therefore your claim that the government has some general right to regulate interpersonal relations is shown to be factually incorrect.

NO. Read between the lines: wait until YOU (people) vote a gay/lesbo president and DO THAT if you like. It is you people who discriminate among yourselves.
As I asked upthread, how does citing another example of discrimination justify the first one?

Or to put it another way, how is discrimination against gays at the ballot box relevant to discrimination against gays by a school, except as another example of something that should not be done?

Now get back to the topic and you’ll realize that what I am pointing out is how the school is practicing ETHICS in its own terms.
The school is indeed practicing ethics on its own terms. Its terms are unethical. You seem to believe that simply "practicing ethics" means that it's OK to practice them any way you like. But in fact some ways are wrong.

I understood what you were saying from the beginning. That's why I say you're wrong, see?
 
What's New
1/15/26
Visit Clips4Sale for the webs largest collection of fetish clips in one place!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top