|
On the night of her school formal, Hannah Williams found herself all dressed up with nowhere to go. After inviting friends to her home for ''pre-drinks'', the 16-year-old stood on her doorstep and watched her classmates file into the darkness to attend one of the highlights of the school year. Instead of joining them, Hannah took off her heels and black dress and went to bed. A few weeks earlier a teacher had told the year 11 student she couldn't attend the dance with her 15-year-old girlfriend, Savannah Supski. She was asked to bring a male instead. ''It made me very upset. I thought it was unfair so I didn't go,'' she said. ''I put a lot of effort into trying to fix things. I had meetings with principals; looked through the Equal Opportunity Act; all my friends put posters up around the school and the teachers ripped them down. There was an easy solution; they just needed to let me go with my girlfriend.'' ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/MbEHZ.jpg) ‘‘It made me so upset’’ ... Hannah Williams, left, and her girlfriend, Savannah Supski,
are changing schools so they can be together. Photo: Angela Wylie. Hannah's father, Peter Williams, lodged a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Commission, alleging the school - Ivanhoe Girls' Grammar School in Melbourne - had discriminated against his daughter because of her sexual orientation. ''The school kept saying because it is an all-girls school we want to make an event where they can meet boys in a social scenario,'' he said. ''That process is anachronistic and creates feelings of discrimination among girls who are same-sex-attracted.'' After lodging the complaint in September, Mr Williams had a mediation session with the school but the two parties were unable to reach a conclusion. The Williams family did not take matters further because it was becoming too stressful for their daughter, who will complete her final exams next year. Mr Williams said the experience had forced his daughter to move to a ''more accepting'' government school. Savannah, now 16, is also changing schools to be with her girlfriend and was happy to hear that their new school allowed same-sex couples to attend the formal. ''It was a homophobic issue and I feel extremely discriminated against at the old school,'' she said. Sian Supski supports her daughter's decision to change schools. ''The idea that there had to be a gender balance at the dinner dance seemed to be discriminatory. It was a very difficult time for Savannah but she's an amazingly strong young person and we are very proud of her.'' The principal of Ivanhoe Girls' Grammar, Heather Schnagl, said the event did not discriminate against same-sex couples and was designed to promote a co-educational experience. ''I don't think it's appropriate they feel discriminated against, and I'm very upset they feel that,'' she said. ''If we opened it up and said girls could bring another female they would all bring females; the policy is trying to create an event where boys are invited. We are a school that has an all-girls environment, and they are meant to invite guests, not partners.'' She said age was also an issue. ''It's an event for year 11s and the student's guest was in year 10.'' Hannah said her friends took younger males and she was the only one asked to provide the age of her date. ''They kept on making up excuses, and said everything was a problem for me.'' The president of the NSW Secondary Principals' Council, Christine Cawsey, said it should be a matter for the student's family to decide. ''Our view is that if a student's family feels the partner is the best partner to bring then that's fine,'' she said. ''But I do understand that some schools can have different rules.'' The Equal Opportunity Commission said it could not comment.
A 16 year-old was told she couldn't attend her end of year formal (dance/prom) because she insisted on inviting her girlfriend, a 15 year-old at the same school. The school claimed it was because the dance was meant to serve as an event in which girls could socialise with boys, the school being an all girls school. Additionally the school suggested that the event was for year 11's and that the 15 year old was too young.
So who accepts the school's reasoning? Who thinks they're full of it?
Source: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/girls-interrupted-samesex-couple-banned-from-ball-20101109-17m29.html
|
Oh my god, I originally misread it wrong and though it was an 11 year old dating a 15 year old.
I think the school's full of it. "You're not supposed to invite a partner, but a guest." Bullshit. That's what you do at dances.
|
Bigotry knows no bounds. Sad, really. Does Australia have an organization that files lawsuits on these sorts of grounds in the interest of civil rights? I'm thinking something like the ACLU.
|
Who would believe the schools excuse? It's clear they're entire school is filled with bigots that are afraid of kids.
|
I really can't stand this kind of injustice. I hope this raises some hell in Australia.
|
|
|
Shit like this is really sad, the school's full of it, just trying to make weak excuses to cover up any bad publicity.
|
These stories are fairly common, and I'm pretty sure that most schools dodge legal action against them. I'm curious why the Equal Opportunity Commission did not comment on this. It seems like it would make comments to try to make it a huge public issue. Whether the school's excuse is legitimate or not, it still seems wrong to me. If they made it open for people only in 11th grade, they should ID everyone.
|
16 and 15 ? 20 years ago that would've been illegal. Lucky them!
No seriously, its pretty bad how they were treated.
|
Sounds like attention whoring to me.
If they really wanted to go to the dance together they could have just gone under the radar and done their own thing at the dance. Instead they decided that they wanted attention and so made a huge deal about it (putting up posters around the school).
It also seems like this is a private school and therefore should be allowed to have and enforce their own rules. If gays don't like it then they don't have to attend.
|
I'm glad at least her father was more understanding.
But it is really depressing how the school comes up with terrible excuses not to let her bring her girlfriend. Is it really that horrible for them? -_-
|
It's bigotry, pure and simple. A similar thing happened here in the States (Mississipi, I think?) several months ago, a girl wanted to bring her girlfriend to the prom and the high school said no. When faced with the idea of a lawsuit, instead of letting the girl go the school called off the official prom in its entirity. Pretty disgusting behavior if you ask me.
http://thefbomb.org/2010/03/lesbian-teen-banned-from-prom/
^ The story
|
Dude, this shit happens like every year in America...and yeah, that school is full of shit.
|
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned
You should not be forced to accept anything like this if you don't agree with the school's decision. If you do...well then I will vehemently disagree with you (to put it politely).
|
On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned
I really appreciate your vague passive aggressive non-stance on this issue.
|
This story is weird. Surely an all-girls school has dealt with lesbians before. They can't honestly expect to run an all-girls school without expecting their to be lesbians. Melbourne isn't Mississippi. Something doesn't add up, maybe the school is actually sincere in their defense
|
This is fucking ridiculous, but sadly not too surprising.
|
On November 12 2010 03:21 Brent352 wrote:
Sounds like attention whoring to me.
If they really wanted to go to the dance together they could have just gone under the radar and done their own thing at the dance. Instead they decided that they wanted attention and so made a huge deal about it (putting up posters around the school).
It also seems like this is a private school and therefore should be allowed to have and enforce their own rules. If gays don't like it then they don't have to attend.
There's a difference between attention whoring and bringing something that you feel is unjust into the public spotlight. The two girls and their friends were trying to spread the message that it isn't OK to bar a same sex couple from the school dance and there is nothing wrong with that.
It's clear that they couldn't attend the dance "under the radar" after having discussed the issue with the school's administrators. These kind of dances are heavily supervised and usually have some sort of sign-in at the door which is where the couple would be stopped.
Yes the school is private and can set their own rules but that doesn't give them license to practice bigotry.
|
On November 12 2010 03:22 RiotSpectre wrote:It's bigotry, pure and simple. A similar thing happened here in the States (Mississipi, I think?) several months ago, a girl wanted to bring her girlfriend to the prom and the high school said no. When faced with the idea of a lawsuit, instead of letting the girl go the school called off the official prom in its entirity. Pretty disgusting behavior if you ask me. http://thefbomb.org/2010/03/lesbian-teen-banned-from-prom/^ The story
You forgot the part where they secretly rescheduled the prom without telling her
Austrailia's got its fair share of odd and dumb rules, but I never thought of it as Mississippi without all the in-family humping. Sad.
|
They held a private prom without telling her. Like, some other parents put together money to rent some place out and held their own "prom" with the school being uninvolved (in response to Hawk on page 1). But yeah, this stuff happens a lot in the states it's not surprising that it happens at schools in other countries too.
I also love the people who think that private schools can do whatever the fuck they want. Like fire teachers who have sex outside of marriage, ban lesbians from attending their prom, or only accept white students. Just because it's a private school doesn't mean they can discriminate.
|
... it would be discrimination if they refuse to let her join the formal because of her sexual orientation but it is not discrimination to forbid her to bring guest of the same sex. The formal is hosted by the school, they have all rights to create rules and guidelines for the event. If the event specified that all guests must be males, then there is no discrimination involved.
People need to stop getting all defensive and insecure about these things; sooner or later people will cry sexist for not being able to get into an all female/male school because he or she is not that gender, or cry free speech violation for not being able to enter a restaurant nude.
|
On November 12 2010 03:31 keV. wrote:
This story is weird. Surely an all-girls school has dealt with lesbians before. They can't honestly expect to run an all-girls school without expecting their to be lesbians. Melbourne isn't Mississippi. Something doesn't add up, maybe the school is actually sincere in their defense
This. This is an all-girls private high school, there is going to be sexual experience one way or another, and the school knows this, assuming it's been around for at least 4 years.
I don't think this is bigotry in any way, shape, or form. Just high school kids kicking and screaming when forced to follow rules, instead of finding ways to sidestep and skirt them.
Also, if the school was as bigoted as everyone is making them out to be, the 'pre drinks' wouldn't have happened for fear of getting expelled before graduation for drinking underage.
|
My first reaction is that the entire situation is silly because the notion of gender segregated schooling is silly. But if you get over that hurdle and recognize that this probably wasn't meant to be a normal dance, then the official story put out by the school becomes a little more believable. I mean, are we supposed to believe that a school where students are sent to be kept away from the opposite sex is going to host an event primarily designed to facilitate dancefloor grinding? It seems more like an awkward attempt to set up a controlled environment in which the girls could develop some social skills.
Not that I necessarily believe the excuse the school gave, but I don't think it's plainly ridiculous when taken in context.
|
On November 12 2010 03:30 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned I really appreciate your vague passive aggressive non-stance on this issue.
How is this a non-stance? He clearly is against promoting the idea of same-sex couples and is afraid of being persecuted (IE Banned) for his beliefs.
I wonder how many of you so called progressive types can see the blatant hypocrisy of screaming bigotry while at the same time stamping down on any opposition to your own view point.
|
I think this happens like every month now in the States. Amusingly, for some reason it's always the lesbian couples you hear about.
Also, you'd think an all-girls school would be more, shall we say, experienced in dealing with lesbian matters. I mean, the steamy stories I've heard from all-girls catholic schools...
|
I Support Girl love in any way possible. I think it has unsurpassed beauty and should never be sanctionized by narrow-minded people!
Also: more pics? O_o
|
On November 12 2010 03:39 Ympulse wrote:
I don't think this is bigotry in any way, shape, or form. Just high school kids kicking and screaming when forced to follow rules, instead of finding ways to sidestep and skirt them.
Also, if the school was as bigoted as everyone is making them out to be, the 'pre drinks' wouldn't have happened for fear of getting expelled before graduation for drinking underage.
How else do you describe an event that only permits hetero couples??
though this is understandable i guess, you seem to not know what bigoted means
|
''If we opened it up and said girls could bring another female they would all bring females; the policy is trying to create an event where boys are invited. We are a school that has an all-girls environment, and they are meant to invite guests, not partners.''
That's the thing I don't get. Is this a school dance/prom or something else?
|
On November 12 2010 03:40 Brent352 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:30 overt wrote:On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned I really appreciate your vague passive aggressive non-stance on this issue. How is this a non-stance? He clearly is against promoting the idea of same-sex couples and is afraid of being persecuted (IE Banned) for his beliefs. I wonder how many of you so called progressive types can see the blatant hypocrisy of screaming bigotry while at the same time stamping down on any opposition to your own view point.
Can we not start saying stuff like "you are intolerant of my intolerance" please?
|
On November 12 2010 03:40 Brent352 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:30 overt wrote:On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned I really appreciate your vague passive aggressive non-stance on this issue. How is this a non-stance? He clearly is against promoting the idea of same-sex couples and is afraid of being persecuted (IE Banned) for his beliefs. I wonder how many of you so called progressive types can see the blatant hypocrisy of screaming bigotry while at the same time stamping down on any opposition to your own view point.
He didn't take a stand on the issue, therefore he's not putting forth a stance. I'm cool with people thinking the school was justified or that homosexuality is morally wrong (though I'd vehemently disagree with them). However, I'm not cool with people who try to victimize themselves and claim they aren't going to share their opinions when they're basically already sharing their opinion in the most absurd way possible.
Imagine if I came into a thread about lynching or the holocaust being fake and said something like what he said. If you're going to take an unpopular stand on something then do it or don't post at all.
|
On November 12 2010 03:35 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:22 RiotSpectre wrote:It's bigotry, pure and simple. A similar thing happened here in the States (Mississipi, I think?) several months ago, a girl wanted to bring her girlfriend to the prom and the high school said no. When faced with the idea of a lawsuit, instead of letting the girl go the school called off the official prom in its entirity. Pretty disgusting behavior if you ask me. http://thefbomb.org/2010/03/lesbian-teen-banned-from-prom/^ The story You forgot the part where they secretly rescheduled the prom without telling her Austrailia's got its fair share of odd and dumb rules, but I never thought of it as Mississippi without all the in-family humping. Sad.
Once again blatant hypocrisy.
Apparently it's okay to imply that Mississippi is full of "in-family humpers" but if someone decides they don't like the idea of same-sex couples then that person must be persecuted and burned at the stake.
Just for the dim witted I will simplify it for you.
Racism towards Whites = good and "progressive"
Racism towards any other race or even just having traditional views = evil and "bigotry"
Pretty soon somebody will start talking about the Nazis and how this sort of evil bigotry could lead to another Holocaust.
|
On November 12 2010 03:45 McDonalds wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:40 Brent352 wrote:On November 12 2010 03:30 overt wrote:On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned I really appreciate your vague passive aggressive non-stance on this issue. How is this a non-stance? He clearly is against promoting the idea of same-sex couples and is afraid of being persecuted (IE Banned) for his beliefs. I wonder how many of you so called progressive types can see the blatant hypocrisy of screaming bigotry while at the same time stamping down on any opposition to your own view point. Can we not start saying stuff like "you are intolerant of my intolerance" please?
Why? Because it is true?
Hatred and bigotry towards those you perceive as "haters and bigots" is exactly the same thing no matter what your politically correct media/schooling has taught you.
|
On November 12 2010 03:48 Brent352 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:45 McDonalds wrote:On November 12 2010 03:40 Brent352 wrote:On November 12 2010 03:30 overt wrote:On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned I really appreciate your vague passive aggressive non-stance on this issue. How is this a non-stance? He clearly is against promoting the idea of same-sex couples and is afraid of being persecuted (IE Banned) for his beliefs. I wonder how many of you so called progressive types can see the blatant hypocrisy of screaming bigotry while at the same time stamping down on any opposition to your own view point. Can we not start saying stuff like "you are intolerant of my intolerance" please? Why? Because it is true? Hatred and bigotry towards those you perceive as "haters and bigots" is exactly the same thing no matter what your politically correct media/schooling has taught you.
Haha.
Ok guys, enjoy the thread.
|
On November 12 2010 03:46 Brent352 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:35 Hawk wrote:On November 12 2010 03:22 RiotSpectre wrote:It's bigotry, pure and simple. A similar thing happened here in the States (Mississipi, I think?) several months ago, a girl wanted to bring her girlfriend to the prom and the high school said no. When faced with the idea of a lawsuit, instead of letting the girl go the school called off the official prom in its entirity. Pretty disgusting behavior if you ask me. http://thefbomb.org/2010/03/lesbian-teen-banned-from-prom/^ The story You forgot the part where they secretly rescheduled the prom without telling her Austrailia's got its fair share of odd and dumb rules, but I never thought of it as Mississippi without all the in-family humping. Sad. Once again blatant hypocrisy. Apparently it's okay to imply that Mississippi is full of "in-family humpers" but if someone decides they don't like the idea of same-sex couples then that person must be persecuted and burned at the stake. Just for the dim witted I will simplify it for you. Racism towards Whites = good and "progressive" Racism towards any other race or even just having traditional views = evil and "bigotry" Pretty soon somebody will start talking about the Nazis and how this sort of evil bigotry could lead to another Holocaust.
What does race have to do with this at all? Mississippi has plenty of black folk. Unless you believe only whites are doing the "in humping"
|
Considering that it's an all-girls school they are probably just afraid that they're all going to turn into raging lesbians if they see how much fun she's having with her GF...
|
On November 12 2010 03:43 Vanimar wrote:
I Support Girl love in any way possible. I think it has unsurpassed beauty and should never be sanctionized by narrow-minded people!
Also: more pics? O_o
Sadly no, (ok there's one more) but there is a video on the link which I just checked out 
On a serious note, the video is pretty interesting as they briefly interview the girls, the principal of the school and a spokesperson for The Equal Opportunity Commission. It's only short, I suggest anyone interested to check it out. Link at the bottom of the OP.
|
Can we not start saying stuff like "you are intolerant of my intolerance" please?
But then they wouldn't be able to argue with you about it :[
If my hatred of close minded religiously brainwashed retards going around hating everyone different from them (aka people who don't get their life lessons from a crazy old dude in a robe with a stick) is bigotry then FUCK yes I am a bigot. At least my bigotry makes sense.
|
On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned
Yeah, fuck, I have the same problem. The other day I banned a girl from attending my school's dance because she brought a nigger along and got heat for it. In this and age you can't voice your opinions on how blacks are scum.
User was banned for this post.
|
On November 12 2010 03:53 Flying Duck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned + Show Spoiler +Yeah, fuck, I have the same problem. The other day I banned a girl from attending my school's dance because she brought a nigger along and got heat for it. In this and age you can't voice your opinions on how blacks are scum.
You should probably tone down your metaphors.
|
We seriously hear a story like this 2-3 times a year, same shit happens every time, the kid sues the school district every time, uproar happens every time.
It'll happen again next year
It sucks, its stupid that theres still civil injustice in America, but it will continue to happen....every single year =\
|
On November 12 2010 03:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
Oh my god, I originally misread it wrong and though it was an 11 year old dating a 15 year old.
I think the school's full of it. "You're not supposed to invite a partner, but a guest." Bullshit. That's what you do at dances.
Lol, I read it that way at first, too, and I was like "What the fuck."
But yeah, it's essentially the school being bigots, without wanting to seem like bigots, so they come up with various reasons why the two can't go together, but of course the reasons don't apply to other people. I highly doubt that there wasn't a single other fifteen year old there, and if there was, then they should be kicked out, too, according to the school's logic.
|
On November 12 2010 03:15 FabledIntegral wrote:
Oh my god, I originally misread it wrong and though it was an 11 year old dating a 15 year old.
I think the school's full of it. "You're not supposed to invite a partner, but a guest." Bullshit. That's what you do at dances.
i honestly read the same :S
On November 12 2010 03:53 Flying Duck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned Yeah, fuck, I have the same problem. The other day I banned a girl from attending my school's dance because she brought a nigger along and got heat for it. In this and age you can't voice your opinions on how blacks are scum.
You dont like this forum, do you?
|
@DamnCats, no real need to bring religion into this. There are plenty of Christians who are perfectly accepting of homosexuality.
@Flying Duck, you should probably avoid using slurs.
|
On November 12 2010 03:46 Brent352 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:35 Hawk wrote:On November 12 2010 03:22 RiotSpectre wrote:It's bigotry, pure and simple. A similar thing happened here in the States (Mississipi, I think?) several months ago, a girl wanted to bring her girlfriend to the prom and the high school said no. When faced with the idea of a lawsuit, instead of letting the girl go the school called off the official prom in its entirity. Pretty disgusting behavior if you ask me. http://thefbomb.org/2010/03/lesbian-teen-banned-from-prom/^ The story You forgot the part where they secretly rescheduled the prom without telling her Austrailia's got its fair share of odd and dumb rules, but I never thought of it as Mississippi without all the in-family humping. Sad. Once again blatant hypocrisy. Apparently it's okay to imply that Mississippi is full of "in-family humpers" but if someone decides they don't like the idea of same-sex couples then that person must be persecuted and burned at the stake. Just for the dim witted I will simplify it for you. Racism towards Whites = good and "progressive" Racism towards any other race or even just having traditional views = evil and "bigotry" Pretty soon somebody will start talking about the Nazis and how this sort of evil bigotry could lead to another Holocaust.
When I have the power to prevent inbred hicks from Mississipi from attending a dance that's supposedly open to all members of a student body, then it's the same thing.
|
This story makes me want to shutdown that school. They are clearly not under the right organization if they are running a girls only school and not being able to handle gay students. This seems to me as a very poor attempt to deal with the matter.
If it was a black male and they gave those same excuses, the issue would be more prominent. But in this case the difference between a lesbian girl and black male are not too different.
I hope something is done about this.
|
For some reason this reminds me of V for Vendetta. But sigh, this kind of story surfaces every year from some new place during homecoming time. Although disappointed I can't say I'm surprised :/
|
On November 12 2010 03:57 dudeman001 wrote:
For some reason this reminds me of V for Vendetta. But sigh, this kind of story surfaces every year from some new place during homecoming time. Although disappointed I can't say I'm surprised :/
You need to see more movies with lesbians.
|
I don't know why I even try.
As my last post (probably for the entire forum but at the very least in this thread) I will leave the definition of bigotry to see if some of you can just maybe see the hypocrisy.
Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
|
On November 12 2010 03:57 Brent352 wrote:I don't know why I even try. As my last post (probably for the entire forum but at the very least in this thread) I will leave the definition of bigotry to see if some of you can just maybe see the hypocrisy. Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
Can you use it in a sentence?
+ Show Spoiler +You're overreacting a little bit.
|
It's hilarious how the human race just jumps from marginalizing one minority to the next. And by hilarious I mean.. depressing.
|
On November 12 2010 03:46 Brent352 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:35 Hawk wrote:On November 12 2010 03:22 RiotSpectre wrote:It's bigotry, pure and simple. A similar thing happened here in the States (Mississipi, I think?) several months ago, a girl wanted to bring her girlfriend to the prom and the high school said no. When faced with the idea of a lawsuit, instead of letting the girl go the school called off the official prom in its entirity. Pretty disgusting behavior if you ask me. http://thefbomb.org/2010/03/lesbian-teen-banned-from-prom/^ The story You forgot the part where they secretly rescheduled the prom without telling her Austrailia's got its fair share of odd and dumb rules, but I never thought of it as Mississippi without all the in-family humping. Sad. Once again blatant hypocrisy. Apparently it's okay to imply that Mississippi is full of "in-family humpers" but if someone decides they don't like the idea of same-sex couples then that person must be persecuted and burned at the stake. Just for the dim witted I will simplify it for you. Racism towards Whites = good and "progressive" Racism towards any other race or even just having traditional views = evil and "bigotry" Pretty soon somebody will start talking about the Nazis and how this sort of evil bigotry could lead to another Holocaust.
Perhaps you are reading posts that I have not, but I haven't seen any such "racism towards whites" in this thread. Quite frankly, I haven't seen any mention of race. As towards your point, I highly doubt that those who believe racism/homophobia is evil would then state that reverse-racism is progressive. In fact I would say that is highly unlikely (I don't want to speak in absolute terms and say impossible). Quite frankly, anyone who dislikes intolerance probably will disprove of it regardless of whose expressing what opinion, whether it be from the majority or minority.
If you feel strongly that intolerance is a "morally-right" opinion (for lack of a better word), then express it as such. Use reasoned arguments to support it. Don't use vague terms like "traditional views," what the hell does that mean? Be specific. Don't hide behind fear or "intolerance of my intolerance" lol. State your opinion, and defend it, or then don't post.
|
This is bigotry obviously, but isn't it technically allowed if the school is private? Don't they have a right to format their own events to the rules they choose? I'm not asking to defend the school in some way because I think what they are doing is wrong, but can't they still not allow her to go with her same sex partner? I just don't have the knowledge on how private schools are operated.
Sucks to be her.  Hope senior year goes better for her.
|
I am stubbornly intolerant of creeds, beliefs, and opinions that are flat out retarded, based on little to no logic or reason, and usually (but not always!) come from a man in a robe waving a stick.
<Bigot :[
edit: waving a stick, you don't wear sticks.
|
Wow, even I'm impressed by how quickly this thread went south. I mean, it's a thread about lesbians, come on guys.
|
These kids are to young to no What love is let alone decide if they really are gay. I'm mean 15 year's old lmao CRY FOR ATTENTION ANYONE?
|
On November 12 2010 03:57 Brent352 wrote:I don't know why I even try. As my last post (probably for the entire forum but at the very least in this thread) I will leave the definition of bigotry to see if some of you can just maybe see the hypocrisy. Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry
I'm sorry, but, in your world everyone would be a bigot! Here's the difference between what you think and what rational people think. If I had a school I wouldn't ban people from prom for their sexual orientation. In your school you would ban people who are homosexuals.
I have a few definitions for you. Ignorance. Critical thinking. Empathy.
|
On November 12 2010 04:01 OPworgen wrote:
These kids are to young to no What love is let alone decide if they really are gay. I'm mean 15 year's old lmao CRY FOR ATTENTION ANYONE?
No....just no....
While I may agree that 15 is fairly young to "be in love," I doubt you can say its IMPOSSIBLE. There are stories of individuals marrying their childhood friends/lovers.
As to they are too young to know they are gay....thats just blatantly false. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle decision to be made when one is ready to make it. Rather it is an underlaying "characteristic" that may be realized at a later time. So they likely already "know that they are gay."
|
|
|
These lesbians are much more attractive than the ones from the secret prom story.
That said she should be able to take a girl to the dance. Forcing girls from an all girls school to dance with boys sounds like it would lead to a lot of hook ups and pregnancy. Why dont they organize group social events to get the girls and visiting boys to talk? These girls are likely sexually repressed and teenage boys would be all over that.
|
On November 12 2010 03:39 FishForThought wrote:
... it would be discrimination if they refuse to let her join the formal because of her sexual orientation but it is not discrimination to forbid her to bring guest of the same sex. The formal is hosted by the school, they have all rights to create rules and guidelines for the event. If the event specified that all guests must be males, then there is no discrimination involved.
People need to stop getting all defensive and insecure about these things; sooner or later people will cry sexist for not being able to get into an all female/male school because he or she is not that gender, or cry free speech violation for not being able to enter a restaurant nude.
Not in the US. They can't create those rules. Try replacing your word "Males" with "white." Can't discriminate based on the 14th amendment, which includes both race and sex.
|
On November 12 2010 03:55 n0xi3 wrote:
This story makes me want to shutdown that school. They are clearly not under the right organization if they are running a girls only school and not being able to handle gay students. This seems to me as a very poor attempt to deal with the matter.
If it was a black male and they gave those same excuses, the issue would be more prominent. But in this case the difference between a lesbian girl and black male are not too different.
I hope something is done about this.
They just don't cater to homosexuals. Why should homosexual get special treatment? Because they are in the minority? O.o
|
On November 12 2010 04:00 Alou wrote:This is bigotry obviously, but isn't it technically allowed if the school is private? Don't they have a right to format their own events to the rules they choose? I'm not asking to defend the school in some way because I think what they are doing is wrong, but can't they still not allow her to go with her same sex partner? I just don't have the knowledge on how private schools are operated. Sucks to be her. Hope senior year goes better for her.
It's a good question at the heart of this issue. Do I have a right to open a restaurant and hang a sign that says "No Gays" or any other group that I'm (hypothetically!) bigoted against? It's my right to decide who I want to let into my private business isn't it?
I think not, and I won't sugercoat my answer. Bigotry, or any ideology that actively seeks to restrain the freedoms and happiness of others without the merit of logical purpose or scientific rationale, must be eliminated in all forms. Your personal freedom to be a bigot stops when it begins to negatively affect other people in any way.
And the argument that I'm a bigot against bigoted people is just a circular bunch of nonsense.
|
On November 12 2010 04:10 FishForThought wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:55 n0xi3 wrote:
This story makes me want to shutdown that school. They are clearly not under the right organization if they are running a girls only school and not being able to handle gay students. This seems to me as a very poor attempt to deal with the matter.
If it was a black male and they gave those same excuses, the issue would be more prominent. But in this case the difference between a lesbian girl and black male are not too different.
I hope something is done about this. They just don't cater to homosexuals. Why should homosexual get special treatment? Because they are in the minority? O.o
My white segregationist school just doesn't cater to niggers. Why should niggers get special treatment? Because they are in the minority?
User was banned for this post
|
lol an all girl school , what do they expect?
|
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event.
|
This is ludicrous. "If they were allowed to bring females, then they all would." Uhh... No... At my Junior/Senior prom I could have brought a male as my date but I didn't. I brought a hot little blonde thing from school.
Sense. This school makes none.
|
On November 12 2010 04:13 Flying Duck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:10 FishForThought wrote:On November 12 2010 03:55 n0xi3 wrote:
This story makes me want to shutdown that school. They are clearly not under the right organization if they are running a girls only school and not being able to handle gay students. This seems to me as a very poor attempt to deal with the matter.
If it was a black male and they gave those same excuses, the issue would be more prominent. But in this case the difference between a lesbian girl and black male are not too different.
I hope something is done about this. They just don't cater to homosexuals. Why should homosexual get special treatment? Because they are in the minority? O.o My white segregationist school just doesn't cater to *******. Why should ********* get special treatment? Because they are in the minority?
Honestly, I think everyone understands your point. No one wants to see that word written though.
|
they shouldnt get special treatment, but they shouldnt get worse treament. Plus whoever said you cant know if ur gay at 15 i think you can.
|
On November 12 2010 04:13 Flying Duck wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:10 FishForThought wrote:On November 12 2010 03:55 n0xi3 wrote:
This story makes me want to shutdown that school. They are clearly not under the right organization if they are running a girls only school and not being able to handle gay students. This seems to me as a very poor attempt to deal with the matter.
If it was a black male and they gave those same excuses, the issue would be more prominent. But in this case the difference between a lesbian girl and black male are not too different.
I hope something is done about this. They just don't cater to homosexuals. Why should homosexual get special treatment? Because they are in the minority? O.o My white segregationist school just doesn't cater to niggers. Why should niggers get special treatment? Because they are in the minority?
Typically I would say this is ban worthy. But you make a point.
|
On November 12 2010 04:10 FishForThought wrote:
They just don't cater to homosexuals. Why should homosexual get special treatment? Because they are in the minority? O.o
Wait, how is it special treatment?
|
On November 12 2010 04:10 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:39 FishForThought wrote:
... it would be discrimination if they refuse to let her join the formal because of her sexual orientation but it is not discrimination to forbid her to bring guest of the same sex. The formal is hosted by the school, they have all rights to create rules and guidelines for the event. If the event specified that all guests must be males, then there is no discrimination involved.
People need to stop getting all defensive and insecure about these things; sooner or later people will cry sexist for not being able to get into an all female/male school because he or she is not that gender, or cry free speech violation for not being able to enter a restaurant nude. Not in the US. They can't create those rules. Try replacing your word "Males" with "white." Can't discriminate based on the 14th amendment, which includes both race and sex.
Which part of the 14th amendment states that?
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Equal_Protection_Clause
It only mention black and white equality but nothing about male/female equality unless I missed an entire section on it.
|
On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event.
I couldn't disagree more. Essentially what it sounds like you're saying is that the school is telling the girl, "wait, you might not be a lesbian, we've subjected you to an environment of only girls for so long you might have been misguided. You probably don't truly like other girls, and you should at least give being intimate with guys a shot." Bullshit, school shouldn't have any say whatsoever with who their students can be intimate with. Especially since plenty of people bring friends, not dates.
People who are anti-social probably just wouldn't even attend the dance.
|
On November 12 2010 04:10 FishForThought wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:55 n0xi3 wrote:
This story makes me want to shutdown that school. They are clearly not under the right organization if they are running a girls only school and not being able to handle gay students. This seems to me as a very poor attempt to deal with the matter.
If it was a black male and they gave those same excuses, the issue would be more prominent. But in this case the difference between a lesbian girl and black male are not too different.
I hope something is done about this. They just don't cater to homosexuals. Why should homosexual get special treatment? Because they are in the minority? O.o
No. This does not qualify as logic. Try again.
Fuck this school and fuck bigoted conservatives and arghfagldjfgakjhhha
|
On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event.
Seeeeeee, now this is how to make a rational argument!!! While I may disagree with your interpretation of the story, I'm incredibly happy that you found a way to rationalize in such a way that makes sense and isn't ignorant/troll-like.
TBH however, I'm unsure that you can come to the conclusion that the purpose of the dance was to actually familiarize the girls with the opposite gender...OR...if this was simply a scapegoat response the school used. It seems implausible that the motive was "familiarity" rather than "intimacy" based on any school dances that I remember (and I went to an all-guys school).
But thank you for being a rational person.
-PEACE
|
theyre both pretty hot
User was warned for this post
Edit: my bad, i was trying to be funny and posted before thinking
|
On November 12 2010 04:18 FishForThought wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 03:39 FishForThought wrote:
... it would be discrimination if they refuse to let her join the formal because of her sexual orientation but it is not discrimination to forbid her to bring guest of the same sex. The formal is hosted by the school, they have all rights to create rules and guidelines for the event. If the event specified that all guests must be males, then there is no discrimination involved.
People need to stop getting all defensive and insecure about these things; sooner or later people will cry sexist for not being able to get into an all female/male school because he or she is not that gender, or cry free speech violation for not being able to enter a restaurant nude. Not in the US. They can't create those rules. Try replacing your word "Males" with "white." Can't discriminate based on the 14th amendment, which includes both race and sex. Which part of the 14th amendment states that? According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Equal_Protection_ClauseIt only mention black and white equality but nothing about male/female equality unless I missed an entire section on it.
I'll make sure to look it up in a bit. This will be embarrassing if I've misunderstood the amendment for god knows how many years.
|
oh wtf i hate hearing things like this. we should just stop this kind of discrimination.
|
You are probably thinking of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
which basically prohibits discrimination based on sex or gender in schools which receive fed monies. Lots of states just have laws adding on to this that forbid discrimination of any kind, regardless of who is funding who
|
On November 12 2010 04:17 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:10 FishForThought wrote:
They just don't cater to homosexuals. Why should homosexual get special treatment? Because they are in the minority? O.o Wait, how is it special treatment?
The special treatment obviously refer to the school wanting all students to bring male guests but require to make an exception for anyone who have a different sexual orientation.
Although, didn't actually happen in the article but it is what some people on the forum wants or opted for.
|
On November 12 2010 04:18 FishForThought wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:10 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 03:39 FishForThought wrote:
... it would be discrimination if they refuse to let her join the formal because of her sexual orientation but it is not discrimination to forbid her to bring guest of the same sex. The formal is hosted by the school, they have all rights to create rules and guidelines for the event. If the event specified that all guests must be males, then there is no discrimination involved.
People need to stop getting all defensive and insecure about these things; sooner or later people will cry sexist for not being able to get into an all female/male school because he or she is not that gender, or cry free speech violation for not being able to enter a restaurant nude. Not in the US. They can't create those rules. Try replacing your word "Males" with "white." Can't discriminate based on the 14th amendment, which includes both race and sex. Which part of the 14th amendment states that? According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Equal_Protection_ClauseIt only mention black and white equality but nothing about male/female equality unless I missed an entire section on it.
The Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment to allow illegal immigrants to attend public high school.
The 14th amendment is written just like the rest of the constitution, vaguely. For example, take this part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That any person part has been taken as meaning that even non-citizens who are in the United States cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. They also must offer equal protection of the law. Based on how the court has read this section of the 14th amendment I can easily say that had this incident happened in America and had it gone to court the courts would have sided against the school.
I'm sure people are wondering why we haven't had something like this in America though and that's a more complicated issue. There are two main reasons though, for starters going to court is expensive (both emotionally and from a monetary standpoint). Second, local Judges are elected and it's very possible that a Judge in the lower courts would possibly side with a school instead of the individual and very implausible that an individual without appropriate money or stamina would try to appeal the ruling. You also have to remember that there are no real requirements for being a Judge, i.e., you don't even need a law degree.
This is an Australian school though, not an American one and I'm unfamiliar with Australian law. I would also like to point out that there are plenty of things in America that are likely unconstitutional but remain because either no one has challenged them or due to the vagueness of the Constitution that I was referring to earlier.
|
After looking it, Supreme Court decision in 1971 (Reed vs Reed) decided that Equal Protection Clause includes sex. Some sites make it sound like it only deals with sex concerning estates, while others apply it generally to anything.
|
Seems odd how that they attend an all girls school only, yet you can't invite your female partner to the dance? You must invite a male?
''The school kept saying because it is an all-girls school we want to make an event where they can meet boys in a social scenario''
Well christ, obviously boys don't have kooties and aren't all that bad in the first place, why do we have single gender schools only again?
"Ok girls, it's been 15 years, but we think you're finally ready to meet boys in a social situation! yay!"
I just don't understand.
|
On November 12 2010 04:30 FabledIntegral wrote:
After looking it, Supreme Court decision in 1971 (Reed vs Reed) decided that Equal Protection Clause includes sex. Some sites make it sound like it only deals with sex concerning estates, while others apply it generally to anything.
You were right the first time, under the 14th Amendment the State must offer equal protection of the law. Since schools in America are state-run a public school cannot, constitutionally, ban same-sex couples from prom.
|
On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event.
The subtext of a formal is always going to be sexual, and telling a lesbian girl that she has to bring a guy is very offensive. It communicates this idea: "You're not normal; just pretend to be normal for a night, ok?" It's a very hurtful thing to tell someone.
I understand what you're saying about it going against the purpose of the dance, and that was likely the school's problem - regardless of that, the school's denial of her partner is still offensive and wrong.
Honestly, single-sex education seems so silly to me in the first place. I really don't understand why people still continue such an old-fashioned idea -_-
|
Ray, the girls I knew who went to a girl's only private school had no problems with the opposite sex. I assure you. I knew quite a few of them too. :/
|
To me, this is similar to the girl being banned from cheerleading, which recently had a topic here at Teamliquid: much ruckus about a simple decision that might be unfortunate, but isn't really up for discussion.
First off, I have to point out that it's somewhat misleading to say that the couple were "banned" from the event. The 15-year old was never invited (and didn't fit the prerequisites for being an attendee) and the 16-year old was free to come - she just decided to sulk instead (not uncommon behaviour for such a young age, I'm sure).
I don't really care to insinuate what motivation the schoo might have for its actions. I think that because many decades have had a great focus on the protection of the individual and the rights of the individual, people have become more focused on themselves and less on the needs or expectations of their environment. If the school have a specific purpose with their event, it's fully within their right to carry out that purpose. Of course, it's unfortunate for the girl, but I'm sure she's fine; after all, if they're a couple, they should have plenty of chances to spend time together. The girl has to respect the decision of the school, which isn't really all that terrible. If she has to, she can make an issue of it, but the way things like these can blow up is quite silly sometimes.
More specifically about the decision, it makes good sense to me. A strictly same-sex environment cannot be very healthy, and I wouldn't be surprised if more girls turned lesbian by attending such schools either. I think it's sensible to insist that such an event has boys to help counter-balance the situation at the school. It's interesting that the parents put their girl in such environment while at the same time being very sensitive to the issues related to gender discrimation and seperation.
Edit: Reading the comments, I see that Flying Duck was banned for his comment. I'm quite convinced that he was making a sarcastic comment to the contrary of what he was banned for 
Double edit: Nevermind, I now read other comments of his :o
|
On November 12 2010 04:33 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event. The subtext of a formal is always going to be sexual, and telling a lesbian girl that she has to bring a guy is very offensive. It communicates this idea: "You're not normal; just pretend to be normal for a night, ok?" It's a very hurtful thing to tell someone. I understand what you're saying about it going against the purpose of the dance, and that was likely the school's problem - regardless of that, the school's denial of her partner is still offensive and wrong. Honestly, single-sex education seems so silly to me in the first place. I really don't understand why people still continue such an old-fashioned idea -_-
I think the better response is that girls (and boys!) will have to deal with homosexuals in the workplace, etc., too. Shouldn't they be given an opportunity to socialize with them? BAM! Next dance is official all-Lesbian!
|
So that IS what's going on in all-girl schools! Ah the pillow fights, i knew it! :D
|
Single-gender schools are sexist and idiotic, and the excuses most commonly made for them ("We want a learning environment in which women aren't intimidated!") are pathetic.
That said, if you're going to have single-gender schools, it makes sense to have social events in which the students are forced to interact with peers of the opposite gender. That way the bizarre isolation from real life that you've imposed on them leaves less of a mark.
|
On November 12 2010 04:50 GeorgeForeman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:33 matjlav wrote:On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event. The subtext of a formal is always going to be sexual, and telling a lesbian girl that she has to bring a guy is very offensive. It communicates this idea: "You're not normal; just pretend to be normal for a night, ok?" It's a very hurtful thing to tell someone. I understand what you're saying about it going against the purpose of the dance, and that was likely the school's problem - regardless of that, the school's denial of her partner is still offensive and wrong. Honestly, single-sex education seems so silly to me in the first place. I really don't understand why people still continue such an old-fashioned idea -_- I think the better response is that girls (and boys!) will have to deal with homosexuals in the workplace, etc., too. Shouldn't they be given an opportunity to socialize with them? BAM! Next dance is official all-Lesbian!
roflroflrofl
5 star post
|
It's a private school. They can do whatever they want, with the only consequences being lost business due to potential customers thinking that the school is an ass. Plain and simple.
|
On November 12 2010 04:30 FabledIntegral wrote:
After looking it, Supreme Court decision in 1971 (Reed vs Reed) decided that Equal Protection Clause includes sex. Some sites make it sound like it only deals with sex concerning estates, while others apply it generally to anything.
The real question is whether someone can make an all male/female private event, or specify that only male guests can come.
If it is a public event or a government funded institute, then it would be discriminatory to enforce a male/female only event but the fact that this is a private school composed of only females, then I believe they are in power to specify the sex of the guest that they are allow to bring.
|
On November 12 2010 04:33 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event. The subtext of a formal is always going to be sexual, and telling a lesbian girl that she has to bring a guy is very offensive. It communicates this idea: "You're not normal; just pretend to be normal for a night, ok?" It's a very hurtful thing to tell someone.
It's only hurtful because, frankly, it's true. And also, the subtext is socialization, not sex. God forbid those raging hormones be controlled in a semi-sterile enviroment so that the socially-inept members of this private school have a chance to be educated first-hand in intersex socialization. (Which again I will point out, is not 'AMG HOW GET LAID' in the real world.)
I understand what you're saying about it going against the purpose of the dance, and that was likely the school's problem - regardless of that, the school's denial of her partner is still offensive and wrong.
Did you miss the part where it was also stated that the 15 year-old was below the age minimum as well?
Honestly, single-sex education seems so silly to me in the first place. I really don't understand why people still continue such an old-fashioned idea -_-
Because stupid people are allowed to exist.
|
On November 12 2010 04:27 FishForThought wrote:
The special treatment obviously refer to the school wanting all students to bring male guests but require to make an exception for anyone who have a different sexual orientation.
Although, didn't actually happen in the article but it is what some people on the forum wants or opted for.
Ah okay, I was a little confused there reading the article and then your post when no actual special treatment occurred. Honestly I don't think we have enough information from just this article to decide if that would be special treatment or not. The school stated they wanted the girls to bring out-of-school male guests, was this like, one of the rules? Like, if you wanted to buy a ticket to enter it said right on the ticket you must bring a boy?
On November 12 2010 04:52 Severedevil wrote:
Single-gender schools are sexist and idiotic, and the excuses most commonly made for them ("We want a learning environment in which women aren't intimidated!") are pathetic.
That said, if you're going to have single-gender schools, it makes sense to have social events in which the students are forced to interact with peers of the opposite gender. That way the bizarre isolation from real life that you've imposed on them leaves less of a mark.
I want to agree with you bro, but if it turns out these all-girls schools are secret lesbian factories I'm afraid I'm going to have to change my mind very quickly.
|
On November 12 2010 04:57 FishForThought wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:30 FabledIntegral wrote:
After looking it, Supreme Court decision in 1971 (Reed vs Reed) decided that Equal Protection Clause includes sex. Some sites make it sound like it only deals with sex concerning estates, while others apply it generally to anything. The real question is whether someone can make an all male/female private event, or specify that only male guests can come. If it is a public event or a government funded institute, then it would be discriminatory to enforce a male/female only event but the fact that this is a private school composed of only females, then I believe they are in power to specify the sex of the guest that they are allow to bring.
True true. If it is indeed a private event, which I should have looked into before merely glancing over the article, then I would say it's within the rights of the school. If the parents don't like the school's decision, stop sending your child to that school.
Although at the same time I only agree with that statement to an extent. Just as a private business cannot turn away customers for gender/sexual orientation/race reasons, even though they are private, should a private school be able to do such?
|
Public schools = garbage, no money, little incentive to learn and a terrible overall environment..
Private schools = indoctrinated education where truth is not forced by law, fairness is not required by law, prices are insane
Home school = no social interactions
You are basically screwed until university..
Ugh, I hate the education system, but as someone said, this is a private school and they can be assholes if they like. ;/
|
On November 12 2010 05:00 Ympulse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:33 matjlav wrote:On November 12 2010 04:15 Chairman Ray wrote:
I actually do agree with the school's decision, but I don't think they carried it out in the right way.
The purpose of this formal is primarily focused towards intimacy or sexuality - it's to familiarize students in an all-girls school with people of the opposite gender. One very important social aspect students of same sex schools lack is interaction with the other gender. Without this social aspect, they don't get very far in life due to them being less comfortable around the other gender. This hinders them from doing any job that requires social interaction, which is most jobs. One of the primary reasons why parents send their children to same sex schools is so that they don't engage in intimacy. Therefore the purpose of this formal was not to get students to engage in intimacy, but to familiarize the students with the opposite gender.
People mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that not allowing same sex couples to participate in the formal meant that they were discriminating against homosexuals. Society has been shifted so anti-homophobia and anti-racism that any suggestion of someone's race or sexual orientation is seen as discrimination. I can say something like "Steve is that black guy over there" and then people will call me racist. These girls will have a difficult time integrating themselves into society after they graduate, and it's all because their parents could not see that a formal is more than just a sexual event. The subtext of a formal is always going to be sexual, and telling a lesbian girl that she has to bring a guy is very offensive. It communicates this idea: "You're not normal; just pretend to be normal for a night, ok?" It's a very hurtful thing to tell someone. It's only hurtful because, frankly, it's true. And also, the subtext is socialization, not sex. God forbid those raging hormones be controlled in a semi-sterile enviroment so that the socially-inept members of this private school have a chance to be educated first-hand in intersex socialization. (Which again I will point out, is not 'AMG HOW GET LAID' in the real world.)
Do you really think that none of the straight girls in the school were seeing this as a sexual event? Again, I understand the argument that the school's intended purpose of the event is socialization. It's just that going out of your way to make homosexual kids feel excluded is never a good solution to any problem. And it's certainly more of a problem than "oh this girl may not get the full experience of the intended purpose of this event."
Considering she didn't even go in the end as a result of the incident, I would say that she ended up even worse off as far as intersex socialization goes than she would have ended up if she had just gone with her girlfriend, wouldn't you?
On November 12 2010 05:00 Ympulse wrote:Show nested quote +
I understand what you're saying about it going against the purpose of the dance, and that was likely the school's problem - regardless of that, the school's denial of her partner is still offensive and wrong.
Did you miss the part where it was also stated that the 15 year-old was below the age minimum as well?
That was a ridiculously obvious attempt at dodging the point by the school.
|
It's an all girl's school, are they surprised this would happen?
|
There was a same-sex couple at my graduation prom from high school. There was gossip, but no one really cared.
|
Well its good to read that at least the students at the school, as well as the girls parents were accepting. Small steps i guess..
|
Is there really no law to somehow punish the teachers that did this? What supski with that?
|
|
|
Everything else aside, I don't understand why the school even gives a shit about the girl and her sexual preferences. "Just let her go, who even cares?" That should be their attitude. Why would they go out of their way to prohibit her from going when it's so much easier to just let it fly? They'd have to be pretty prejudiced I'd say.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
Easiest answer to this is if the fellow students would boycot the formal.
|
Awww, so cute
|
|
|
On November 12 2010 05:45 Panoptic wrote:
Everything else aside, I don't understand why the school even gives a shit about the girl and her sexual preferences. "Just let her go, who even cares?" That should be their attitude. Why would they go out of their way to prohibit her from going when it's so much easier to just let it fly? They'd have to be pretty prejudiced I'd say.
Because lesbianism can spread like magic, and if left unchecked, everyone will eventually turn into lesbians, even guys!
Please excuse me, I must tend to my witch bonfire and butter churning.
+ Show Spoiler +shouldn't be necessary, but the above is in fact satire
|
On November 12 2010 04:06 Tempest186 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:01 OPworgen wrote:
These kids are to young to no What love is let alone decide if they really are gay. I'm mean 15 year's old lmao CRY FOR ATTENTION ANYONE? No....just no.... While I may agree that 15 is fairly young to "be in love," I doubt you can say its IMPOSSIBLE. There are stories of individuals marrying their childhood friends/lovers. As to they are too young to know they are gay....thats just blatantly false. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle decision to be made when one is ready to make it. Rather it is an underlaying "characteristic" that may be realized at a later time. So they likely already "know that they are gay."
Within social sciences, the area where human behaviour is studied, what you describe would be called a social construct. All the things that are connect to gay relationships arises from and is given meaning by the social environment. While a great deal of sexual attraction might be instinctual (or "underlying" as you say), defining yourself as homosexual is a way of trying to negotiate your identity with other people. Describing the behaviour associated with homosexuals as something inherent is simply a result of our society making sense of this behaviour in a specific context. Depending on the context, it could be considered a decease or simply a result of the environment.
An interesting example to consider here is paedophiles. On some societies, it has been completely normal and acceptable. In other societies it has been treated as a decease that people can rid themselves of. The reaction towards it has completely depended on circumstances and the social context. Paedophilia becomes problematic when you focus heavily the rights and mental well-being of individuals becuase it leads to violations that go against this focus. If you have a very authoritan society, where the say of the older "wise" patrons is given the most importance, consequences of such actions will be given less emphasis. Because western societies are very focused on homosexuality being a based human rights that are an intrinsic part of our existance, we are much more likely to see homosexuality as something inherant rather than just one of many instincts or socially affected behaviours.
Whereas people might be against paedophilia because it goes against the current sanctity of the individual, others might be opposed to the promotion of homosexuality because it unbalances many of our traditional patterns of behaviour and might be unhealthy to the social coherence of society in a way that people mostly are just instinctually aware of. It's all about a constant negotiation of values and norms in society. I think this gives an insight into the reactions that we see from people to the incident in this topic while it may at the same time give an explanation for the actions of the other prom incident mentioned in this topic, where homophobia seems more evident.
|
In response to a lot of the posts on page 5, just because it's a private school doesn't mean it can do whatever the fuck it wants to. Private businesses can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, why do people think private schools for some unknown reason can?
|
On November 12 2010 05:45 Panoptic wrote:
Everything else aside, I don't understand why the school even gives a shit about the girl and her sexual preferences. "Just let her go, who even cares?" That should be their attitude. Why would they go out of their way to prohibit her from going when it's so much easier to just let it fly? They'd have to be pretty prejudiced I'd say.
They are letting her go, just not letting her bring a female guest.
Obviously, she didn't bring her partner to the formal and got barred from entering at the door. More likely scenario was:
1. School hosting a male-female formal party which specifically indicated to bring a male guest.
2. The girl obviously asked if she could bring her female partner, and the school said no.
3. Girl did her pre-party drinking thing, and passed on the actual formal.
4. Parents saw her stay at home and screamed discrimination.
She definitely didn't get banned for her sexual orientation, or get banned at all for that matter.
|
I highly doubt it was stated that she had to bring a male guest lol. I've never heard of a school telling you, "YOU MUST BRING A DATE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX," because honestly they probably would get in trouble for that.
More likely scenario is that they told her she couldn't bring her girlfriend and then the school made up some bullshit about how the dance was intended to bring males in for the girls to meet.
|
Well as sorry as I feel for these girls, its really the schools right to do this.
I recommend watching the South Park episode where Big Gay Al gets kicked out of the Scouts.
|
On November 12 2010 06:09 overt wrote:
I highly doubt it was stated that she had to bring a male guest lol. I've never heard of a school telling you, "YOU MUST BRING A DATE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX," because honestly they probably would get in trouble for that.
More likely scenario is that they told her she couldn't bring her girlfriend and then the school made up some bullshit about how the dance was intended to bring males in for the girls to meet.
they won't be overt about it, but they'll do it.
|
That's sad.
|
On November 12 2010 04:01 OPworgen wrote:
These kids are to young to no What love is let alone decide if they really are gay. I'm mean 15 year's old lmao CRY FOR ATTENTION ANYONE?
Are you just playing ignorant? Were you unsure of your sexuality before 15? Pretty sure I was interested in girls since Kindergarden and had the usual experience of regularly even doing sexual acts at that age (although I had no idea what I was doing, and it was much more curiosity oriented than anything). Literally girl crazy ever since I can remember. Sorry you weren't able to know.
I've had countless gay friends. All except one were positive they were gay by freshman year of high school. Thanks for your idiocy and quick jumping to the classic "cry for attention" apathetic argument.
|
On November 12 2010 06:01 overt wrote:
In response to a lot of the posts on page 5, just because it's a private school doesn't mean it can do whatever the fuck it wants to. Private businesses can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, why do people think private schools for some unknown reason can?
This comparison is beyond flawed. First of all, the school is not discriminating against the girls, merely enforcing a rule for a dance that they are hosting in which they ask that the students only bring dates that are males. As far as I can tell from the article, the school had no problem with the girls actually attending the school.
I fully support equal rights for everyone. In this case, the school has a certain methodology and it wasn't really a good fit for the girls, and the girls have since decided to change schools. But everyone posting here is being too quick to display outrage against the school. You can't just crucify people for enforcing a conservative rule that you may or may not disagree with. There are far too many assumptions being made about the school.
|
On November 12 2010 06:20 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 04:01 OPworgen wrote:
These kids are to young to no What love is let alone decide if they really are gay. I'm mean 15 year's old lmao CRY FOR ATTENTION ANYONE? Are you just playing ignorant? Were you unsure of your sexuality before 15? Pretty sure I was interested in girls since Kindergarden and had the usual experience of regularly even doing sexual acts at that age (although I had no idea what I was doing, and it was much more curiosity oriented than anything). Literally girl crazy ever since I can remember. Sorry you weren't able to know. I've had countless gay friends. All except one were positive they were gay by freshman year of high school. Thanks for your idiocy and quick jumping to the classic "cry for attention" apathetic argument.
Hold on a second. .. Crazy for girls since Kindergarden? That doesn't sound familiar. I clearly remember this "girls ..meh" phase when me and my friends were 8 - 10. And before that you just dont make a difference between girls and boys.
|
On November 12 2010 06:37 Kleinmuuhg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 04:01 OPworgen wrote:
These kids are to young to no What love is let alone decide if they really are gay. I'm mean 15 year's old lmao CRY FOR ATTENTION ANYONE? Are you just playing ignorant? Were you unsure of your sexuality before 15? Pretty sure I was interested in girls since Kindergarden and had the usual experience of regularly even doing sexual acts at that age (although I had no idea what I was doing, and it was much more curiosity oriented than anything). Literally girl crazy ever since I can remember. Sorry you weren't able to know. I've had countless gay friends. All except one were positive they were gay by freshman year of high school. Thanks for your idiocy and quick jumping to the classic "cry for attention" apathetic argument. Hold on a second. .. Crazy for girls since Kindergarden? That doesn't sound familiar. I clearly remember this "girls ..meh" phase when me and my friends were 8 - 10. And before that you just dont make a difference between girls and boys.
Yeah, I remember telling my mother that girls were creepy around the age of 12-13. Once we started having school parties with alcohol around the ages 14-16, girls became increasingly important. Of course, kids nowadays live in a more sexualized soceity, so I wouldn't find it strange if they develop a sexual interest in girls that early. I see young girls and boys in Denmark socalizing much more that my generation, with the sexes being less seperated in this sense. I still haven't figured out whether it's due to what I would call a positive development towards more open individuals and a less stigmatized society or whether it's simply a sexualization that saturates society to the point of fundamentally changing social behavioral patterns, even those of kids in the ages 11-16.
|
So many of you are taking the school's actions out of context.
1) The school is an ALL GIRLS school.
2) Girls at that age (who don't socialize with males on a regular basis) would often not be willing to bring a male if given the choice.
3) The school is trying to create a forum for this to happen.
As a homosexual who found it a struggle to meet/talk to a guy that i was attracted to, i can sympathize with every non-lesbian in that all-girls school.
If those lesbians want to be lesbians, they can do so every day of the fucking week. When do the other girls have a chance to meet boys?
|
On November 12 2010 06:46 Mora wrote:
So many of you are taking the school's actions out of context.
1) The school is an ALL GIRLS school.
2) Girls at that age (who don't socialize with males on a regular basis) would often not be willing to bring a male if given the choice.
3) The school is trying to create a forum for this to happen.
As a homosexual who found it a struggle to meet/talk to a guy that i was attracted to, i can sympathize with every non-lesbian in that all-girls school.
If those lesbians want to be lesbians, they can do so every day of the fucking week. When do the other girls have a chance to meet boys?
Good point.
|
On November 12 2010 06:46 Mora wrote:
So many of you are taking the school's actions out of context.
1) The school is an ALL GIRLS school.
2) Girls at that age (who don't socialize with males on a regular basis) would often not be willing to bring a male if given the choice.
3) The school is trying to create a forum for this to happen.
As a homosexual who found it a struggle to meet/talk to a guy that i was attracted to, i can sympathize with every non-lesbian in that all-girls school.
If those lesbians want to be lesbians, they can do so every day of the fucking week. When do the other girls have a chance to meet boys?
I'm sure that one girl bringing her lesbian girlfriend is really going to make it hard on all of the other girls who simply want to meet boys.
The school was obviously conservative and obviously didn't approve of her having a lesbian partner. If their intentions were as noble as they're trying to make it seem why the hell would they care if one girl out of their entire student body brought her girlfriend rather than a boy? Are they going to ban every girl who doesn't bring a boy to the dance as well?
Also, if the girls at that school don't have a chance to meet boys then how are they going to invite boys to this formal?
|
On November 12 2010 06:37 Kleinmuuhg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 04:01 OPworgen wrote:
These kids are to young to no What love is let alone decide if they really are gay. I'm mean 15 year's old lmao CRY FOR ATTENTION ANYONE? Are you just playing ignorant? Were you unsure of your sexuality before 15? Pretty sure I was interested in girls since Kindergarden and had the usual experience of regularly even doing sexual acts at that age (although I had no idea what I was doing, and it was much more curiosity oriented than anything). Literally girl crazy ever since I can remember. Sorry you weren't able to know. I've had countless gay friends. All except one were positive they were gay by freshman year of high school. Thanks for your idiocy and quick jumping to the classic "cry for attention" apathetic argument. Hold on a second. .. Crazy for girls since Kindergarden? That doesn't sound familiar. I clearly remember this "girls ..meh" phase when me and my friends were 8 - 10. And before that you just dont make a difference between girls and boys.
I've always been majorly attracted to girls. Back in Kindergarden I remember when watching cartoons that had cute girls wanting to play "kissy games" I thought it would be awesome if they tried to play me with. I also got to third base repeatedly in Kindergarden, and kissed at least 5 different girls by the time of 3rd grade.
What's sad is that following all this I had a 100% dry spell until my junior year of high school, where I had my first "legitimate" kiss.
|
On November 12 2010 06:46 Mora wrote:
So many of you are taking the school's actions out of context.
1) The school is an ALL GIRLS school.
2) Girls at that age (who don't socialize with males on a regular basis) would often not be willing to bring a male if given the choice.
3) The school is trying to create a forum for this to happen.
As a homosexual who found it a struggle to meet/talk to a guy that i was attracted to, i can sympathize with every non-lesbian in that all-girls school.
If those lesbians want to be lesbians, they can do so every day of the fucking week. When do the other girls have a chance to meet boys?
How do these two girls going to the formal prohibit the heterosexual girls from meeting anyone else?
|
On November 12 2010 06:46 Mora wrote:
So many of you are taking the school's actions out of context.
1) The school is an ALL GIRLS school.
2) Girls at that age (who don't socialize with males on a regular basis) would often not be willing to bring a male if given the choice.
3) The school is trying to create a forum for this to happen.
As a homosexual who found it a struggle to meet/talk to a guy that i was attracted to, i can sympathize with every non-lesbian in that all-girls school.
If those lesbians want to be lesbians, they can do so every day of the fucking week. When do the other girls have a chance to meet boys?
And the presence of a lesbian couple at the dance will somehow disrupt the entire dynamic or something?
|
On November 12 2010 06:52 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:37 Kleinmuuhg wrote:On November 12 2010 06:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 04:01 OPworgen wrote:
These kids are to young to no What love is let alone decide if they really are gay. I'm mean 15 year's old lmao CRY FOR ATTENTION ANYONE? Are you just playing ignorant? Were you unsure of your sexuality before 15? Pretty sure I was interested in girls since Kindergarden and had the usual experience of regularly even doing sexual acts at that age (although I had no idea what I was doing, and it was much more curiosity oriented than anything). Literally girl crazy ever since I can remember. Sorry you weren't able to know. I've had countless gay friends. All except one were positive they were gay by freshman year of high school. Thanks for your idiocy and quick jumping to the classic "cry for attention" apathetic argument. Hold on a second. .. Crazy for girls since Kindergarden? That doesn't sound familiar. I clearly remember this "girls ..meh" phase when me and my friends were 8 - 10. And before that you just dont make a difference between girls and boys. I've always been majorly attracted to girls. Back in Kindergarden I remember when watching cartoons that had cute girls wanting to play "kissy games" I thought it would be awesome if they tried to play me with. I also got to third base repeatedly in Kindergarden, and kissed at least 5 different girls by the time of 3rd grade. What's sad is that following all this I had a 100% dry spell until my junior year of high school, where I had my first "legitimate" kiss.
And obviously people don't realize that in most third world countries many children begin having sex or engage in sexual activity as young or 9-11. Sure, there are people who think the opposite sex is icky at that age, like myself. But my brother has been interested in girls since he was 7.
|
Hannah Williams, left, and her girlfriend, Savannah Supski,
hannah and savannah
...
"Ivanhoe Girls' Grammar School in Melbourne" ? this is not a public school or what?
Mr Williams said the experience had forced his daughter to move to a ''more accepting'' government school."
private?
AUS?
All very interesting but ionno much about Australian law
In the US if it's private you can discriminate, it wont make you very popular but you can it's how we have religious schools etc.
|
On November 12 2010 06:53 ProTech_MediC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:46 Mora wrote:
So many of you are taking the school's actions out of context.
1) The school is an ALL GIRLS school.
2) Girls at that age (who don't socialize with males on a regular basis) would often not be willing to bring a male if given the choice.
3) The school is trying to create a forum for this to happen.
As a homosexual who found it a struggle to meet/talk to a guy that i was attracted to, i can sympathize with every non-lesbian in that all-girls school.
If those lesbians want to be lesbians, they can do so every day of the fucking week. When do the other girls have a chance to meet boys? How do these two girls going to the formal prohibit the heterosexual girls from meeting anyone else?
....
cause 16 year old heterosexual girls who have never socialized with boys are incredibly afraid to do so?
The whole point of getting these girls to invite a boy is that they are forced to then socialize/entertain their guest.
What do you picture this dance looking like?
I remember in junior-high, when everyone except for the few bold would sit on the sidelines and watch everyone else (usually older kids) dance. All the girls would stand with the girls, all the boys would stand with the boys. Occasionally a guy would be brave enough to walk over and ask a girl to dance; the girls would giggle and gossip, and the guys would sit envious trying to work up the courage to do the same.
Now picture that same dance except that instead of approaching a random girl at the dance, you brought a girl from a different school. Would you abandon her and still sit with all your chums? No. You would be forced to sit/chat with her because you brought a guest.
And that's what this school was trying to facilitate. If girls are allowed to bring girls, why would they bring boys? Except for a bold few (similar to the co-ed school), the majority of the girls would not have guests of the opposite sex.
|
Australia326 Posts
I don't see what the big deal is about.
I'm from Australia so I'm not sure how closely 'prom' and school dances (which have been brought up in this thread) or what we call - 'formals' are linked, but this would happen in every school.
It's not a matter of discrimination, I don't think. I went to a private boys school (I won't specify), and we had a number of gays in our grade, and they had no problem with it at all, most just brought a close female friend and enjoyed the night anyway.
You've got to understand that it's a school function, and they set the rules on what is appropriate and what is not. If one really feels hard done by it, i think the girls in this story did the right thing to move schools.
Could have done without all the hoopla though. People are trying to extrapolate this incident and generalise, it's quite silly.
|
god i wish i was sent to an all-boys school.
|
On November 12 2010 06:57 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:52 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 06:37 Kleinmuuhg wrote:On November 12 2010 06:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 04:01 OPworgen wrote:
These kids are to young to no What love is let alone decide if they really are gay. I'm mean 15 year's old lmao CRY FOR ATTENTION ANYONE? Are you just playing ignorant? Were you unsure of your sexuality before 15? Pretty sure I was interested in girls since Kindergarden and had the usual experience of regularly even doing sexual acts at that age (although I had no idea what I was doing, and it was much more curiosity oriented than anything). Literally girl crazy ever since I can remember. Sorry you weren't able to know. I've had countless gay friends. All except one were positive they were gay by freshman year of high school. Thanks for your idiocy and quick jumping to the classic "cry for attention" apathetic argument. Hold on a second. .. Crazy for girls since Kindergarden? That doesn't sound familiar. I clearly remember this "girls ..meh" phase when me and my friends were 8 - 10. And before that you just dont make a difference between girls and boys. I've always been majorly attracted to girls. Back in Kindergarden I remember when watching cartoons that had cute girls wanting to play "kissy games" I thought it would be awesome if they tried to play me with. I also got to third base repeatedly in Kindergarden, and kissed at least 5 different girls by the time of 3rd grade. What's sad is that following all this I had a 100% dry spell until my junior year of high school, where I had my first "legitimate" kiss. And obviously people don't realize that in most third world countries many children begin having sex or engage in sexual activity as young or 9-11. Sure, there are people who think the opposite sex is icky at that age, like myself. But my brother has been interested in girls since he was 7.
Very misleading comment. Kids in those countries are not having consensual sex at those ages. They are having sex for the benefit of their much older (male) partner (husband) or they are being taken advantage of by older people.
|
What's upsetting for me is the school's reasoning behind the rule. You're gonna look like an idiot one way or the other telling someone they basically cannot be gay within a certain 4 walls. And I expect this of racists, bigots, and other socially immature pockets of life, but school staff?
I would love to re-enact how that board meeting went down when instituting this rule.
Boss guy "So we got a few options around this whole prom thing. We can either tell the girls at an all girls school to find their own date at around the age of 16. That way they won't do anything hasty."
Boss's yes Man "Yes Boss, that will lead to nothing but good decisions."
Boss guy "Or we could let the girls bring who ever they're comfortable with. Which obviously spells trouble. because if you let girls get comfortable they're trading sex for crack-cocaine before you can blink."
Boss's Yes Man "Yes Boss, crack-cocaine is a very logical step from comfort."
Boss guy "Well, then it's decided."
Boss's Yes Man "Yes boss, right boss, what about same sex couples?"
Boss guy "At this age? I don't hate gays or anything, I just find them extremely repulsive. It's like they think they're normal humans or something. We can't have that for our school, so no girls bringing girls or guys bringing guys. Girls have to bring a MAN or come ALONE."
Boss's Yes Man "Yes Boss, this will certainly improve the quality of decisions made. Because showing up alone to prom at an all girls school among your peers isn't at all socially scarring. They'll thank us when their gay friends die of crack-cocaine."
Boss Man "One day, Henry-Donald, even though both of your first names are bad, you're a star among ants; one day... you'll be in this chair."
-Fin
Lol @ the guy who thought he'd get banned for sharing his opinion, and rather, he was banned because he did not. And the stress candle that burned down the house says in the cheesy, Mortal Kombat -Whoopsie!- tone, "IRONY!
Who goes to a forum to say they can't share their opinion? 
|
Doesn't matter.
There are FAR bigger injustices in the world than 2 kids not being able to dance a lil.
|
On November 12 2010 07:18 .risingdragoon wrote:
Doesn't matter.
There are FAR bigger injustices in the world than 2 kids not being able to dance a lil.
This is the worst fucking logic I've ever heard.
By the same logic, any injustice except for the biggest injustice also doesn't matter.
|
On November 12 2010 07:04 Mora wrote:
And that's what this school was trying to facilitate. If girls are allowed to bring girls, why would they bring boys?
Because the social context of a dance is inherently sexual. Girls aren't going to bring girls as their "lesbian" date.
On November 12 2010 07:04 Mora wrote:
Except for a bold few (similar to the co-ed school), the majority of the girls would not have guests of the opposite sex.
If the girls are as uncomfortable with the thought of bringing boys as you think, then they wouldn't bring boys at all, anyway.
|
On November 12 2010 06:46 Mora wrote:
So many of you are taking the school's actions out of context.
1) The school is an ALL GIRLS school.
2) Girls at that age (who don't socialize with males on a regular basis) would often not be willing to bring a male if given the choice.
3) The school is trying to create a forum for this to happen.
As a homosexual who found it a struggle to meet/talk to a guy that i was attracted to, i can sympathize with every non-lesbian in that all-girls school.
If those lesbians want to be lesbians, they can do so every day of the fucking week. When do the other girls have a chance to meet boys?
Oh how naive you are They most likely have no problems meeting boys, you think that all those unwanted pregnancies in the past when the single-sex schools were norm were immaculate conceptions ?
|
On November 12 2010 07:10 StarBrift wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:57 overt wrote:On November 12 2010 06:52 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 06:37 Kleinmuuhg wrote:On November 12 2010 06:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 04:01 OPworgen wrote:
These kids are to young to no What love is let alone decide if they really are gay. I'm mean 15 year's old lmao CRY FOR ATTENTION ANYONE? Are you just playing ignorant? Were you unsure of your sexuality before 15? Pretty sure I was interested in girls since Kindergarden and had the usual experience of regularly even doing sexual acts at that age (although I had no idea what I was doing, and it was much more curiosity oriented than anything). Literally girl crazy ever since I can remember. Sorry you weren't able to know. I've had countless gay friends. All except one were positive they were gay by freshman year of high school. Thanks for your idiocy and quick jumping to the classic "cry for attention" apathetic argument. Hold on a second. .. Crazy for girls since Kindergarden? That doesn't sound familiar. I clearly remember this "girls ..meh" phase when me and my friends were 8 - 10. And before that you just dont make a difference between girls and boys. I've always been majorly attracted to girls. Back in Kindergarden I remember when watching cartoons that had cute girls wanting to play "kissy games" I thought it would be awesome if they tried to play me with. I also got to third base repeatedly in Kindergarden, and kissed at least 5 different girls by the time of 3rd grade. What's sad is that following all this I had a 100% dry spell until my junior year of high school, where I had my first "legitimate" kiss. And obviously people don't realize that in most third world countries many children begin having sex or engage in sexual activity as young or 9-11. Sure, there are people who think the opposite sex is icky at that age, like myself. But my brother has been interested in girls since he was 7. Very misleading comment. Kids in those countries are not having consensual sex at those ages. They are having sex for the benefit of their much older (male) partner (husband) or they are being taken advantage of by older people.
Yes, that's true, but boys are also having sex at that age. People begin to develop their sexuality at increasingly younger ages. Even puberty is happening at younger ages. I've been to third world countries and I've talked to girls who have been taken advantage of in the way that you speak, it happens a lot and it's heart breaking but even some of the boys I talked to were having sex or experimenting at the age of ten, eleven, or twelve.
|
I get a little angry every time I read an article like this one.
|
I call bs on their excuse, it's just a private school that wants to preserve its conservative stance w/ regard to hetero relationships. But it's not like this is a public entity or is receiving any kind of funding from the government. It might be a little retro when it comes to individual rights, but this is blown way out of proportion and isn't that big a deal imo. As a general matter, let the private school do what it wants.
|
This is so disgusting how we even have to consider that homosexuality is like being a minority. When is child molestation going to be accepted? We already have NAMBLA which would never have been allowed 50 years ago. The world is so filled with disgusting things and they keep pushing them to be legal. The only thing that is wrong is saying something is wrong.
Homosexuality is at best a genetic/biological/pre-natal/hormonal/behavioral problem which needs to be cured. But instead it is treated like they are a minority and you can't even disagree with it or your a bigot/hater/fascist. Its really getting old dealing with homosexuals pushing their agenda to be accepted. Lets see them push for a cure instead of pretending they are ok the way they are.
How many countries/cultures/religions say homosexuality is wrong? And yet its being forced to be accepted. Its disgusting and wrong. Homosexuality should be banned worldwide and the only thing done in regards to it is looking for a cure to it so no one has to suffer from it again.
I hope I live to see the day when homosexuality is cured, even if that means homosexuality has to be accepted temporarily before it is eradicated from the human race forever. Maybe when acceptance comes homosexuals will finally realize there is something wrong with them and find a cure.
Go ahead and ban me too since I disagree with homosexuality and am a bigot obviously. Too bad people are too close minded to realize homosexuality is an error. Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
If it's a private school, it has every right to do whatever the fuck it wants to, logical reasoning or not.
Whether discrimination itself is right or not is an entirely different issue.
|
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
Too bad people are too close minded to realize homosexuality is an error.[
Seeing how you just assume that it's an error without delving into the more complicated facets of homosexuality, it's a bit hypocritical to call others close-minded no?
|
On November 12 2010 07:04 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 06:53 ProTech_MediC wrote:On November 12 2010 06:46 Mora wrote:
So many of you are taking the school's actions out of context.
1) The school is an ALL GIRLS school.
2) Girls at that age (who don't socialize with males on a regular basis) would often not be willing to bring a male if given the choice.
3) The school is trying to create a forum for this to happen.
As a homosexual who found it a struggle to meet/talk to a guy that i was attracted to, i can sympathize with every non-lesbian in that all-girls school.
If those lesbians want to be lesbians, they can do so every day of the fucking week. When do the other girls have a chance to meet boys? How do these two girls going to the formal prohibit the heterosexual girls from meeting anyone else? .... cause 16 year old heterosexual girls who have never socialized with boys are incredibly afraid to do so? The whole point of getting these girls to invite a boy is that they are forced to then socialize/entertain their guest. What do you picture this dance looking like? I remember in junior-high, when everyone except for the few bold would sit on the sidelines and watch everyone else (usually older kids) dance. All the girls would stand with the girls, all the boys would stand with the boys. Occasionally a guy would be brave enough to walk over and ask a girl to dance; the girls would giggle and gossip, and the guys would sit envious trying to work up the courage to do the same. Now picture that same dance except that instead of approaching a random girl at the dance, you brought a girl from a different school. Would you abandon her and still sit with all your chums? No. You would be forced to sit/chat with her because you brought a guest. And that's what this school was trying to facilitate. If girls are allowed to bring girls, why would they bring boys? Except for a bold few (similar to the co-ed school), the majority of the girls would not have guests of the opposite sex.
I'm really glad to see you say this. I was feeling the same way after reading the article. Perhaps the school didn't handle it as well as it could have, but I can definitely see things through their POV and don't feel like this is the "pathetic excuse" that many people are claiming.
|
On November 12 2010 07:25 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 07:04 Mora wrote:
And that's what this school was trying to facilitate. If girls are allowed to bring girls, why would they bring boys? Because the social context of a dance is inherently sexual. Girls aren't going to bring girls as their "lesbian" date. Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 07:04 Mora wrote:
Except for a bold few (similar to the co-ed school), the majority of the girls would not have guests of the opposite sex. If the girls are as uncomfortable with the thought of bringing boys as you think, then they wouldn't bring boys at all, anyway.
Nope.
|
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
This is so disgusting how we even have to consider that homosexuality is like being a minority. When is child molestation going to be accepted? We already have NAMBLA which would never have been allowed 50 years ago. The world is so filled with disgusting things and they keep pushing them to be legal. The only thing that is wrong is saying something is wrong.
Homosexuality is at best a genetic/biological/pre-natal/hormonal/behavioral problem which needs to be cured. But instead it is treated like they are a minority and you can't even disagree with it or your a bigot/hater/fascist. Its really getting old dealing with homosexuals pushing their agenda to be accepted. Lets see them push for a cure instead of pretending they are ok the way they are.
How many countries/cultures/religions say homosexuality is wrong? And yet its being forced to be accepted. Its disgusting and wrong. Homosexuality should be banned worldwide and the only thing done in regards to it is looking for a cure to it so no one has to suffer from it again.
I hope I live to see the day when homosexuality is cured, even if that means homosexuality has to be accepted temporarily before it is eradicated from the human race forever. Maybe when acceptance comes homosexuals will finally realize there is something wrong with them and find a cure.
Go ahead and ban me too since I disagree with homosexuality and am a bigot obviously. Too bad people are too close minded to realize homosexuality is an error. Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech.
This is so disgusting how we even have to consider that bigotry is like being a minority. When is child molestation going to be accepted? We already have NAMBLA which would never have been allowed 50 years ago. The world is so filled with disgusting things and they keep pushing them to be legal. The only thing that is wrong is saying something is wrong.
Bigotry is at best a genetic/biological/pre-natal/hormonal/behavioral problem which needs to be cured. But instead it is treated like they are a minority and you can't even disagree with it or your a fag/hater/fascist. Its really getting old dealing with bigots pushing their agenda to be accepted. Lets see them push for a cure instead of pretending they are ok the way they are.
How many countries/cultures/religions say bigotry is wrong? And yet its being forced to be accepted. Its disgusting and wrong. Bigotry should be banned worldwide and the only thing done in regards to it is looking for a cure to it so no one has to suffer from it again.
I hope I live to see the day when bigotry is cured, even if that means bigotry has to be accepted temporarily before it is eradicated from the human race forever. Maybe when acceptance comes bigots will finally realize there is something wrong with them and find a cure.
Go ahead and ban me too since I disagree with bigotry and am a fag obviously. Too bad people are too close minded to realize bigotry is an error. Thank God I live in Australia where we have freedom of speech.
|
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
This is so disgusting how we even have to consider that homosexuality is like being a minority. When is child molestation going to be accepted? We already have NAMBLA which would never have been allowed 50 years ago. The world is so filled with disgusting things and they keep pushing them to be legal. The only thing that is wrong is saying something is wrong.
Homosexuality is at best a genetic/biological/pre-natal/hormonal/behavioral problem which needs to be cured. But instead it is treated like they are a minority and you can't even disagree with it or your a bigot/hater/fascist. Its really getting old dealing with homosexuals pushing their agenda to be accepted. Lets see them push for a cure instead of pretending they are ok the way they are.
How many countries/cultures/religions say homosexuality is wrong? And yet its being forced to be accepted. Its disgusting and wrong. Homosexuality should be banned worldwide and the only thing done in regards to it is looking for a cure to it so no one has to suffer from it again.
I hope I live to see the day when homosexuality is cured, even if that means homosexuality has to be accepted temporarily before it is eradicated from the human race forever. Maybe when acceptance comes homosexuals will finally realize there is something wrong with them and find a cure.
Go ahead and ban me too since I disagree with homosexuality and am a bigot obviously. Too bad people are too close minded to realize homosexuality is an error. Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech.
???????
So what is this cure, altering chemical levels in their brains and restructuring their neural pathways?
|
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
This is so disgusting how we even have to consider that homosexuality is like being a minority. When is child molestation going to be accepted? We already have NAMBLA which would never have been allowed 50 years ago. The world is so filled with disgusting things and they keep pushing them to be legal. The only thing that is wrong is saying something is wrong.
Yes, because what two consenting adults do in their private sex life is the same as raping a child. That's amazing logic.
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
Homosexuality is at best a genetic/biological/pre-natal/hormonal/behavioral problem which needs to be cured. But instead it is treated like they are a minority and you can't even disagree with it or your a bigot/hater/fascist. Its really getting old dealing with homosexuals pushing their agenda to be accepted. Lets see them push for a cure instead of pretending they are ok the way they are.
Because you are a bigot, maybe? Are black people a genetic/biological/pre-natal/hormonal/behavioral problem that needs to be cured? They were born with different color skin, and some differences in muscle/bone growths. Are they a problem that needs to be cured? What about any other race? Do you realize that homosexuality has been around, for, like, ever? Since the recorded beginnings of man. Animals even show homosexuality--and I don't even need a citation for this, I live on a farm and see plenty of male rabbits fuck each other.
Saying someone is an error is just stupid and ignorant. And you're saying people should be oppressed because they're different. Yeah, sorry, that's by definition what a bigot is. You can disagree with homosexuality all you want--I personally disagree with it, but that's why I'm straight--but I'll be DAMNED if I'm gonna tell someone else that they don't deserve to be alive, have a job, go to the same schools, etc, based on their sexual preference. It's their own business, and no one else has the right to deny someone the same opportunities because they were born different.
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
How many countries/cultures/religions say homosexuality is wrong? And yet its being forced to be accepted. Its disgusting and wrong. Homosexuality should be banned worldwide and the only thing done in regards to it is looking for a cure to it so no one has to suffer from it again.
Actually, most countries don't really care these days. And whether they try to ban it or not, it'll still happen--it's a natural thing in life. Get over it.
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
I hope I live to see the day when homosexuality is cured, even if that means homosexuality has to be accepted temporarily before it is eradicated from the human race forever. Maybe when acceptance comes homosexuals will finally realize there is something wrong with them and find a cure.
I hope I live to see the day when every idiot who wants someone else gone because they're different is cured. Maybe when people open their eyes and get off their own damn high horse they'll finally realize something is wrong with them, and find a cure... or maybe they'll just kill themselves. Hey, it's what a lot of them say the gays should do!
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
Too bad people are too close minded to realize homosexuality is an error.
lol.
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech.
And freedom of expression. It's a pretty cool freedom. It's that one that says you can pursuit happiness as you please. You should look into it sometime.
|
On November 12 2010 07:57 lvatural wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
Too bad people are too close minded to realize homosexuality is an error.[ Seeing how you just assume that it's an error without delving into the more complicated facets of homosexuality, it's a bit hypocritical to call others close-minded no?
At it's base, the root cause is an error in the human hardwiring of instinct. That doesen't mean that homosexuals are less than people, it's just that their hardwiring is different from the norm. In the same sense that Aspergers syndrome people have horrible social skills due to their lack of empathy.
But hey, scientific fact is wrong when people are involved. I understand the moral dilemma attached to it.
[edit] I'm pretty sure it's called Asperger's. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.
|
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
This is so disgusting how we even have to consider that homosexuality is like being a minority. When is child molestation going to be accepted? We already have NAMBLA which would never have been allowed 50 years ago. The world is so filled with disgusting things and they keep pushing them to be legal. The only thing that is wrong is saying something is wrong.
Homosexuality is at best a genetic/biological/pre-natal/hormonal/behavioral problem which needs to be cured. But instead it is treated like they are a minority and you can't even disagree with it or your a bigot/hater/fascist. Its really getting old dealing with homosexuals pushing their agenda to be accepted. Lets see them push for a cure instead of pretending they are ok the way they are.
How many countries/cultures/religions say homosexuality is wrong? And yet its being forced to be accepted. Its disgusting and wrong. Homosexuality should be banned worldwide and the only thing done in regards to it is looking for a cure to it so no one has to suffer from it again.
I hope I live to see the day when homosexuality is cured, even if that means homosexuality has to be accepted temporarily before it is eradicated from the human race forever. Maybe when acceptance comes homosexuals will finally realize there is something wrong with them and find a cure.
Go ahead and ban me too since I disagree with homosexuality and am a bigot obviously. Too bad people are too close minded to realize homosexuality is an error. Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech.
Way to turn yourself into a martyr.
PS. My religion says that your religion is wrong, I shouldn't have to tolerate you for believing in a false god. Let me cure you by getting you to convert.
PSS. You aren't being forced to accept them. You're being forced to tolerate them. And if you can't do that you probably will be banned.
|
On November 12 2010 08:10 Alay wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech. And freedom of expression. It's a pretty cool freedom. It's that one that says you can pursuit happiness as you please. You should look into it sometime.
Historically, when they said "happiness" they really meant "property". You know, because they were mostly plantation owners..
Just nitpicking.
|
Marshall Islands3404 Posts
well it is pretty weird to be doing this at 15/16. blown out of proportion though
|
On November 12 2010 08:14 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 08:10 Alay wrote:On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech. And freedom of expression. It's a pretty cool freedom. It's that one that says you can pursuit happiness as you please. You should look into it sometime. Historically, when they said "happiness" they really meant "property". You know, because they were mostly plantation owners.. Just nitpicking.
Don't think so? That's why the word was substituted, afaik. Because they were afraid to say that people were entitled to property.
|
@Blitz
The reason I find homosexuality A-OK and pedophilia to be absolutely disgusting is the impact it has.
If a man has sex with a child it literally pains me to think about what effect that will have.
Homosexuality on the other hand is between 2 adult/teens that at least know what the concept of consent even is.
I know many many many many many many MANY happy gay people. I typed in "Kids who like to be molested by adults." and I got nothing but help hotlines.
THINK about that. Other countries are in to pedo stuff, and we're into gay stuff. And you think the other countries/cultures/religions are a reference? Pathetic, faulty, and thankfully the reason bigots like you never get far in life. You're not smarter than the people you despise.
The wrong, in my opinion, comes not from the preference itself, but the impact it leaves. You can't sit here and tell me a child whose had sex before 12 with a grown adult is gonna come out better more often than a dude whose gay. That's OTHER countries... you (Blitz) made a reference suggest the pedos are the same level of wrong as homosexuals.
There is no cure for homosexuality. From your perspective you'd have just as much luck curing 'bullies'.
You will never see a cure, you call us close minded when you're so obviously closed to the thought yourself. I wish this was just a simple troll issue, but troll-bait isn't ever so convincing.
I'm really sad for you, the world will leave you farther and farther behind, and you will be an example to those more progressive around you.
If you're gonna thank god, down call him out on his errors. You're the kind of person that can tell god where he went wrong though right? It's in the bible right? Like beating you slave to near death is ok, and also in the bible. MOST PROGRESSIVE!
Although this world will never be cured of idiots they can be forced to see how pathetic they are and live a life of seletive neglect.
I am so ashamed I share a country with you. If you've lived so many years of life and all you can say is "Homosexuality is at best a genetic/biological/pre-netal/hormonal/behavioral problem."
Firstly, genetic, biological, and pre-netal pretty much run the same vein. Don't try and sound smart ever again please, you're definitely not gonna change any minds with your intelligence (Unless you count the other bigot who reads this and says to himself "Wow, is this how I sound? I'm a fucking idiot."
|
On November 12 2010 08:20 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 08:14 LunarC wrote:On November 12 2010 08:10 Alay wrote:On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech. And freedom of expression. It's a pretty cool freedom. It's that one that says you can pursuit happiness as you please. You should look into it sometime. Historically, when they said "happiness" they really meant "property". You know, because they were mostly plantation owners.. Just nitpicking. Don't think so? That's why the word was substituted, afaik. Because they were afraid to say that people were entitled to property.
No, they said happiness, but in reality everyone wanted property.
Think about it, England's land was basically all taken, but most people couldn't own any land. It was land that socially defined the person, perhaps as a social vestige of the feudal era.
America had tons and tons of unclaimed, untamed property, hence people wanted to move there. Those that wrote the declaration of independence recognized that.
@TsoBadGuy: Eh, I wouldn't go around Bible-bashing. That's a bit of a close-minded act if you ask me.
|
On November 12 2010 08:24 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 08:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 08:14 LunarC wrote:On November 12 2010 08:10 Alay wrote:On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech. And freedom of expression. It's a pretty cool freedom. It's that one that says you can pursuit happiness as you please. You should look into it sometime. Historically, when they said "happiness" they really meant "property". You know, because they were mostly plantation owners.. Just nitpicking. Don't think so? That's why the word was substituted, afaik. Because they were afraid to say that people were entitled to property. No, they said happiness, but in reality everyone wanted property. Think about it, England's land was basically all taken, but most people couldn't own any land. It was land that socially defined the person, perhaps as a social vestige of the feudal era. America had tons and tons of unclaimed, untamed property, hence people wanted to move there. Those that wrote the declaration of independence recognized that. @TsoBadGuy: Eh, I wouldn't go around Bible-bashing. That's a bit of a close-minded act if you ask me.
Alright, I'll take your word for it
|
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
This is so disgusting how we even have to consider that homosexuality is like being a minority. When is child molestation going to be accepted? We already have NAMBLA which would never have been allowed 50 years ago. The world is so filled with disgusting things and they keep pushing them to be legal. The only thing that is wrong is saying something is wrong.
Child molestation and homosexuality aren't the same thing, the fact that you would even suggest that just shows how ignorant you are. Fact, most child molestation cases consist of a man molesting a girl. Homosexuals actually have a much lower molestation rate than heterosexuals. So yeah, this point is void.
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:Homosexuality is at best a genetic/biological/pre-natal/hormonal/behavioral problem which needs to be cured. But instead it is treated like they are a minority and you can't even disagree with it or your a bigot/hater/fascist. Its really getting old dealing with homosexuals pushing their agenda to be accepted. Lets see them push for a cure instead of pretending they are ok the way they are.
Yeah, how dare gays push to be accepted! They should just learn their place and not fight back! Of course people are going to fight to be accepted. Why are they treated like a minority? Maybe because they are one. Just being a minority doesn't automatically make your justified or correct by the way, for instance serial killers are also a minority but the general public doesn't exactly think they're awesome. I'm not trying to compare homosexuals with serial killers, just saying that technically homosexuals are a minority.
As for the first part of that paragraph, there's not much I can say. The general public in virtually every established Democracy is okay with homosexuality, or at the very least has a large number of its citizens who are perfectly fine with it. So yeah, of course most people are going to come down on you for hating on gays. The same thing will happen to you if you hate on other groups that people are accepting of. And you can't "cure" homosexuality. Plenty of ultra-conservative religious groups have tried and failed over and over again. Currently we think that homosexuality is both genetic and learned, we're just unsure as to how much of those two factors influence it. The fact of the matter is, most people who are gay know that they're gay at the same age that people know they aren't gay. You can call it an error or disease or whatever but frankly science and the general public would disagree with you on that.
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:How many countries/cultures/religions say homosexuality is wrong? And yet its being forced to be accepted. Its disgusting and wrong. Homosexuality should be banned worldwide and the only thing done in regards to it is looking for a cure to it so no one has to suffer from it again.
I don't think you can find anyone who's gay say that they're suffering from it. Most gays who suffer are doing so because of people like you who are so unempathetic and who have so little compassion that you could say such things. Oh, and homosexuality isn't recognized as any sort of disease or disorder by any reputable medical institution that I know of.
Most of the same cultures and religions that say homosexuality is wrong also said that slavery was okay. Or that the earth is flat. Luckily, reason and science have changed our way of thinking and our culture's views on numerous things. But more importantly, religion has no place in this argument. Nor do older cultures.
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:I hope I live to see the day when homosexuality is cured, even if that means homosexuality has to be accepted temporarily before it is eradicated from the human race forever. Maybe when acceptance comes homosexuals will finally realize there is something wrong with them and find a cure.
Funny that someone who thinks all homosexuals should go away and that homosexuality is disgusting would talk about acceptance. Ignorance knows no bounds, eh?
If only we could cure the error of ignorance and eradicate that from the world forever.
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:Go ahead and ban me too since I disagree with homosexuality and am a bigot obviously. Too bad people are too close minded to realize homosexuality is an error. Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech.
First, you are being a bigot and the fact that you can't see that is astounding. Then again, racists probably didn't consider themselves to be bigoted back during the 60s when they were arguing for segregation and for banning interracial marriage.
Second, you bring up things like, "acceptance," and, "close minded," as if you even know what those terms mean. From your post I can tell that you don't. And just so you know, I used to be religious and I thought much the same way you did so I understand where you're coming from, but if you could only see the irony of what you're saying from my side...
Third, I don't think anyone has gotten banned on this thread for expressing an opinion against homosexuality. So why you even put that part in your post confuses me.
|
@ Alay
Damn dude, I thought I was the only one making a big ass thread about the bigot
Combo breaker. Mine had subtle jokes and stuff too!
Edit:
@Everyone
It's somewhat comforting seeing everyone show this blitz guy his place. Goin all white knight and stuff, with a rainbow lance of words being rammed into the KKK initiates torso.
Edit 2:
@LunarC
The bible can take a good ribbing. I wasn't joking about the bible saying stuff about slaves though. The bible has rules about how slaves can forgive there masters if they survive their beating.
I understand how I could sound close minded, and in the future, cause of your post, I'll write a bit more articulately, cause I was trying to make an example out of the bible more than bash it. (Mom is a christian priest, I'm a diest, dad's and atheist, closed minds don't last long in my house.)
|
I've been noticing a slight problem with some of the comparisons that have been drawn to racial segregation. There is an incongruity between the way we handle gender and race.
For example, we accept the idea of an all-girl school, but not the idea of an all-white school. We generally do not believe it is right to distinguish based on race in any scenario. However, gender exists in a gray area, where we sometimes believe it is still appropriate to make a distinction.
In sports, we have separate categories for women and men. In tennis, we have mixed pair events, which must include one man and one woman. It would not be called discrimination in such a scenario if we rejected same-sex pairs from playing in these events.
This situation exemplifies the ambiguity the arises from only sometimes distinguishing between gender. If the event really is just like a school dance, then I would certainly say that it is not acceptable. However, if the event is truly intended to be a forum for cross-gender interaction, then MAYBE the school's decision is okay, but it's still pretty sketchy. The school probably is just full of it, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
It is the school's mistake for making an event that specifically targets heterosexual couples. I think it would make much more sense if they had a combined dance with a nearby all-boys school, and did not distinguish based on gender at all.
|
On November 12 2010 03:21 Brent352 wrote:
Sounds like attention whoring to me.
If they really wanted to go to the dance together they could have just gone under the radar and done their own thing at the dance. Instead they decided that they wanted attention and so made a huge deal about it (putting up posters around the school).
It also seems like this is a private school and therefore should be allowed to have and enforce their own rules. If gays don't like it then they don't have to attend.
Honestly, this. If it is indeed a private school...
|
On November 12 2010 08:31 Slithe wrote:
This situation exemplifies the ambiguity the arises from only sometimes distinguishing between gender. If the event really is just like a school dance, then I would certainly say that it is not acceptable. However, if the event is truly intended to be a forum for cross-gender interaction, then MAYBE the school's decision is okay, but it's still pretty sketchy. The school probably is just full of it, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here.
It is the school's mistake for making an event that specifically targets heterosexual couples. I think it would make much more sense if they had a combined dance with a nearby all-boys school, and did not distinguish based on gender at all.
I will say that I do not approve of the idea of an all-girls and all-boys school to begin with. I would never send my kids to one and personally think we should just be rid of them. In fact, I'd be totally cool with not having private and home schooling to begin with if people weren't afraid of losing their civil liberties. That's for another topic though, lol.
I think it's fine if the school wants to do what they claimed they wanted to do. After all, if you're at an all-girls school the school should be trying to integrate boys during certain events. However, the reason I don't accept that answer is because I highly doubt every girl that went came with a date and I doubt the school cared or denied entry to someone who didn't bring a boy. So if the requirement is that they needed to bring a male guest instead of a female couldn't you also say that girls who don't bring a date shouldn't be allowed in? For this reason I think the school was clearly acting in a homophobic way.
Next year the school should just team up with an all-boys school and not allow anyone to bring guests.
|
It's the schools prom , they should be allowed to state the terms to which people attend the event.
|
This sorta thing is old news, unfortunately. Seems to happen all the time.
As much as I disagree with the school, they were well within their rights. It's a private school, it's their rules.
My question is, was the other girl a student of the school also? If so, they could have both just taken a guy, then ditched them and gotten together at the venue. I know they shouldn't have to do that, but if attending the dance was the true issue, then that seems more reasonable than raising hell and making it a press event.
That's what couples at my high school did. Gay couples and lesbian couples would pair up so they could get the couples discount on tickets. It was their way of sticking it to the school without making a huge issue that ends up going nowhere.
|
I can't believe how far people are taking this. Like it's been said before, there is no discrimination against the girl's sexuality. The anti-homophobia in America has gotten out of hand.
|
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
Go ahead and ban me too since I disagree with homosexuality and am a bigot obviously. Too bad people are too close minded to realize homosexuality is an error. Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech.
User was temp banned for this post.
It is so unfortunate that this guy was banned, between this thread and the other one about the pedophile book it looked like he was going to be a nonstop barrel of laughs.
I don't know how people in their minds have managed to combine homosexuality and pedophilia into a single concept.
|
What country is this in?
Teachers should keep an open mind. It makes me think that they're making excuses to not let them go to an important event due to their sexual orientation.
It seems really unfair to them.
|
uh it's their, PRIVATE, school they can enact whatever fucking rules they want
|
On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned
User was temp banned for this post.
Was the ban necesary?anyways as some people said they should just gone to the party and dance but they wanted to challenge the school so they decided to make it public they were lesbians. They got what they deserved......
|
This is wrong they should have equal rights like everyone else even if they're gay or lesbian ! Why can't people just accept each other. This should not be put down lightly.
|
On November 12 2010 07:52 blitzkrieger wrote:
Go ahead and ban me too since I disagree with homosexuality and am a bigot obviously. Too bad people are too close minded to realize homosexuality is an error. Thank God I live in America where we have freedom of speech.
User was temp banned for this post.
Although freedom of speech is valuable it also allows evils. I think anyone involved with this book knowing what it contained, in publishing, printing, writing, distributing should be killed in a painful sadistic fashion by their governments.
<3 Blitzkrieger, glad you haven't changed.
|
On November 12 2010 08:58 FALAPARK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned
User was temp banned for this post. Was the ban necesary?anyways as some people said they should just gone to the party and dance but they wanted to challenge the school so they decided to make it public they were lesbians. They got what they deserved......
Pretty sure calling homosexuality an error and saying it should be eradicated is worthy of a temporary ban. The girl's girlfriend didn't attend the school so she would have to bring her as a guest. Also, yeah, they made it public they were lesbians what's the problem with that?
And again, just because it's a private school doesn't mean they can start discriminating against people. Notice that the school tried to explain it away in an attempt to make it seem like they weren't discriminating against the girl's sexuality.
edit: lols, I misread and thought this was Blitz's post. But yeah, that guy deserved to get banned too.
|
On November 12 2010 08:58 FALAPARK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned
User was temp banned for this post. Was the ban necesary?anyways as some people said they should just gone to the party and dance but they wanted to challenge the school so they decided to make it public they were lesbians. They got what they deserved......
What is wrong with being a lesbian ( im not gay) But they should have the same rights as a normal person shouldn't they? What happens if you have a kid and they turn out to be gay or lesbian and they want to go to their highschool formal but they were not allowed because they were gay?! How would you feel as a parent ? Or what happens if you were gay and weren't allowed how do you feel? That is discrimination because they are different you should be banned for such a ignorant and discrimnating post against gays/lesbians/bisexuals.
|
On November 12 2010 08:58 FALAPARK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned
User was temp banned for this post. Was the ban necesary?anyways as some people said they should just gone to the party and dance but they wanted to challenge the school so they decided to make it public they were lesbians. They got what they deserved......
It's part of TL rules. It is a bannable offense on this website to say "I'd rather not get banned," or "I might get banned for this but..." regardless of the content following. Of course, I'm supposing my post right now is an exception^^.
|
You know I think the key of this is being subtle about what you do. I went to a public school and had friends in private school. First off many of the quote lesbians ended up not being lesbians in the end and just was a high school phase for them, who knows if this is the case for them. However when they were in their lesbian phase everyone knew about it but they werent PDA and when they went to the prom together (they did get couple tickets). It wasnt like they were all on each other. People may say you are hiding who you are but in general straight couples dont always PDA either, especially not around classmates and this and that (and those who did were scrutinized the same).
My friends in the private school (though not just all girls), one pair was lesbian, and they just went about it so they wouldn't get any crap and just were secret about it when it came to dances. When they asked why a girl was asking a girl, she jsut said she didnt really want to have a date and that she just wanted a friend to go with. While this may be lying under persecution(some people may say), I view it as not letting the administration get all up in your business.
|
On November 12 2010 09:04 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 08:58 FALAPARK wrote:On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned
User was temp banned for this post. Was the ban necesary?anyways as some people said they should just gone to the party and dance but they wanted to challenge the school so they decided to make it public they were lesbians. They got what they deserved...... It's part of TL rules. It is a bannable offense on this website to say "I'd rather not get banned," or "I might get banned for this but..." regardless of the content following. Of course, I'm supposing my post right now is an exception^^.
No, it's not..
Its posting
"I might get banned, but __________________"
_________ being some really stupid shit people post sometimes, even though they JUST SAID they know they will be banned for it.
|
On November 12 2010 09:11 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 09:04 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 12 2010 08:58 FALAPARK wrote:On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned
User was temp banned for this post. Was the ban necesary?anyways as some people said they should just gone to the party and dance but they wanted to challenge the school so they decided to make it public they were lesbians. They got what they deserved...... It's part of TL rules. It is a bannable offense on this website to say "I'd rather not get banned," or "I might get banned for this but..." regardless of the content following. Of course, I'm supposing my post right now is an exception^^. No, it's not.. Its posting "I might get banned, but __________________" _________ being some really stupid shit people post sometimes, even though they JUST SAID they know they will be banned for it.
JamesJohansen was just temp banned for 2 days by mahnini.
That account was created on 2010-09-28 10:01:52 and had 33 posts.
Reason:
On November 12 2010 03:24 JamesJohansen wrote:
In today's day and age, you are forced to accept this. I suppose I shouldn't voice my opinion, I'd rather not get banned
we don't allow people to qualify their posts with "i'm gonna get banned for this but..." or "i would but i'd rather not get banned", etc. if you have a problem with moderation there is a website feedback forum.
|
Here. We. Go. Again. This is so eerily similar to this (which thankfully was declared illegal) equally close-minded BS that went down in 2007/2008 it is astonishing. I'll never understand the problem, if someone wants to be homosexual, then, provided they do not force their lifestyle on heterosexuals, then let them do so. The fact that it is an all-girls school (hence limiting access to males on any level) further accentuates the issue because if the two girls in question attended a regular co-ed school as opposed to this one this would have been a good chance they never would have become lesbians, making the decision all the more ridiculous.
Edit: After reading blitzkreiger's posts I wanted to add a little something. Beliefs such as his stem from the assumption that humans are the only species in the natural world to engage in homosexual activity, without going off on a big tangent or going into unnecessary detail, we quite simply aren't. I'm sure another assumption would be that given the recent scientific proof that homosexuality is caused in part by a genetic defect, that would mean homosexual people were 'made wrong'. I might be inclined to agree depending on whether I'm in a normal, or a prick mood at the time, but if I actually think about rationally I come to the simply conclusion. Are gay people bothering me on a day-to-day basis? Well other than when on a porn site looking for naked ladies and having to see a guy blowing a fat one in a thumbnail, no. And even in that situation it isn't the gay people's fault that I saw that, just the guy who decided to mis-tag his video. Furthermore, homosexuality has existed in humanity for literally thousands of years (Spartan boy love anyone? No? Look it up) and it won't go away any time soon, all the people who act homophobic will only succeed in creating undue stress for themselves. I've known gay people before and other than that I don't agree with their sexual choice, they are (the one's I've known) quite normal people. And the pedophile thing well, pedophiles are attracted to children specifically, because they are very messed up in the head, just because the molest a male child over a female one does not imply homosexuality (nor should a link between the two ever be made).
|
I dont get Why people should get banned for voicing their openion, specially the guy I quoated before, he wasnt insulting anyone, he just said he thinks youth is forced into accepting lesbians and gays, thats his stance, nothing wrong with that, thats his openion, it is not wrong nor correcot. I do understand why the other guys were banned, they were being aggresive with their posts.....but this guy meant no harm at all.
|
On November 12 2010 09:26 FALAPARK wrote:
I dont get Why people should get banned for voicing their openion, specially the guy I quoated before, he wasnt insulting anyone, he just said he thinks youth is forced into accepting lesbians and gays, thats his stance, nothing wrong with that, thats his openion, it is not wrong nor correcot. I do understand why the other guys were banned, they were being aggresive with their posts.....but this guy meant no harm at all.
His comment very much was insulting people, every single person who disagreed with him was insulted in one fell swoop, with the line 'too bad people are too close-minded to realize homosexuality is an error'. To bad he's too close minded to realize you can't change people by being a bigot, you only cause the following to happen: 1. One looks like an ass, 2. One looks like an ass, and 3. One gets stressed and enraged at something he or she cannot change.
|
We love lesbians! We love lesbians!
|
Osaka27139 Posts
On November 12 2010 09:26 FALAPARK wrote:
I dont get Why people should get banned for voicing their openion, specially the guy I quoated before, he wasnt insulting anyone, he just said he thinks youth is forced into accepting lesbians and gays, thats his stance, nothing wrong with that, thats his openion, it is not wrong nor correcot. I do understand why the other guys were banned, they were being aggresive with their posts.....but this guy meant no harm at all.
People are not banned for posting their opinion. People are banned for saying "I'll probably get banned for this but..." which is a ridiculous cop out. It is forcing the hand of the moderator to either ban them and prove them right, or ignore the post and let the poster say something which the poster themselves thinks is against the rules.
So, we just ban everyone who uses that sentence regardless of context and the problem is solved. If people feel like they need to booby-trap their posts with that statement, maybe they should rethink what they are posting.
If you have a problem with the moderation, discuss it in the relevant threads, not this one please.
|
On November 12 2010 09:26 FALAPARK wrote:
I dont get Why people should get banned for voicing their openion, specially the guy I quoated before, he wasnt insulting anyone, he just said he thinks youth is forced into accepting lesbians and gays, thats his stance, nothing wrong with that, thats his openion, it is not wrong nor correcot. I do understand why the other guys were banned, they were being aggresive with their posts.....but this guy meant no harm at all.
He was banned for martyr-calling. If you post anywhere on this forum "i might get banned for this, but....", then you'll get banned. Even if you're only saying "i might get banned for this, but I think unicorns kick ass !"
Try it.
|
On November 12 2010 09:33 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 09:26 FALAPARK wrote:
I dont get Why people should get banned for voicing their openion, specially the guy I quoated before, he wasnt insulting anyone, he just said he thinks youth is forced into accepting lesbians and gays, thats his stance, nothing wrong with that, thats his openion, it is not wrong nor correcot. I do understand why the other guys were banned, they were being aggresive with their posts.....but this guy meant no harm at all. People are not banned for posting their opinion. People are banned for saying "I'll probably get banned for this but..." which is a ridiculous cop out. It is forcing the hand of the moderator to either ban them and prove them right, or ignore the post and let the poster say something which the poster themselves thinks is against the rules. So, we just ban everyone who uses that sentence regardless of context and the problem is solved. If people feel like they need to booby-trap their posts with that statement, maybe they should rethink what they are posting. If you have a problem with the moderation, discuss it in the relevant threads, not this one please.
Well said Manifesto. Blitz is perfectly entitled to his opinion, but posting it to post it, and posting it intentionally to try and offend are two very different things.
|
Since they were told to invite guys...they should've brought gays to prove a point lol.
Sorry if this has been stated before, I'm still reading through the thread.
|
On November 12 2010 09:38 Weedk wrote:
Since they were told to invite guys...they should've brought gays to prove a point lol.
Sorry if this has been stated before, I'm still reading through the thread.
If they both could have gone it wouldn't have been an issue...
|
On November 12 2010 09:42 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 09:38 Weedk wrote:
Since they were told to invite guys...they should've brought gays to prove a point lol.
Sorry if this has been stated before, I'm still reading through the thread. If they both could have gone it wouldn't have been an issue...
True, it's pretty sad stuff like this still happens.
|
A well formed society accepts life styles that are not considered normal by the general populace but are not harmful to the general society. Homosexuality falls under this category.
I understand why people may disagree with homosexuality. That's fine. That doesn't mean it is right to discriminate against them.
Now, as for this particular topic, but having read the schools website, it appears to be a secular grammar school. I find it odd that a secular liberal school system would discriminate against a same sex couple. However, if you think about the impact to the school if they openly accepted student same sex couples and you will see the reason why it was banned.
One of the common thoughts of single gender schools, such as this particular all girl school, is that it promotes homosexuality. Such thoughts may deter parents from sending their daughter to this school. As such, the school would likely want to deter this image as much as possible. In this instance though, their decision backfired as the couple went public and brough global attention to the exact topic the school wished to aoid.
If their intention for the dance was to promote a homosexual image of the school, then I actually do believe their excuse.
It is a private school, not a public school; it should have the right to make policies as it sees fit, in my personal opinion. I may not agree with their decision but I do not feel that anyone has the right to force their morality on to the policies of businesses. I am not familiar enough with Australian law though.
|
On November 12 2010 07:23 Kashll wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 07:18 .risingdragoon wrote:
Doesn't matter.
There are FAR bigger injustices in the world than 2 kids not being able to dance a lil. This is the worst fucking logic I've ever heard. By the same logic, any injustice except for the biggest injustice also doesn't matter.
Get the fuck outta here, it's not like "not being able to dance at school that one time" somehow greatly diminishes a person's ability to live life.
It's not like gayness is so blasphemed by society like a few decades ago, the gay movement got fasttracked like a muthafucker in only a few years it's unbelievable. There's no big loss here. The wrong thing to do here is try to politicize it and take hardline stance against almost nothing.
|
On November 12 2010 09:56 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 07:23 Kashll wrote:On November 12 2010 07:18 .risingdragoon wrote:
Doesn't matter.
There are FAR bigger injustices in the world than 2 kids not being able to dance a lil. This is the worst fucking logic I've ever heard. By the same logic, any injustice except for the biggest injustice also doesn't matter. Get the fuck outta here, it's not like "not being able to dance at school that one time" somehow greatly diminishes a person's ability to live life. It's not like gayness is so blasphemed by society like a few decades ago, the gay movement got fasttracked like a muthafucker in only a few years. There's no big loss here. The wrong thing to do here is try to politicize it and take "we vs them" sides.
Are you kidding? He's completely right. You come into the thread, dismiss it's importance because there's "bigger shit out there." Are you trying to say that because other movements took a while, we need to prolong the period in which gays obtain similar civil liberties? Because that's essentially what I got from your post.
PS. Prom isn't just "any school dance," it's often considered one of the most memorable nights of an adolescent's life up until that point.
|
i think the school's full of shit, but i also think the girls and parents reaction and even this article are a bit of an overreaction.
its just a school dance, seriously. people might say its about the principle but only allowed being able to bring a male does not necessarily mean homophobia. girls aren't allowed to bring their friends who are girls as a guest either. i think its just a rule across the board that when taken in this context looks homophobic.
|
It's not prom, I dunno wtf you talking about. It says school formal for buncha 16 yos.
And yea there is bigger shit out there, WAY BIGGER shit that actually impacts people's lives. This is far from any real civil liberty issue, no lives are compromised, no careers put in jeopardy. The opinion on of the larger society on gays has already turned to one of tolerance, the people running the school most likely doesn't give a fuck in their personal capacity.
What's the point of litting a fire under the school's ass? Put them between a rock and a hard place. For what? Compromise. Learn to see from your viewpoint as well as the school's.
|
On November 12 2010 10:01 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 09:56 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 07:23 Kashll wrote:On November 12 2010 07:18 .risingdragoon wrote:
Doesn't matter.
There are FAR bigger injustices in the world than 2 kids not being able to dance a lil. This is the worst fucking logic I've ever heard. By the same logic, any injustice except for the biggest injustice also doesn't matter. Get the fuck outta here, it's not like "not being able to dance at school that one time" somehow greatly diminishes a person's ability to live life. It's not like gayness is so blasphemed by society like a few decades ago, the gay movement got fasttracked like a muthafucker in only a few years. There's no big loss here. The wrong thing to do here is try to politicize it and take "we vs them" sides. Are you kidding? He's completely right. You come into the thread, dismiss it's importance because there's "bigger shit out there." Are you trying to say that because other movements took a while, we need to prolong the period in which gays obtain similar civil liberties? Because that's essentially what I got from your post. PS. Prom isn't just "any school dance," it's often considered one of the most memorable nights of an adolescent's life up until that point.
No rising is right. There's more important things in life. Like being able sit in front of the bus. Its infinitely more significant than some one time gay high school event.
|
its awesome that she has a father who is supportive of her though;
i cant say the same for all individuals who are attracted to the same sex.
|
You think the point of the back of the bus was cus of the actual sitting in the back?
How bout you think a little? WTF equating racism to this? If racism was this little wind instead of the fucking tornado that it is, that chapter wouldn't have taken so many years and lives to bring to this point in time.
|
On November 12 2010 10:24 .risingdragoon wrote:
You think the point of the back of the bus was cus of the actual sitting in the back?
How bout you think a little? WTF equating racism to this? If racism was this little wind instead of the fucking tornado that it is, that chapter wouldn't have taken so many lives to bring to this point in time.
Were you dropped as a child?
|
On November 12 2010 10:24 .risingdragoon wrote:
You think the point of the back of the bus was cus of the actual sitting in the back?
How bout you think a little? WTF equating racism to this? If racism was this little wind instead of the fucking tornado that it is, that chapter wouldn't have taken so many years and lives to bring to this point in time.
You're absolutely unbelievable. Not sure how you don't see the situations are nearly completely analogous. With the exception that it's a private school (which is in fact crucial). Which is why it's being discussed, and the validity of it. Pity you don't care for the discussion, how about "get the fuck out of here," as you'd say.
|
On November 12 2010 10:30 NIJ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 10:24 .risingdragoon wrote:
You think the point of the back of the bus was cus of the actual sitting in the back?
How bout you think a little? WTF equating racism to this? If racism was this little wind instead of the fucking tornado that it is, that chapter wouldn't have taken so many lives to bring to this point in time. Were you dropped as a child?
if you gonna discuss this then discuss, what do you know about me huh? lol
you're still too fucking little to know the world. this is barely anything compare to some of the unmovable rocks out there today. this is only gonna get better with time, whereas there's shit out there people oughta tackle head on or it'll never change.
|
On November 12 2010 10:33 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 10:30 NIJ wrote:On November 12 2010 10:24 .risingdragoon wrote:
You think the point of the back of the bus was cus of the actual sitting in the back?
How bout you think a little? WTF equating racism to this? If racism was this little wind instead of the fucking tornado that it is, that chapter wouldn't have taken so many lives to bring to this point in time. Were you dropped as a child? if you gonna discuss this then discuss, what do you know about me huh? lol you're still too fucking young to know the world. this is barely anything compare to some unmoveable rocks out there today.
Pretty sure you said that this topic wasn't worth discussing and yet here you are trying to argue that we shouldn't be discussing an issue you said isn't important enough to discuss. You don't know the ages of posters so anyone who has posted disagreeing with you could be much older than yourself.
I get the feeling that you're likely homophobic yourself but instead of arguing against this you're just trying to dismiss this topic as being not worthy of discussion even though clearly people want to discuss this. I could be wrong, but that's what my gut is telling me.
And by the way, homophobia and racism both stem from ignorance. Honestly these two issues are incredibly similar. You can't change your sexual orientation any easier than you can change your skin color.
|
On November 12 2010 10:24 .risingdragoon wrote:
You think the point of the back of the bus was cus of the actual sitting in the back?
How bout you think a little? WTF equating racism to this? If racism was this little wind instead of the fucking tornado that it is, that chapter wouldn't have taken so many years and lives to bring to this point in time.
I think NIJ's point was that events that may not be consequential on their own can still be symbolic of something greater. The social progress seen in the US civil rights movement expanded opportunities for people previously discriminated against, even if many of the most memorable moments of the movement weren't directly powerful on their own.
Personally I don't think this news item has the symbolic power to significantly reinforce activism and positive change for homosexuals, but others may think so and thus feel that it's worth discussing. After all, discrimination still can affect careers in the US, to say nothing of general quality of life for people discriminated against.
|
I don't personally give a shit about what people do with their lives.
I'm here to point out the ignorance that some of you youngins (most likely you are, cus you talk like one) think this world can be perfectly one way or another without any blemish whatsoever, to put a cap on your high ideals and bring you down to levels of realist, people who get shit done.
The way bigotry does damage is if it's condoned and carried by the socio-political climate of the day. That's what was being fought against, not the physical sitting in the back of the bus which is only a symbol. The gay movement has already crossed over that line, all that is left now is a buncha technicalities and conservative sentiment which time will fix, and it's better to ease into it over time than cram it down touchy people's throats.
|
|
|
On November 12 2010 10:33 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 10:30 NIJ wrote:On November 12 2010 10:24 .risingdragoon wrote:
You think the point of the back of the bus was cus of the actual sitting in the back?
How bout you think a little? WTF equating racism to this? If racism was this little wind instead of the fucking tornado that it is, that chapter wouldn't have taken so many lives to bring to this point in time. Were you dropped as a child? if you gonna discuss this then discuss, what do you know about me huh? lol you're still too fucking little to know the world. this is barely anything compare to some of the unmovable rocks out there today. this is only gonna get better with time, whereas there's shit out there people oughta tackle head on or it'll never change.
I know that you're retarded. Which is why I asked you if you ever got dropped. Cause if you did its not your fault.
What do you know about me and my age? Yeah I thought so. Are you really that retarded?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 12 2010 10:30 NIJ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 10:24 .risingdragoon wrote:
You think the point of the back of the bus was cus of the actual sitting in the back?
How bout you think a little? WTF equating racism to this? If racism was this little wind instead of the fucking tornado that it is, that chapter wouldn't have taken so many lives to bring to this point in time. Were you dropped as a child?
If he was dropped he's not likely to remember it and shouldn't even know it unless a parent informed him.
A better question is did he have a glue-sniffing habit as a child, which would definitely explain how he's managed to equate "bunch of guys talking about random private school on a website dedicated to starcraft" to "shoving tolerance down touchy people's throats".
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 12 2010 10:52 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 10:30 NIJ wrote:On November 12 2010 10:24 .risingdragoon wrote:
You think the point of the back of the bus was cus of the actual sitting in the back?
How bout you think a little? WTF equating racism to this? If racism was this little wind instead of the fucking tornado that it is, that chapter wouldn't have taken so many lives to bring to this point in time. Were you dropped as a child? If he was dropped he's not likely to remember it and shouldn't even know it unless a parent informed him. A better question is did he have a glue-sniffing habit as a child, which would definitely explain how he's managed to equate "bunch of guys talking about random private school on a website dedicated to starcraft" to "shoving tolerance down touchy people's throats".
WTF you talking about?
lol making shit up about me only works if I care what you say about me.
|
On November 12 2010 10:47 .risingdragoon wrote:
The way bigotry does damage is if it's condoned and carried by the socio-political climate of the day. That's what was being fought against, not the physical sitting in the back of the bus which is only a symbol. The gay movement has already crossed over that line, all that is left now is a buncha technicalities and conservative sentiment which time will fix, and it's better to ease into it over time than cram it down touchy people's throats.
Then by that logic if a bus driver asked a black man to sit in the back to make room for whites in the front it'd be totally cool and people wouldn't need to overreact to it because society doesn't condone that kind of behavior anymore!
Obviously gays haven't gotten where other minorities have because we have shit like this happening every year.
|
On November 12 2010 10:56 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 10:47 .risingdragoon wrote:
The way bigotry does damage is if it's condoned and carried by the socio-political climate of the day. That's what was being fought against, not the physical sitting in the back of the bus which is only a symbol. The gay movement has already crossed over that line, all that is left now is a buncha technicalities and conservative sentiment which time will fix, and it's better to ease into it over time than cram it down touchy people's throats. Then by that logic if a bus driver asked a black man to sit in the back to make room for whites in the front it'd be totally cool and people wouldn't need to overreact to it because society doesn't condone that kind of behavior anymore! Obviously gays haven't gotten where other minorities have because we have shit like this happening every year.
No. Gender is a different issue from race. Whoever started clumping minorities together should have realized that inane people will begin to assume parallels between them that don't necessarily exist.
|
On November 12 2010 10:56 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 10:47 .risingdragoon wrote:
The way bigotry does damage is if it's condoned and carried by the socio-political climate of the day. That's what was being fought against, not the physical sitting in the back of the bus which is only a symbol. The gay movement has already crossed over that line, all that is left now is a buncha technicalities and conservative sentiment which time will fix, and it's better to ease into it over time than cram it down touchy people's throats. Then by that logic if a bus driver asked a black man to sit in the back to make room for whites in the front it'd be totally cool and people wouldn't need to overreact to it because society doesn't condone that kind of behavior anymore! Obviously gays haven't gotten where other minorities have because we have shit like this happening every year.
what kind of logic is that? if society doesn't condone it, why would the bus driver ask?
|
5673 Posts
Guys, keep it decent, please. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
|
On November 12 2010 10:59 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 10:56 overt wrote:On November 12 2010 10:47 .risingdragoon wrote:
The way bigotry does damage is if it's condoned and carried by the socio-political climate of the day. That's what was being fought against, not the physical sitting in the back of the bus which is only a symbol. The gay movement has already crossed over that line, all that is left now is a buncha technicalities and conservative sentiment which time will fix, and it's better to ease into it over time than cram it down touchy people's throats. Then by that logic if a bus driver asked a black man to sit in the back to make room for whites in the front it'd be totally cool and people wouldn't need to overreact to it because society doesn't condone that kind of behavior anymore! Obviously gays haven't gotten where other minorities have because we have shit like this happening every year. No. Gender is a different issue from race. Whoever started clumping minorities together should have realized that inane people will begin to assume parallels between them that don't necessarily exist.
I'm talking about sexual orientation not gender. Discrimination by sexual orientation is not different than discrimination by race. You cannot change your sexual orientation any easier than you can change your race.
You can argue that this case here was more about gender and not sexual orientation (though I'd disagree) but other cases where gays have been barred from formals or proms were most definitely about sexual orientation.
On November 12 2010 11:00 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 10:56 overt wrote:On November 12 2010 10:47 .risingdragoon wrote:
The way bigotry does damage is if it's condoned and carried by the socio-political climate of the day. That's what was being fought against, not the physical sitting in the back of the bus which is only a symbol. The gay movement has already crossed over that line, all that is left now is a buncha technicalities and conservative sentiment which time will fix, and it's better to ease into it over time than cram it down touchy people's throats. Then by that logic if a bus driver asked a black man to sit in the back to make room for whites in the front it'd be totally cool and people wouldn't need to overreact to it because society doesn't condone that kind of behavior anymore! Obviously gays haven't gotten where other minorities have because we have shit like this happening every year. what kind of logic is that? if society doesn't condone it, why would the bus driver ask?
What? Just because society doesn't condone blatant racism or homophobia doesn't mean it isn't still happening.
|
.risingdragoon...
The clout surrounding homosexuals and their treatment is the new civil rights movement of our time. To say that you cannot equate it to racism is absurd. At least if you were black living in the 1960s, you had support and acceptance within your family and race. Homosexuals aren't that fortunate and are sometimes even killed by their own families. They may have a better life in Western society, but look at less civilized places and you'll find that they are stoned for even acknowledging they're attracted to the same sex (which has an underlying biological cause, so it's not something they can change, just like ethnicity).
The reason why racism is a much more frequent situation is because there happens to be more black people or whatever given race than there are homosexuals.
|
I'm talking about sexual orientation not gender. Discrimination by sexual orientation is not different than discrimination by race. You cannot change your sexual orientation any easier than you can change your race.
You can argue that this case here was more about gender and not sexual orientation (though I'd disagree) but other cases where gays have been barred from formals or proms were most definitely about sexual orientation.
To be fair, the school is claiming it was discrimination by gender, not by sexual orientation (its an all girls school blah blah blah). She was not allowed to bring her because she was a girl, not because she was a lesbian.
It's still sounds like bullshit to me, though.
|
On November 12 2010 11:12 overt wrote:
What? Just because society doesn't condone blatant racism or homophobia doesn't mean it isn't still happening.
That's my whole fucking point.
This is a similar (imo a lesser) case to that, only instead of coming from a place of hate, this comes from a quandary of having to officiate a school function and unfortunately it's being dragged into an issue much larger and more complicated than itself.
This sucks for everybody, the girls, the school officials. Unlike most cases of racism, there is no "winner" here.
On November 12 2010 11:16 Masamune wrote:
.risingdragoon...
The clout surrounding homosexuals and their treatment is the new civil rights movement of our time. To say that you cannot equate it to racism is absurd. At least if you were black living in the 1960s, you had support and acceptance within your family and race. Homosexuals aren't that fortunate and are sometimes even killed by their own families. They may have a better life in Western society, but look at less civilized places and you'll find that they are stoned for even acknowledging they're attracted to the same sex (which has an underlying biological cause, so it's not something they can change, just like ethnicity).
The reason why racism is a much more frequent situation is because there happens to be more black people or whatever given race than there are homosexuals.
fair enough
but you're talking about it as a whole, and elsewhere in the world where where the climate hasn't shifted yet.
I'm just talking about this one incident.
|
What I don't get is, how can this happen with all the equal rights legislation and stuff (ok not marriage yet but in regards to discrimination etc).
|
Single-gender schools are stupid. Students at single-gender schools need to be exposed to the opposite gender so they don't become socially retarded. A school event to forcibly expose students of single-gender schools to opposite-gender peers makes perfect sense.
The problem is that this event was a formal dance, which in this society is inherently about sex/romance, and thus partner selection is expected to match sexual interest.
If the school held a more general party (games, food, music, dancing, whatever) with the theme of inviting similar-age guys for mixed-gender interaction, there wouldn't be a problem.
|
I agree with the people who say this is a similar issue to when blacks and whites could not date or other such things.
I find it somewhat ironic that many straight people claim that homosexuals are immoral or sinful when they themselves act with such hatred towards others. The people who made this decision should be replaced, as far as Im concerned.
|
On November 12 2010 11:19 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 11:16 Masamune wrote:
.risingdragoon...
The clout surrounding homosexuals and their treatment is the new civil rights movement of our time. To say that you cannot equate it to racism is absurd. At least if you were black living in the 1960s, you had support and acceptance within your family and race. Homosexuals aren't that fortunate and are sometimes even killed by their own families. They may have a better life in Western society, but look at less civilized places and you'll find that they are stoned for even acknowledging they're attracted to the same sex (which has an underlying biological cause, so it's not something they can change, just like ethnicity).
The reason why racism is a much more frequent situation is because there happens to be more black people or whatever given race than there are homosexuals. fair enough but you're talking about it as a whole, and elsewhere in the world where where the climate hasn't shifted yet. I'm just talking about this one incident.
You've taken this one incident and trivialized it compared to racism as a whole. Read your posts over.
But this once incident just goes to show that there is much more tolerance of race than there is of homosexuals, so I don't see how this just being a little dance has anything to do with its significance.
|
On November 12 2010 11:41 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 11:19 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 11:16 Masamune wrote:
.risingdragoon...
The clout surrounding homosexuals and their treatment is the new civil rights movement of our time. To say that you cannot equate it to racism is absurd. At least if you were black living in the 1960s, you had support and acceptance within your family and race. Homosexuals aren't that fortunate and are sometimes even killed by their own families. They may have a better life in Western society, but look at less civilized places and you'll find that they are stoned for even acknowledging they're attracted to the same sex (which has an underlying biological cause, so it's not something they can change, just like ethnicity).
The reason why racism is a much more frequent situation is because there happens to be more black people or whatever given race than there are homosexuals. fair enough but you're talking about it as a whole, and elsewhere in the world where where the climate hasn't shifted yet. I'm just talking about this one incident. You've taken this one incident and trivialized it compared to racism as a whole. Read your posts over. But this once incident just goes to show that there is much more tolerance of race than there is of homosexuals, so I don't see how this just being a little dance has anything to do with its significance.
you kidding me? more tolerance of race? what if I say there's also much more intolerance of race on a daily basis cus, unlike race, you can't see gayness if the person doesn't act all stereotypical? the fact that gay movement got fast-tracked in 1-2 decade to me is proof that people are a lot more tolerant of gays.
also it just occured to me that these 2 girls see each other on a daily basis. you can't say the same for the hetero girls.
|
Aww no one had any responses to my 2 cents? I thought they were good and had no flame baiting....
Anyways on topic.... These kind of tolerances take time. Im filipino (though raised in the USA), back there homosexuality is in the media and everywhere and they are very much accepted.
|
It's a shame, but scratch many Australians and you'll find a White Australian. Unfortunately this bigotry doesn't just extend to race. While some countries I can think of are probably worse off, we have a long way to go until we're as liberal as we preferably should be.
|
On November 12 2010 11:54 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 11:41 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 11:19 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 11:16 Masamune wrote:
.risingdragoon...
The clout surrounding homosexuals and their treatment is the new civil rights movement of our time. To say that you cannot equate it to racism is absurd. At least if you were black living in the 1960s, you had support and acceptance within your family and race. Homosexuals aren't that fortunate and are sometimes even killed by their own families. They may have a better life in Western society, but look at less civilized places and you'll find that they are stoned for even acknowledging they're attracted to the same sex (which has an underlying biological cause, so it's not something they can change, just like ethnicity).
The reason why racism is a much more frequent situation is because there happens to be more black people or whatever given race than there are homosexuals. fair enough but you're talking about it as a whole, and elsewhere in the world where where the climate hasn't shifted yet. I'm just talking about this one incident. You've taken this one incident and trivialized it compared to racism as a whole. Read your posts over. But this once incident just goes to show that there is much more tolerance of race than there is of homosexuals, so I don't see how this just being a little dance has anything to do with its significance. you kidding me? more tolerance of race? what if I say there's also much more intolerance of race on a daily basis cus, unlike race, you can't see gayness if the person doesn't act all stereotypical? the fact that gay movement got fast-tracked in 1-2 decade to me is proof that people are a lot more tolerant of gays. also it just occured to me that these 2 girls see each other on a daily basis. you can't say the same for the hetero girls.
Yes, there is more tolerance of race in the West, and I'd argue elsewhere in world, in comparison to homosexuals. If this girl had brought a black male to the formal, nothing would have happened.
Saying that there is more intolerance of race because you can't see a person's sexual orientation is one of the fucking dumbest things I've seen all week. You don't go by quantity, you go by quality. There are more cases of racism because there happens to be more people of different fucking races. But when you compare the severity of treatment towards both groups, it's probably a little worse in favour of gay people. The fact that there are propositions involving their rights and their eligibility to get married in the States, whereas interracial couples don't experience any of this should give you a damn clue.
|
Personally, i believe the school had the wrong of it, because there are laws (I think, don't quote me on this) that prevent this. On a side note, a lesbian couple at our school was allowed to attend our dances.
EDIT: I think the reason why there is so little tolerance with homosexuality in the west has to do with the idea that a person CHOSE to be sexually oriented this way, but this is not true. I have a gay friend, and I honestly think he didn't make the choice, he is very conscious about what people think of him, and changes himself based on it, but remains adamantly gay.
|
The school's stance on the issue does kind of make sense. "If we opened it up and said girls could bring another female they would all bring females" <- that's completely legitimate, lol. If it just ended up being a social event, I'm sure a lot of the students would just go with friends or something of the sort.
This whole situation is kind of stupid. I think the school should have just let it go.
|
On November 12 2010 12:05 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 11:54 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 11:41 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 11:19 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 11:16 Masamune wrote:
.risingdragoon...
The clout surrounding homosexuals and their treatment is the new civil rights movement of our time. To say that you cannot equate it to racism is absurd. At least if you were black living in the 1960s, you had support and acceptance within your family and race. Homosexuals aren't that fortunate and are sometimes even killed by their own families. They may have a better life in Western society, but look at less civilized places and you'll find that they are stoned for even acknowledging they're attracted to the same sex (which has an underlying biological cause, so it's not something they can change, just like ethnicity).
The reason why racism is a much more frequent situation is because there happens to be more black people or whatever given race than there are homosexuals. fair enough but you're talking about it as a whole, and elsewhere in the world where where the climate hasn't shifted yet. I'm just talking about this one incident. You've taken this one incident and trivialized it compared to racism as a whole. Read your posts over. But this once incident just goes to show that there is much more tolerance of race than there is of homosexuals, so I don't see how this just being a little dance has anything to do with its significance. you kidding me? more tolerance of race? what if I say there's also much more intolerance of race on a daily basis cus, unlike race, you can't see gayness if the person doesn't act all stereotypical? the fact that gay movement got fast-tracked in 1-2 decade to me is proof that people are a lot more tolerant of gays. also it just occured to me that these 2 girls see each other on a daily basis. you can't say the same for the hetero girls. Yes, there is more tolerance of race in the West, and I'd argue elsewhere in world, in comparison to homosexuals. If this girl had brought a black male to the formal, nothing would have happened. Saying that there is more intolerance of race because you can't see a person's sexual orientation is one of the fucking dumbest things I've seen all week. You don't go by quantity, you go by quality. There are more cases of racism because there happens to be more people of different fucking races. But when you compare the severity of treatment towards both groups, it's probably a little worse in favour of gay people. The fact that there are propositions involving their rights and their eligibility to get married in the States, whereas interracial couples don't experience any of this should give you a damn clue.
that's funny, how do you know how many gays there are, vs the population of "minority races" in this country? and how do you know quality? and how do you compare quantity to "quality"? 2=1? it seems like you're making shit up and you want to think gays have it worse
|
must be awesome to be a lesbian in a all-girl school.
anyways, what a BS school.
|
On November 12 2010 12:12 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 12:05 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 11:54 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 11:41 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 11:19 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 11:16 Masamune wrote:
.risingdragoon...
The clout surrounding homosexuals and their treatment is the new civil rights movement of our time. To say that you cannot equate it to racism is absurd. At least if you were black living in the 1960s, you had support and acceptance within your family and race. Homosexuals aren't that fortunate and are sometimes even killed by their own families. They may have a better life in Western society, but look at less civilized places and you'll find that they are stoned for even acknowledging they're attracted to the same sex (which has an underlying biological cause, so it's not something they can change, just like ethnicity).
The reason why racism is a much more frequent situation is because there happens to be more black people or whatever given race than there are homosexuals. fair enough but you're talking about it as a whole, and elsewhere in the world where where the climate hasn't shifted yet. I'm just talking about this one incident. You've taken this one incident and trivialized it compared to racism as a whole. Read your posts over. But this once incident just goes to show that there is much more tolerance of race than there is of homosexuals, so I don't see how this just being a little dance has anything to do with its significance. you kidding me? more tolerance of race? what if I say there's also much more intolerance of race on a daily basis cus, unlike race, you can't see gayness if the person doesn't act all stereotypical? the fact that gay movement got fast-tracked in 1-2 decade to me is proof that people are a lot more tolerant of gays. also it just occured to me that these 2 girls see each other on a daily basis. you can't say the same for the hetero girls. Yes, there is more tolerance of race in the West, and I'd argue elsewhere in world, in comparison to homosexuals. If this girl had brought a black male to the formal, nothing would have happened. Saying that there is more intolerance of race because you can't see a person's sexual orientation is one of the fucking dumbest things I've seen all week. You don't go by quantity, you go by quality. There are more cases of racism because there happens to be more people of different fucking races. But when you compare the severity of treatment towards both groups, it's probably a little worse in favour of gay people. The fact that there are propositions involving their rights and their eligibility to get married in the States, whereas interracial couples don't experience any of this should give you a damn clue. that's funny, how do you know how many gays there are, vs the population of "minority races" in this country? and how do you know quality? and how do you compare quantity to "quality"? 2=1? it seems like you're making shit up and you want to think gays have it worse
that's funny, it seems like you've reached a dead end in your arguments. How do YOU know "quality" where you can make the claim that racism is a much bigger and severe issue than homosexual discrimination? You've already stated this in the thread so please inform me.
Regarding numbers, let me explain it to you again. There are more non-white people than there are gays, therefore the racism that me and you are talking about will have a higher chance of occurring than homosexual discrimination. How do I know there are more minorities than gays? Because I fucking have eyes. Even if I didn't have eyes, you could deduce it through evolutionary reasons why homosexuality wouldn't proliferate as much as heterosexuality.
In terms of how I assess who has it harder among racial groups and homosexuals (the "quality" I was talking about previously), I base it on civil rights and general hardships homosexuals have to face. As far as I know, racial groups can marry. As far as I know, interracial marriage exists without a problem in the West. As far as I know, your black (or insert any other minority) parents aren't likely to treat you any differently because you are black. I can keep going on but if you don't get it by now then I think the banned posters were right in their comments.
It seems like you're making shit up and are denying that gays have it worse when it's obvious they do. Should we really take this to a poll?
|
Obviously this is all a big load of bullshit. Lots of people have been comparing the bigotry to racism, something that I would agree is completely legitamate.
People just aren't used to dealing with gays yet ... in 50 years this kind of shit won't happen any more, just like they would never have banned certain races from the dance.
It's unfortunate, but the US is SLOW to change their ways. Just look at their retarded mesurement system.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I'd assume the fast-tracking of acceptance of homosexuality DOES have a little bit to do with the precedent set by the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Ever since that movement, tolerance is in the mainstream, whereas before the movement, I'd say intolerance was the preferred course of action.
Edit: Americans indeed are really slow to change their ways. I totally agree with using the metric system. A lot needs to change to affect that mentality. I think it's the superiority complex that many Americans seem to have. I know the OP is about Australia, but I'm just talking about the US as it's been brought up in the thread and it's where I hail from.
|
Osaka27139 Posts
On November 12 2010 12:44 FaZe wrote:
Obviously this is all a big load of bullshit. Lots of people have been comparing the bigotry to racism, something that I would agree is completely legitamate.
People just aren't used to dealing with gays yet ... in 50 years this kind of shit won't happen any more, just like they would never have banned certain races from the dance.
It's unfortunate, but the US is SLOW to change their ways. Just look at their retarded mesurement system.
Except that this was in Australia. How about you read the thread first before making yourself look stupid.
|
Pre-drinks? 12 pages of arguing and no one is mentioning the real crime here. Or is 16 legal drinking age in that country?
same sex discrimination is being fought around the world. Another story, another day, another country. Whenever I get the chance I vote for freedom, but the chance rarely comes up so it will wait for the next generation probably.
|
On November 12 2010 12:34 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 12:12 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 12:05 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 11:54 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 11:41 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 11:19 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 11:16 Masamune wrote:
.risingdragoon...
The clout surrounding homosexuals and their treatment is the new civil rights movement of our time. To say that you cannot equate it to racism is absurd. At least if you were black living in the 1960s, you had support and acceptance within your family and race. Homosexuals aren't that fortunate and are sometimes even killed by their own families. They may have a better life in Western society, but look at less civilized places and you'll find that they are stoned for even acknowledging they're attracted to the same sex (which has an underlying biological cause, so it's not something they can change, just like ethnicity).
The reason why racism is a much more frequent situation is because there happens to be more black people or whatever given race than there are homosexuals. fair enough but you're talking about it as a whole, and elsewhere in the world where where the climate hasn't shifted yet. I'm just talking about this one incident. You've taken this one incident and trivialized it compared to racism as a whole. Read your posts over. But this once incident just goes to show that there is much more tolerance of race than there is of homosexuals, so I don't see how this just being a little dance has anything to do with its significance. you kidding me? more tolerance of race? what if I say there's also much more intolerance of race on a daily basis cus, unlike race, you can't see gayness if the person doesn't act all stereotypical? the fact that gay movement got fast-tracked in 1-2 decade to me is proof that people are a lot more tolerant of gays. also it just occured to me that these 2 girls see each other on a daily basis. you can't say the same for the hetero girls. Yes, there is more tolerance of race in the West, and I'd argue elsewhere in world, in comparison to homosexuals. If this girl had brought a black male to the formal, nothing would have happened. Saying that there is more intolerance of race because you can't see a person's sexual orientation is one of the fucking dumbest things I've seen all week. You don't go by quantity, you go by quality. There are more cases of racism because there happens to be more people of different fucking races. But when you compare the severity of treatment towards both groups, it's probably a little worse in favour of gay people. The fact that there are propositions involving their rights and their eligibility to get married in the States, whereas interracial couples don't experience any of this should give you a damn clue. that's funny, how do you know how many gays there are, vs the population of "minority races" in this country? and how do you know quality? and how do you compare quantity to "quality"? 2=1? it seems like you're making shit up and you want to think gays have it worse that's funny, it seems like you've reached a dead end in your arguments. How do YOU know "quality" where you can make the claim that racism is a much bigger and severe issue than homosexual discrimination? You've already stated this in the thread so please inform me. Regarding numbers, let me explain it to you again. There are more non-white people than there are gays, therefore the racism that me and you are talking about will have a higher chance of occurring than homosexual discrimination. How do I know there are more minorities than gays? Because I fucking have eyes. Even if I didn't have eyes, you could deduce it through evolutionary reasons why homosexuality wouldn't proliferate as much as heterosexuality. In terms of how I assess who has it harder among racial groups and homosexuals (the "quality" I was talking about previously), I base it on civil rights and general hardships homosexuals have to face. As far as I know, racial groups can marry. As far as I know, interracial marriage exists without a problem in the West. As far as I know, your black (or insert any other minority) parents aren't likely to treat you any differently because you are black. I can keep going on but if you don't get it by now then I think the banned posters were right in their comments. It seems like you're making shit up and are denying that gays have it worse when it's obvious they do. Should we really take this to a poll?
that's alotta really stupid assumptions
you say racism occurs more, but it's not as bad as the treatment of gays...cus you got eyes? lol are you fucking kidding me? and who said I'm black (or any other minority)?
oh and interracial marriage is not the equivalent of gay marriage.
|
On November 12 2010 12:44 FaZe wrote:
People just aren't used to dealing with gays yet ... in 50 years this kind of shit won't happen any more, just like they would never have banned certain races from the dance.
You obviously missed stories like the black kids being banned from the pool in Philadelphia last year: http://s2smagazine.com/node/1249
I hate it when people talk like "oh yeah this shit will totally go away in time". It doesn't go away, the fight against bigotry is a war that is never won. Racism is far from dead, and we'll be dealing with homophobia for a long, long time too. Complacency that the end of discrimination is inevitable isn't helpful at all.
|
On November 12 2010 12:47 ghen wrote:
Pre-drinks? 12 pages of arguing and no one is mentioning the real crime here. Or is 16 legal drinking age in that country?
Canadian drinking laws are provincial and most are about 18 or 19.
Frankly I dont see the problem. If parents took the time to introduce their children into social drinking and explain to them the risks it would do a lot of good in reducing the real problem which is binge drinking. I assume the child's parents were there as well; while I am concerned about parents giving alcohol to other people's kids, that is definitely the best environment for these kids to do something they were going to do anyway. i.e. supervised by adults who (theoretically) can handle an emergency, moderate the consumption of alcohol and prevent any related misconduct including driving after drinking.
|
On November 12 2010 03:21 Brent352 wrote:
Sounds like attention whoring to me.
If they really wanted to go to the dance together they could have just gone under the radar and done their own thing at the dance. Instead they decided that they wanted attention and so made a huge deal about it (putting up posters around the school).
It also seems like this is a private school and therefore should be allowed to have and enforce their own rules. If gays don't like it then they don't have to attend.
So if I want to have a private school where niggers are treated extremely bad, that's ok, right? Because hey, it's my school.
If they don't like it, they can pick another school.
|
On November 12 2010 12:50 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 12:34 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 12:12 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 12:05 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 11:54 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 11:41 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 11:19 .risingdragoon wrote:On November 12 2010 11:16 Masamune wrote:
.risingdragoon...
The clout surrounding homosexuals and their treatment is the new civil rights movement of our time. To say that you cannot equate it to racism is absurd. At least if you were black living in the 1960s, you had support and acceptance within your family and race. Homosexuals aren't that fortunate and are sometimes even killed by their own families. They may have a better life in Western society, but look at less civilized places and you'll find that they are stoned for even acknowledging they're attracted to the same sex (which has an underlying biological cause, so it's not something they can change, just like ethnicity).
The reason why racism is a much more frequent situation is because there happens to be more black people or whatever given race than there are homosexuals. fair enough but you're talking about it as a whole, and elsewhere in the world where where the climate hasn't shifted yet. I'm just talking about this one incident. You've taken this one incident and trivialized it compared to racism as a whole. Read your posts over. But this once incident just goes to show that there is much more tolerance of race than there is of homosexuals, so I don't see how this just being a little dance has anything to do with its significance. you kidding me? more tolerance of race? what if I say there's also much more intolerance of race on a daily basis cus, unlike race, you can't see gayness if the person doesn't act all stereotypical? the fact that gay movement got fast-tracked in 1-2 decade to me is proof that people are a lot more tolerant of gays. also it just occured to me that these 2 girls see each other on a daily basis. you can't say the same for the hetero girls. Yes, there is more tolerance of race in the West, and I'd argue elsewhere in world, in comparison to homosexuals. If this girl had brought a black male to the formal, nothing would have happened. Saying that there is more intolerance of race because you can't see a person's sexual orientation is one of the fucking dumbest things I've seen all week. You don't go by quantity, you go by quality. There are more cases of racism because there happens to be more people of different fucking races. But when you compare the severity of treatment towards both groups, it's probably a little worse in favour of gay people. The fact that there are propositions involving their rights and their eligibility to get married in the States, whereas interracial couples don't experience any of this should give you a damn clue. that's funny, how do you know how many gays there are, vs the population of "minority races" in this country? and how do you know quality? and how do you compare quantity to "quality"? 2=1? it seems like you're making shit up and you want to think gays have it worse that's funny, it seems like you've reached a dead end in your arguments. How do YOU know "quality" where you can make the claim that racism is a much bigger and severe issue than homosexual discrimination? You've already stated this in the thread so please inform me. Regarding numbers, let me explain it to you again. There are more non-white people than there are gays, therefore the racism that me and you are talking about will have a higher chance of occurring than homosexual discrimination. How do I know there are more minorities than gays? Because I fucking have eyes. Even if I didn't have eyes, you could deduce it through evolutionary reasons why homosexuality wouldn't proliferate as much as heterosexuality. In terms of how I assess who has it harder among racial groups and homosexuals (the "quality" I was talking about previously), I base it on civil rights and general hardships homosexuals have to face. As far as I know, racial groups can marry. As far as I know, interracial marriage exists without a problem in the West. As far as I know, your black (or insert any other minority) parents aren't likely to treat you any differently because you are black. I can keep going on but if you don't get it by now then I think the banned posters were right in their comments. It seems like you're making shit up and are denying that gays have it worse when it's obvious they do. Should we really take this to a poll? that's alotta really stupid assumptions you say racism occurs more, but it's not as bad as the treatment of gays...cus you got eyes? lol are you fucking kidding me? and who said I'm black (or any other minority)? oh and interracial marriage is not the equivalent of gay marriage.
Tell me why they are stupid assumptions.
Nice strawman on the second point.
How is interracial marriage not the equivalent of gay marriage? Regardless, one group can marry the other group can't. If your stance is that racial minorities have it tougher than homosexuals, your wrong in this instance.
P.S. you should have stopped arguing a while ago, you're making yourself look really bad.
|
I'll just answer you on the marriage, everything else is basically "my eyes don't lie" BS.
Gay marriage is about legitimacy in the eyes of the law to the gays, and the semantics on what constitutes a marriage to the religious conservatives. It's a battle over the institution of marriage.
Interracial marriage is not about marriage at all, it's about the relationship and also the control of women and ties back into the whole issue of racism and sexism and their historical parallels. And contrary to what you may think, it's nothing like the smooth sailing that you made it out to be.
On November 12 2010 13:00 Masamune wrote:
P.S. you should have stopped arguing a while ago, you're making yourself look really bad.
lol don't worry, I'm just fine.
|
On November 12 2010 13:14 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll just answer you on the marriage, everything else is basically "my eyes don't lie" BS.
Gay marriage is about legitimacy in the eyes of the law to the gays, and the semantics on what constitutes a marriage to the religious conservatives. It's a battle over the institution of marriage.
Interracial marriage is not about marriage at all, it's about the relationship and ties back into the whole issue of racism, and also the control of women. And contrary to what you may think, it's nothing like the smooth sailing that you made it out to be.
You're dumb, you just proved his point while showing you had no grasp of the issue at hand.
|
On November 12 2010 13:14 .risingdragoon wrote:
Gay marriage is about legitimacy in the eyes of the law to the gays, and the semantics on what constitutes a marriage to the religious conservatives. It's a battle over the institution of marriage.
Except there's no reason why religion should have any say over what is and what isn't appropriate for marriage, unless you live in a theocracy. Right?
This article makes me sad. It's a pity that such bigotry still exists in this world.
|
On November 12 2010 13:20 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:14 .risingdragoon wrote:I'll just answer you on the marriage, everything else is basically "my eyes don't lie" BS. Gay marriage is about legitimacy in the eyes of the law to the gays, and the semantics on what constitutes a marriage to the religious conservatives. It's a battle over the institution of marriage. Interracial marriage is not about marriage at all, it's about the relationship and also the control of women and ties back into the whole issue of racism and sexism and their historical parallels. And contrary to what you may think, it's nothing like the smooth sailing that you made it out to be. On November 12 2010 13:00 Masamune wrote:
P.S. you should have stopped arguing a while ago, you're making yourself look really bad. lol don't worry, I'm just fine. You're dumb, you just proved his point while showing you had no grasp of the issue at hand.
qft
lmao
|
On November 12 2010 13:27 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:20 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On November 12 2010 13:14 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll just answer you on the marriage, everything else is basically "my eyes don't lie" BS.
Gay marriage is about legitimacy in the eyes of the law to the gays, and the semantics on what constitutes a marriage to the religious conservatives. It's a battle over the institution of marriage.
Interracial marriage is not about marriage at all, it's about the relationship and ties back into the whole issue of racism, and also the control of women. And contrary to what you may think, it's nothing like the smooth sailing that you made it out to be. You're dumb, you just proved his point while showing you had no grasp of the issue at hand. qft lmao
qft??? LOL
Do I need to spell it out for you?!?
One is about sex, and the other one is about sex AND marriage. No conservative cares much about the actual marriage once the sex happened and the kid is born. They happen to care about both sex and marriage in gay people's case cus apparently it's an "abomination" sez so in the bible.
|
On November 12 2010 13:31 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:27 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 13:20 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On November 12 2010 13:14 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'll just answer you on the marriage, everything else is basically "my eyes don't lie" BS.
Gay marriage is about legitimacy in the eyes of the law to the gays, and the semantics on what constitutes a marriage to the religious conservatives. It's a battle over the institution of marriage.
Interracial marriage is not about marriage at all, it's about the relationship and ties back into the whole issue of racism, and also the control of women. And contrary to what you may think, it's nothing like the smooth sailing that you made it out to be. You're dumb, you just proved his point while showing you had no grasp of the issue at hand. qft lmao qft??? LOL Do I need to spell it out for you?!? One is about sex, and the other one is about sex AND marriage. No conservative cares about interracial marriage once the sex happened and the kid is born. They happen to care about both sex and marriage in gay people's case cus apparently it's an "abomination" sez so in the bible.
See, that's what we're saying when we tell you that you have no grasp of the issue at hand. They actually used the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT against interracial marriage 50+ years ago and you just apparently have made up some weird and stupid justification that fits your point.
|
lol where does it say you can't have interracial relationship in bible? love to read it
|
On November 12 2010 13:39 .risingdragoon wrote:
lol where does it say you can't have interracial relationship in bible? love to read it
Genesis 28:1: "And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan."
Leviticus 19:19: "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind ..."
Deuteronomy 7:2-3: "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
Deuteronomy 22 : "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."
Deuteronomy 23:2: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
Jeremiah 13:23: "Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? Can a leopard take away its spots? Neither can you start doing good, for you have always done evil."
Acts 17:24-26: "God ... hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ..."
sauce: http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm
|
schools shouldn't be where underage kids learn to develop sexually deviant relationships
that's all I got
edit: @ guy above me, Acts is referring to the fact that we are all the same descendants of Noah.. all humans are free to marry and take wives among all races, because we are all the same progeny.
|
^sexually deviant relationships??
was showing where in the bible it talks about interracial marriage not just the times it says u cant
|
On November 12 2010 13:44 Coraz wrote:
schools shouldn't be where underage kids learn to develop sexually deviant relationships
Can you please elaborate on how this is relevant to the OP/ article? I'm looking and I don't see it.
|
I'm no bible expert, but none of those specifically calls for people to not marry interracial, they could be interpreted that way, or they could be interpreted as people of differing ideologies or historical conflict (Cannan) should not marry, or a very specific group should not marry outward.
Except for Jeremiah 13:2 which cites Ethiopian directly, and says evil can't do good??? fucking weird.
|
On November 12 2010 13:44 Coraz wrote:
schools shouldn't be where underage kids learn to develop sexually deviant relationships
how arbitrary it is that you get to decide that homosexual sex (which btw is different than a relationship) is what is deviant.
are you afraid that if a school allows a gay couple to go to the dance all the boys will start kissing each other? seems unlikely to me.
every gay person Ive ever met says they were born that way. and besides, who would chose to be gay with so many people like you around to constantly throw such hatred at them?
|
On November 12 2010 13:56 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'm no bible expert, but none of those specifically calls for people to not marry interracial, they could be interpreted that way, or they could be interpreted as people of differing ideologies or historical conflict (Cannan) should not marry, or a very specific group should not marry outward. Leviticus 19:19 doesn't even have to be about marriage.
Except for Jeremiah 13:2 which cites Ethiopian directly, and says evil can't do good??? fucking weird.
You just don't give up do you? I guess stupidity knows no bounds.
Let's get back to your original argument...
If you're arguing who has it worse today, it doesn't matter why they have it worse. The fact that gays can't marry and racial groups can means that your position that "gays don't have it worse" is very bad one to take.
btw, I never said once said that racism and the black civil rights movement was smooth sailing lol.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 12 2010 03:39 overt wrote:
They held a private prom without telling her. Like, some other parents put together money to rent some place out and held their own "prom" with the school being uninvolved (in response to Hawk on page 1). But yeah, this stuff happens a lot in the states it's not surprising that it happens at schools in other countries too.
I also love the people who think that private schools can do whatever the fuck they want. Like fire teachers who have sex outside of marriage, ban lesbians from attending their prom, or only accept white students. Just because it's a private school doesn't mean they can discriminate.
So the shouldn't be anything such as an all girls school then?
|
I remember this. I'm pretty sure the reason the school said no was because it was a year 11 formal only and one of the girl's was in year 10. But instead of the girls just accepting this they claimed it was because they're lesbians and ran crying to the news networks.
|
all girls schools make chicks go nuts.. they are either very slutty, very tomboyish or straight up lesbians.. all boys schools also fuck up guys. For me that kind of schools shouldn't exist.
|
On November 12 2010 14:01 Masamune wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 13:56 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'm no bible expert, but none of those specifically calls for people to not marry interracial, they could be interpreted that way, or they could be interpreted as people of differing ideologies or historical conflict (Cannan) should not marry, or a very specific group should not marry outward. Leviticus 19:19 doesn't even have to be about marriage.
Except for Jeremiah 13:2 which cites Ethiopian directly, and says evil can't do good??? fucking weird.
You just don't give up do you? I guess stupidity knows no bounds. Let's get back to your original argument... If you're arguing who has it worse today, it doesn't matter why they have it worse. The fact that gays can't marry and racial groups can means that your position that "gays don't have it worse" is very bad one to take. btw, I never said once said that racism and the black civil rights movement was smooth sailing lol.
Get the fuck outta here.
Gays only want to marry cus they can't atm. I don't see not being married as having it that bad at all when everything else is hunky dory compare to what people had to put up with racism when nothing was. What, 3, maybe 4 more years? 6? Consider when the thing started it's moved remarkably quick. In the meantime are you living in a shack? No. Are you denied services? No. Are you a Nam vet trying to hail a cab to go home but no one would pick you up? No.
Gays don't have it as good, okay, but trying to compare it to racism where whole groups of people are annihilated, dealt poison of all kinds, treaties broken again and again... Trying to compare to that kinda intolerance? Get the fuck outta here.
User was banned for this post.
|
There are only losers not winners in the Oppression Olympics. Whether or not group A has/had it worse than group B is entirely irrelevant to the fact both group A and group B are getting fucked over.
|
On November 12 2010 10:47 .risingdragoon wrote:
I don't personally give a shit about what people do with their lives.
I'm here to point out the ignorance that some of you youngins (most likely you are, cus you talk like one) think this world can be perfectly one way or another without any blemish whatsoever, to put a cap on your high ideals and bring you down to levels of realist, people who get shit done.
The way bigotry does damage is if it's condoned and carried by the socio-political climate of the day. That's what was being fought against, not the physical sitting in the back of the bus which is only a symbol. The gay movement has already crossed over that line, all that is left now is a buncha technicalities and conservative sentiment which time will fix, and it's better to ease into it over time than cram it down touchy people's throats.
Are you kidding? There's a stigma against gay people in most of society today, no idea what specific area you live. There's a reason that gay marriage gets rejected 90% of the time. Of course, you can argue that it's over marriage and not gays themselves, but the entire prop 8 movement in California focused on "protecting our traditional families" and "kids will actually be taught in school there is nothing wrong with homosexuals marrying!" For those who voted no on gay marriage simply because they disagree with the definition, then fine, but you'd be ignorant to suggest that was the literal reason people voted no on it and that there weren't other underlying notions.
And even if it did pass, and we had 50% of society approving, that still means 50% disapproves. And at the same time a lot of that 50% that approved were the actual homosexual community.
Concerning your bus argument, it has little to nothing to do with the "socio-political climate." It has to do with the legality of it. That's what the people are fighting for, minority rights, etc. A lot couldn't give a fuck what some individuals think as long as their rights (what they believe their rights are, at least) are not being legally infringed upon.
And to be frank, you were quite simply a dick. "get hte fuck outta here," blah blah "not worth your time," is completely useless comments in a forum discussion. Why it's even permitted is beyond me. Maybe people would respect your opinion more if you actually posted in a semi-respectable manner in these types of controversial topics. And if you don't care about being respected, there's no reason for you to be even posting in these types of topics in the first place on a Starcraft forum.
|
On November 12 2010 14:24 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 14:01 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 13:56 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'm no bible expert, but none of those specifically calls for people to not marry interracial, they could be interpreted that way, or they could be interpreted as people of differing ideologies or historical conflict (Cannan) should not marry, or a very specific group should not marry outward. Leviticus 19:19 doesn't even have to be about marriage.
Except for Jeremiah 13:2 which cites Ethiopian directly, and says evil can't do good??? fucking weird.
You just don't give up do you? I guess stupidity knows no bounds. Let's get back to your original argument... If you're arguing who has it worse today, it doesn't matter why they have it worse. The fact that gays can't marry and racial groups can means that your position that "gays don't have it worse" is very bad one to take. btw, I never said once said that racism and the black civil rights movement was smooth sailing lol. Get the fuck outta here. Gays only want to marry cus they can't atm. I don't see not being married as having it that bad at all when everything else is hunky dory compare to what people had to put up with racism when nothing was.
That's not true at all.
Homosexuals are persecuted all the time.
Homosexuals are being ostracized to the point where they get depressed and commit suicide.
Married couples are granted hundreds of benefits and legal rights that gay couples aren't.
It's more than just saying "We're married".
And since homophobia is largely a religious belief, it's far LESS likely to go away quickly (since religion isn't going anywhere anytime soon).
So before you go around cursing people off, at least do a little research first.
|
On November 12 2010 14:24 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 14:01 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 13:56 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'm no bible expert, but none of those specifically calls for people to not marry interracial, they could be interpreted that way, or they could be interpreted as people of differing ideologies or historical conflict (Cannan) should not marry, or a very specific group should not marry outward. Leviticus 19:19 doesn't even have to be about marriage.
Except for Jeremiah 13:2 which cites Ethiopian directly, and says evil can't do good??? fucking weird.
You just don't give up do you? I guess stupidity knows no bounds. Let's get back to your original argument... If you're arguing who has it worse today, it doesn't matter why they have it worse. The fact that gays can't marry and racial groups can means that your position that "gays don't have it worse" is very bad one to take. btw, I never said once said that racism and the black civil rights movement was smooth sailing lol. Get the fuck outta here. Gays only want to marry cus they can't atm. I don't see not being married as having it that bad at all when everything else is hunky dory compare to what people had to put up with racism when nothing was. What, 3, maybe 4 more years? 6? Consider when the thing started it's moved remarkably quick. In the meantime are you living in a shack? No. Are you denied services? No. Are you a Nam vet trying to hail a cab to go home but no one would pick you up? No. Gays don't have it as good, okay, but trying to compare it to racism where whole groups of people are annihilated, dealt poison of all kinds, treaties broken again and again... Trying to compare to that kinda intolerance? Get the fuck outta here.
haha you're not very smart are you?
In the meantime are you living in a shack? No. Are you denied services? No. Are you a Nam vet trying to hail a cab to go home but no one would pick you up? No.
uhhh minorities happen to be poorer because of socio-economic reasons, not because of racism. And gay people are denied services too, it's just harder to find cases of this because there are less gays than minorities and it's harder to tell who's gay than who's coloured.
Gays don't have it as good, okay, but trying to compare it to racism where whole groups of people are annihilated, dealt poison of all kinds, treaties broken again and again... Trying to compare to that kinda intolerance? Get the fuck outta here.
I recall you asking someone else to think critically, maybe you should follow your own advice. As you have already acknowledged before, gays are more conspicuous so it's harder to really target them with hate-crimes like it is for minorities. This DOES NOT mean they are treated better. I don't know how many times I have to drill this point through you thick skull.
Also, read some fucking books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust
How about you get the fuck out of here instead of making yourself look dumber than you already are?
|
On November 12 2010 14:24 .risingdragoon wrote:
Get the fuck outta here.
Gays only want to marry cus they can't atm. I don't see not being married as having it that bad at all when everything else is hunky dory compare to what people had to put up with racism when nothing was. What, 3, maybe 4 more years? 6? Consider when the thing started it's moved remarkably quick. In the meantime are you living in a shack? No. Are you denied services? No. Are you a Nam vet trying to hail a cab to go home but no one would pick you up? No.
Gays don't have it as good, okay, but trying to compare it to racism where whole groups of people are annihilated, dealt poison of all kinds, treaties broken again and again... Trying to compare to that kinda intolerance? Get the fuck outta here.
I assure you, they have better reasons for wanting to get married than "they can't atm".
I mean if you can't see the clear sociopolitical parallels maybe you actually are just actually plain incapable of understanding our point.
|
I don't think your being fair to rising dragoon here, his argument is quite strong. If you go back and read his points he actually said "get the fuck outta here" not once, but twice.
|
On November 12 2010 14:24 .risingdragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 14:01 Masamune wrote:On November 12 2010 13:56 .risingdragoon wrote:
I'm no bible expert, but none of those specifically calls for people to not marry interracial, they could be interpreted that way, or they could be interpreted as people of differing ideologies or historical conflict (Cannan) should not marry, or a very specific group should not marry outward. Leviticus 19:19 doesn't even have to be about marriage.
Except for Jeremiah 13:2 which cites Ethiopian directly, and says evil can't do good??? fucking weird.
You just don't give up do you? I guess stupidity knows no bounds. Let's get back to your original argument... If you're arguing who has it worse today, it doesn't matter why they have it worse. The fact that gays can't marry and racial groups can means that your position that "gays don't have it worse" is very bad one to take. btw, I never said once said that racism and the black civil rights movement was smooth sailing lol. Get the fuck outta here. Gays only want to marry cus they can't atm. I don't see not being married as having it that bad at all when everything else is hunky dory compare to what people had to put up with racism when nothing was. What, 3, maybe 4 more years? 6? Consider when the thing started it's moved remarkably quick. In the meantime are you living in a shack? No. Are you denied services? No. Are you a Nam vet trying to hail a cab to go home but no one would pick you up? No. Gays don't have it as good, okay, but trying to compare it to racism where whole groups of people are annihilated, dealt poison of all kinds, treaties broken again and again... Trying to compare to that kinda intolerance? Get the fuck outta here.
Um i can assure you GLBT people do not want to marry only because they cant. We want to because of the same reasons everyone else wants to. As to your point about having it better today......
I am glad i live today, because i am currently not being thrown in a fire to be burned alive which is what they used to do to gay men or sent to a work camp during the holocaust, but im also being told that i can never have the same job security, that i cant love the person i want, that i cant serve my country in the military, and that i cant do what i want in public due to societal pressures.
|
On November 12 2010 14:46 XeliN wrote:
I don't think your being fair to rising dragoon here, his argument is quite strong. If you go back and read his points he actually said "get the fuck outta here" not once, but twice.
qft
(just to officially use this acronym for the first time ever)
This thread has unfortunately started to degrade
I'm thinking it'll take at least 1 full generation (if not 2) for homosexuality to be socially acceptable and fully-integrated into society. And it's a pity it'll take that long.
|
Osaka27139 Posts
Keep it clean please. Last warning for everyone.
|
On November 12 2010 12:47 ghen wrote:
Pre-drinks? 12 pages of arguing and no one is mentioning the real crime here. Or is 16 legal drinking age in that country?
same sex discrimination is being fought around the world. Another story, another day, another country. Whenever I get the chance I vote for freedom, but the chance rarely comes up so it will wait for the next generation probably.
I never saw anyone answer you, so I will! Legal drinking age is 16 but I'm hoping you looked it up right after you posted that.
|
On November 12 2010 16:19 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 12:47 ghen wrote:
Pre-drinks? 12 pages of arguing and no one is mentioning the real crime here. Or is 16 legal drinking age in that country?
same sex discrimination is being fought around the world. Another story, another day, another country. Whenever I get the chance I vote for freedom, but the chance rarely comes up so it will wait for the next generation probably. I never saw anyone answer you, so I will! Legal drinking age is 16 but I'm hoping you looked it up right after you posted that.
No, 18 is the legal age to buy alcohol in Australia.
|
It took me some time to read through the whole thread. Near the end are so many insults lol.
Anyways, I feel really bad everytime I read any article of this kind. This kind of intolerance is mindboggling to me. It's obvious they aren't hurting anyone yet there are people who would like nothing better than to forbid them being together.
Frankly I myself feel uncomfortable with the idea of man2man relationship but I also think it's normal for most not-gay people. That's where empathy comes in.
Can you imagine if someone didn't allow you to be with your loved one? I don't understand people opposing the idea of homosexuality. Can't you imagine yourself in that position?
|
i dont think this is special treatment, the same rule went for my school, u cant take a 15 year old to the formal
|
On November 12 2010 16:25 Shakes wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 16:19 overt wrote:On November 12 2010 12:47 ghen wrote:
Pre-drinks? 12 pages of arguing and no one is mentioning the real crime here. Or is 16 legal drinking age in that country?
same sex discrimination is being fought around the world. Another story, another day, another country. Whenever I get the chance I vote for freedom, but the chance rarely comes up so it will wait for the next generation probably. I never saw anyone answer you, so I will! Legal drinking age is 16 but I'm hoping you looked it up right after you posted that. No, 18 is the legal age to buy alcohol in Australia.
However, it is legal for minors to possess and drink alcohol on private property. They just can't be sold it or consume it at licensed venues.
|
Things like this keep making me doubt USA being a civilized country. -.-
User was warned for this post
|
On November 12 2010 23:38 Zoler wrote:
Things like this keep making me doubt USA being a civilized country. -.-
If you read the thing you would see that this is in Australia.
|
On November 12 2010 23:43 pred470r wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 23:38 Zoler wrote:
Things like this keep making me doubt USA being a civilized country. -.- If you read the thing you would see that this is in Australia.
True, but he could just redirect his comment to the other story on page 1. :p
|
On November 12 2010 23:38 Zoler wrote:
Things like this keep making me doubt USA being a civilized country. -.-
And people jumping to a conclusion about an entire country based on the action of a small group of people, who that country's media is criticizing makes me doubt that you could ever be convinced otherwise.
+ Show Spoiler +Not to mention that the country you are criticizing and the country in question are different. -.-
|
On November 12 2010 23:38 Zoler wrote:
Things like this keep making me doubt USA being a civilized country. -.-
I love bigoted Europeans, they hide their own ignorance by bashing the USA.
BTW, the country in question is Australia.
|
A lot of posts here saying how it was wrong for the school to not let them in becuase they were lesbians and I do wonder if anyone of you have tried to find out the schools point of view. It might suprise you to knew that the reason they weren't allowed to go there was becuase it was a dance for year 11 students and Savannah Supski was a year 10 student.
Ms Williams and her father have told Fairfax radio the decision discriminated against same-sex couples.
But school principal, Dr Heather Schnagl, denies that.
"The school is not discriminatory against same sex couples," she said.
"We are very very supportive, but the issue here is that it was a year 11 event and it was inappropriate to enable year 10s to attend."
She said Ms Williams was told to bring a male guest or come alone, although she would have been allowed to bring a year 11 girl if she wanted to.
Taken from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/10/3062097.htm
|
Was about to say at the end of the article it said that the event was for year 11's and the girlfriend was a year 10, its probably just a shit stirring article (unless younger guys were able to go).
|
On November 13 2010 01:18 Carentino wrote:
A lot of posts here saying how it was wrong for the school to not let them in becuase they were lesbians and I do wonder if anyone of you have tried to find out the schools point of view. It might suprise you to knew that the reason they weren't allowed to go there was becuase it was a dance for year 11 students and Savannah Supski was a year 10 student
this has long been an excuse. they had some other ones too. none of them are legitimate.
I dont understand how people continue to buy that argument.
|
People from outside the school could come even if they were younger or older, but only year 11 students from that school was allowed, and this was known before the event.
|
In my HS ring dance, which is in 11th grade, you could invite anyone you want as a guest, any age, from any school =/
|
On November 13 2010 01:29 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 01:18 Carentino wrote:
A lot of posts here saying how it was wrong for the school to not let them in becuase they were lesbians and I do wonder if anyone of you have tried to find out the schools point of view. It might suprise you to knew that the reason they weren't allowed to go there was becuase it was a dance for year 11 students and Savannah Supski was a year 10 student this has long been an excuse. they had some other ones too. none of them are legitimate. I dont understand how people continue to buy that argument.
I'm curious, since you sound so certain that they are lying, what do you feel puts you in a position to judge whether they are lying. Age restrictions, formal requirements and the like are not uncommon, but yet you somehow know that they school wasn't actually making use such rules, rather using them as an excuse to carry out another agenda. What gives you this insight? Surely, you know nothing of the school or the exact circumstances?
I'm wondering if you'd accept any reason for not allowing the lesbian couple to attend as honest. I'm can understand if you're suspicious, especially given the angle in which the story has been told to you, but I do not understand how you can be so sure.
|
I don't know if the school is lying or not, but I am sure after what I read in this thread that no one or almost no one in here tried to learn the schools point of view before posting. For it being an excuse I can say that the 9th grade (age 15) dance in my school we had the same rules, we where not allowed to bring anyone from our school that went in another grade, but for people outside the school there was no real age or gender limit, exept if the age difference was very big (like 8 or 9 year older).
|
Of course the school is not going to allow it. It took me all of a minute to find this,
About Our School
Our Mission
Ivanhoe Girls' aims to provide the best learning and teaching which, underpinned by the Christian philosophy, enables every girl to achieve her potential and to be a confident, optimistic and responsible citizen.
|
All I have to say is that if a place has it's rules it has it's rules and whoever attends that place should accept and obey them. Just because she decided to make a decision to like the opposite gender doesn't mean they should have to bend their rules just for her. Who cares if their excuse is poor; IT'S THEIR SCHOOL SYSTEM/FORMAL. There's a lot of homosexuality now days and judging by the reads on this post (A lot of TLers support it). I for one, do not support it. However, I don't hate or descriminate towards the people who engage in such activities. It's almost like people are trying to make homosexuality a new way of life when it clearly isn't. Two humans have "the right" to do whatever they will with their body with whomever they choose, yes. But, it's a choice and just because they made that choice doesn't mean that everyone HAS to support it. Also, here's a fact. When you go to the DPS to get your license and you mark your ethnicity; "Lesbian" or "Gay" is NOT an option to select from; so how do homosexuals claim descrimination?
|
[/QUOTE]
Yes the school is private and can set their own rules but that doesn't give them license to practice bigotry.
[/QUOTE]
Because it is a private school and not funded by a goverment they make their own rules... =( now sadly this topic kinda sucks for the girls, but its the schools choice and its because they are a private school that this even occurred had this been a public school funded by a goverment this issue never would have been brought up , and yes sadly its a private school so they can do w/e they want even bigotry it sucks but that's life.
|
On November 12 2010 23:38 Zoler wrote:
Things like this keep making me doubt USA being a civilized country. -.-
User was warned for this post
pretty stupid thing to say imo
|
On November 13 2010 02:17 a176 wrote:Of course the school is not going to allow it. It took me all of a minute to find this, Show nested quote +About Our School
Our Mission
Ivanhoe Girls' aims to provide the best learning and teaching which, underpinned by the Christian philosophy, enables every girl to achieve her potential and to be a confident, optimistic and responsible citizen.
You can't take that quote to mean what you say becuase depending on there placement on the conservative liberal scale they might not have anything against homosexuality. For example I can mention that one of the bishops of the swedish church is a lesbian. So unless you know exactly where they stand you can't take the stand you seem to do.
|
I often have doubts that there are ANY civilized countries
|
On November 13 2010 02:26 Carentino wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 02:17 a176 wrote:Of course the school is not going to allow it. It took me all of a minute to find this, About Our School
Our Mission
Ivanhoe Girls' aims to provide the best learning and teaching which, underpinned by the Christian philosophy, enables every girl to achieve her potential and to be a confident, optimistic and responsible citizen. You can't take that quote to mean what you say becuase depending on there placement on the conservative liberal scale they might not have anything against homosexuality. For example I can mention that one of the bishops of the swedish church is a lesbian. So unless you know exactly where they stand you can't take the stand you seem to do.
Saying is one thing then actually knowing. In this case, it was clearly broadcasted.
|
On November 12 2010 03:39 FishForThought wrote:
... it would be discrimination if they refuse to let her join the formal because of her sexual orientation but it is not discrimination to forbid her to bring guest of the same sex. The formal is hosted by the school, they have all rights to create rules and guidelines for the event. If the event specified that all guests must be males, then there is no discrimination involved.
People need to stop getting all defensive and insecure about these things; sooner or later people will cry sexist for not being able to get into an all female/male school because he or she is not that gender, or cry free speech violation for not being able to enter a restaurant nude.
This is correct. Thanks Fish. For. Eat?
Anyway, I'm against both discrimination (of any kind) and any moral ground that states being/supporting a gay lifestyle is just fine. They are two different things, however. They cross paths sometimes, maybe often, but they are not the same.
They should have been allowed to go to the dance regardless of their 'orientation,' but they should not have been allowed to go together as a couple. And that is just what happened. I don't see the problem.
All these arguments ever boil down to is what you believe morally. If you believe homosexuality is morally ok, then you probably support the girls in their anger. If you believe homosexuality is morally wrong, then you should disagree that this is a problem.
People will argue about discrimination issues, but it has not yet reached that bridge until you first solve the morality question.
|
Legal drinking age in Australia is 18. This kid was inviting other kids to her home to illegally consume alcohol before a school function... and people are mad at the school for trying to rain on her parade? IMO, I'd prefer the school that my kids attend some day in the future just expel people who participate in illegal activity, especially if they bring other kids into it.
Her sexual preference issue is fair, however. She should be able to go the damn dance with whatever "guest" she chooses.
EDIT: After reading the post above me, I retract the last part of the statement. Schools making rules is fine, especially if they apply to everyone. I feel for troubled youth.
|
On November 13 2010 01:59 Asjo wrote:
I'm curious, since you sound so certain that they are lying, what do you feel puts you in a position to judge whether they are lying.
historical precedent.
|
On November 13 2010 02:54 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 01:59 Asjo wrote:
I'm curious, since you sound so certain that they are lying, what do you feel puts you in a position to judge whether they are lying. historical precedent.
If only using historical precedent, you would have to conclude they aren't lying. Since, after all, historically, schools surely haven't lied about the majority of decisions of this kind. That aside, we have to deal with the fact that we know that not all schools are lying about rules they make for formal events - far from it. So, regardless of historical precedent, which can only support suspicion, there must be other factors in this case to give cause for your certainty in judging their motives.
Edit: Unless what you mean is that you are using intuition, through a subconscious process judging from fine details where you recognize very specific patterns of behaviour you have observed previously. In other words, it "feels" obvious that they are wrong, even if you don't know why exactly.
|
|
|
I don't get it. Are you making your case by highlighting one instance out of what surely must be millions? If so, what ends does that serve?
|
It is a:
PRIVATE SCHOOL
CHRISTIAN SCHOOL
And they can do whatever they want in regards to situations like this.
My school (Private, Christian) Expelled a student who became openly gay.
Its my guess that if the other students there are Christian, the girls' relationship makes them very uncomfortable and probably would not be unhappy with a similar decision.
Also, whats with the pitiful "they took our posters down!" of course they did, it is not an open forum for discussion there. You go to a school like that, you play by their rules. END OF STORY.
|
Who do you think is the submissive one?
|
The one of the right has a little Emma Watson thing going on, too bad she plays for the other team.
|
I have a question for people that keep using hte "private argument." This is not rhetorical, it's an actual question in which I don't know the answer.
Why can private schools discriminate, but private businesses cannot? For example, if I want to open my own restaurant, not funded by the government or anything, I cannot refuse service to homosexual couples, minorities, whites, etc. Where in the law does it make schools exempt?
|
On November 13 2010 04:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
I have a question for people that keep using hte "private argument." This is not rhetorical, it's an actual question in which I don't know the answer.
Why can private schools discriminate, but private businesses cannot? For example, if I want to open my own restaurant, not funded by the government or anything, I cannot refuse service to homosexual couples, minorities, whites, etc. Where in the law does it make schools exempt?
It actually depends on what kind of business you are undertaking and wether or not it's open to the public. You can't open a pizza parlor and say 'heterosexual adult white males only' but you could, for example, provide an invite-only service of whatever sort (we'll say a gun club, for sake of argument) and you're able to discriminate however you please.
|
On November 13 2010 03:15 Scrapiron wrote:
It is a:
PRIVATE SCHOOL
CHRISTIAN SCHOOL
And they can do whatever they want in regards to situations like this.
My school (Private, Christian) Expelled a student who became openly gay.
Its my guess that if the other students there are Christian, the girls' relationship makes them very uncomfortable and probably would not be unhappy with a similar decision.
Also, whats with the pitiful "they took our posters down!" of course they did, it is not an open forum for discussion there. You go to a school like that, you play by their rules. END OF STORY.
Long have bigots hidden behind this skirt, but the courts have ruled overwhelmingly that private institutions and religious institutions can still violate civil rights. It doesn't matter that they are closed-enrollment, unless it can be materially proven that the student was removed for a reason other than sexual orientation, the court requiring very strong evidence here.
|
On November 13 2010 04:24 Ympulse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 04:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
I have a question for people that keep using hte "private argument." This is not rhetorical, it's an actual question in which I don't know the answer.
Why can private schools discriminate, but private businesses cannot? For example, if I want to open my own restaurant, not funded by the government or anything, I cannot refuse service to homosexual couples, minorities, whites, etc. Where in the law does it make schools exempt? It actually depends on what kind of business you are undertaking and wether or not it's open to the public. You can't open a pizza parlor and say 'heterosexual adult white males only' but you could, for example, provide an invite-only service of whatever sort (we'll say a gun club, for sake of argument) and you're able to discriminate however you please.
So say I wanted an invite-only service for a gun club. I could openly state "invitations will only be given out to heterosexual white males. No homosexuals, minorities, or females allowed. If we find out you have any color in your blood you will be asked to leave."
|
On November 13 2010 04:29 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 04:24 Ympulse wrote:On November 13 2010 04:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
I have a question for people that keep using hte "private argument." This is not rhetorical, it's an actual question in which I don't know the answer.
Why can private schools discriminate, but private businesses cannot? For example, if I want to open my own restaurant, not funded by the government or anything, I cannot refuse service to homosexual couples, minorities, whites, etc. Where in the law does it make schools exempt? It actually depends on what kind of business you are undertaking and wether or not it's open to the public. You can't open a pizza parlor and say 'heterosexual adult white males only' but you could, for example, provide an invite-only service of whatever sort (we'll say a gun club, for sake of argument) and you're able to discriminate however you please. So say I wanted an invite-only service for a gun club. I could openly state "invitations will only be given out to heterosexual white males. No homosexuals, minorities, or females allowed. If we find out you have any color in your blood you will be asked to leave."
Worded more carefully, yes.
|
The one on the left has some huge hands. :o
|
The countervailing right against equal protection is typically free association. I do not know how the courts would rule in these gun-club or pizzeria examples, though.
|
On November 13 2010 04:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
I have a question for people that keep using hte "private argument." This is not rhetorical, it's an actual question in which I don't know the answer.
Why can private schools discriminate, but private businesses cannot? For example, if I want to open my own restaurant, not funded by the government or anything, I cannot refuse service to homosexual couples, minorities, whites, etc. Where in the law does it make schools exempt?
Well, the arguments I would see are that
1. Most businesses are social Institutions without a 'government' option... there's no 'government' restaraunts.. there are significant 'government' schools
2. The school in this case is religious... a private religious organization/business Can discriminate on religious/moral grounds.. because religion/moral grounds are part of the "job description".
The same way as a church legitimately being able to fire a worker that had an off-work affair, wheras a business probably couldn't, at least not for an employee that wasn't in a high profile position. (but both could fire a high profile person who did so under the argument that it was impairing their job...ie there were potential negative publicity results)
A school in the US (private or not) could not outright exclude different races... probably not politicial affiliations either.
[also it should be noted...this was an All-girl school... they were already excluding people on the basis of sex... because that apparently is consistent with their mission. Same as a strip club could refuse to hire a male for a "pole girl" position... the fact that the dancer is male (if known by the patrons) would interfere with their job.
|
On November 13 2010 04:40 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 04:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
I have a question for people that keep using hte "private argument." This is not rhetorical, it's an actual question in which I don't know the answer.
Why can private schools discriminate, but private businesses cannot? For example, if I want to open my own restaurant, not funded by the government or anything, I cannot refuse service to homosexual couples, minorities, whites, etc. Where in the law does it make schools exempt? Well, the arguments I would see are that 1. Most businesses are social Institutions without a 'government' option... there's no 'government' restaraunts.. there are significant 'government' schools 2. The school in this case is religious... a private religious organization/business Can discriminate on religious/moral grounds.. because religion/moral grounds are part of the "job description". The same way as a church legitimately being able to fire a worker that had an off-work affair, wheras a business probably couldn't, at least not for an employee that wasn't in a high profile position. (but both could fire a high profile person who did so under the argument that it was impairing their job...ie there were potential negative publicity results) A school in the US (private or not) could not outright exclude different races... probably not politicial affiliations either. [also it should be noted...this was an All-girl school... they were already excluding people on the basis of sex... because that apparently is consistent with their mission. Same as a strip club could refuse to hire a male for a "pole girl" position... the fact that the dancer is male (if known by the patrons) would interfere with their job.
Thank you for putting that more eloquently than I could.
|
On November 13 2010 04:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
I have a question for people that keep using hte "private argument." This is not rhetorical, it's an actual question in which I don't know the answer.
Why can private schools discriminate, but private businesses cannot? For example, if I want to open my own restaurant, not funded by the government or anything, I cannot refuse service to homosexual couples, minorities, whites, etc. Where in the law does it make schools exempt?
Because when it is a public organization it is something that "everyone" (taxpayers) have paid for so by discriminating they are getting screwed out of something they paid for. That's why both private schools and businesses should be able to discriminate.
When it is a private organization, they aren't welcome, but they don't have to pay for it - so they haven't really lost something anymore than someone who doesn't get invited to a party loses something.
Private business actually can and do discriminate all the freaking time. Don't believe me? Try going to a high class restaurant dressed poorly. Try going to a popular night club as an ugly fat woman. Try working as a male Hooters waiter. Try working as a male dancer at a strip club for men. There are actually far more things than businesses are allowed to discriminate against, just a certain few have become taboo (and against the law in some cases like you mentioned).
By making discrimination illegal in private business, what is really happening is people are saying "it's okay to initiate violence against people who voluntarily interact with each other but do not welcome other certain types of people" which is why I do not support it.
Discrimination is wrong, but I believe using violence against people just because they are unwelcoming is far worse.
|
On November 13 2010 05:01 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 04:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
I have a question for people that keep using hte "private argument." This is not rhetorical, it's an actual question in which I don't know the answer.
Why can private schools discriminate, but private businesses cannot? For example, if I want to open my own restaurant, not funded by the government or anything, I cannot refuse service to homosexual couples, minorities, whites, etc. Where in the law does it make schools exempt? Because when it is a public organization it is something that "everyone" (taxpayers) have paid for so by discriminating they are getting screwed out of something they paid for. That's why both private schools and businesses should be able to discriminate. When it is a private organization, they aren't welcome, but they don't have to pay for it - so they haven't really lost something anymore than someone who doesn't get invited to a party loses something. Private business actually can and do discriminate all the freaking time. Don't believe me? Try going to a high class restaurant dressed poorly. Try going to a popular night club as an ugly fat woman. Try working as a male Hooters waiter. Try working as a male dancer at a strip club for men. There are actually far more things than businesses are allowed to discriminate against, just a certain few have become taboo (and against the law in some cases like you mentioned). By making discrimination illegal in private business, what is really happening is people are saying "it's okay to initiate violence against people who voluntarily interact with each other but do not welcome other certain types of people" which is why I do not support it. Discrimination is wrong, but I believe using violence against people just because they are unwelcoming is far worse.
But private businesses can get tax cuts depending on how many employees, etc. from the government. I guess as long as it's not a subsidy (which can almost be viewed as the same thing as it has the same outcome), it wouldn't be bad?
|
On November 13 2010 05:06 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 05:01 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 13 2010 04:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
I have a question for people that keep using hte "private argument." This is not rhetorical, it's an actual question in which I don't know the answer.
Why can private schools discriminate, but private businesses cannot? For example, if I want to open my own restaurant, not funded by the government or anything, I cannot refuse service to homosexual couples, minorities, whites, etc. Where in the law does it make schools exempt? Because when it is a public organization it is something that "everyone" (taxpayers) have paid for so by discriminating they are getting screwed out of something they paid for. That's why both private schools and businesses should be able to discriminate. When it is a private organization, they aren't welcome, but they don't have to pay for it - so they haven't really lost something anymore than someone who doesn't get invited to a party loses something. Private business actually can and do discriminate all the freaking time. Don't believe me? Try going to a high class restaurant dressed poorly. Try going to a popular night club as an ugly fat woman. Try working as a male Hooters waiter. Try working as a male dancer at a strip club for men. There are actually far more things than businesses are allowed to discriminate against, just a certain few have become taboo (and against the law in some cases like you mentioned). By making discrimination illegal in private business, what is really happening is people are saying "it's okay to initiate violence against people who voluntarily interact with each other but do not welcome other certain types of people" which is why I do not support it. Discrimination is wrong, but I believe using violence against people just because they are unwelcoming is far worse. But private businesses can get tax cuts depending on how many employees, etc. from the government. I guess as long as it's not a subsidy (which can almost be viewed as the same thing as it has the same outcome), it wouldn't be bad?
You can get a tax cut by making your home more green friendly, does that mean everyone should have a welcome invitation?
Plus they are still paying taxes, a lot of taxes. It's not like a tax cut is paying them tax money. It's the same thing as a subsidy IF you have the mentality that the government owns everything and allows people to keep some of it.
|
On November 13 2010 05:23 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 05:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 13 2010 05:01 Treemonkeys wrote:On November 13 2010 04:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
I have a question for people that keep using hte "private argument." This is not rhetorical, it's an actual question in which I don't know the answer.
Why can private schools discriminate, but private businesses cannot? For example, if I want to open my own restaurant, not funded by the government or anything, I cannot refuse service to homosexual couples, minorities, whites, etc. Where in the law does it make schools exempt? Because when it is a public organization it is something that "everyone" (taxpayers) have paid for so by discriminating they are getting screwed out of something they paid for. That's why both private schools and businesses should be able to discriminate. When it is a private organization, they aren't welcome, but they don't have to pay for it - so they haven't really lost something anymore than someone who doesn't get invited to a party loses something. Private business actually can and do discriminate all the freaking time. Don't believe me? Try going to a high class restaurant dressed poorly. Try going to a popular night club as an ugly fat woman. Try working as a male Hooters waiter. Try working as a male dancer at a strip club for men. There are actually far more things than businesses are allowed to discriminate against, just a certain few have become taboo (and against the law in some cases like you mentioned). By making discrimination illegal in private business, what is really happening is people are saying "it's okay to initiate violence against people who voluntarily interact with each other but do not welcome other certain types of people" which is why I do not support it. Discrimination is wrong, but I believe using violence against people just because they are unwelcoming is far worse. But private businesses can get tax cuts depending on how many employees, etc. from the government. I guess as long as it's not a subsidy (which can almost be viewed as the same thing as it has the same outcome), it wouldn't be bad? You can get a tax cut by making your home more green friendly, does that mean everyone should have a welcome invitation? Plus they are still paying taxes, a lot of taxes. It's not like a tax cut is paying them tax money. It's the same thing as a subsidy IF you have the mentality that the government owns everything and allows people to keep some of it.
To the first part, point made
To the second part, a tax cut is in essence paying you money in the sense you're required to "pay less." It's government giving preferential treatment, so I disagree with you that there has to be the premise that the government owns everything and allows people to keep some of it.
|
I don't understand why people are doing the whole "Private School Discrimination" thing.
The school itself says this isn't a case of that. The school claims to not having a problem with lesbianism. The school claims this is an issue of gender, not sexual orientation. Just because its a private, christian school does not mean they discriminate. And quite frankly I'm surprised people assume that all private christian schools do.
So if people are saying this is open discrimination based on sexual orientation, then you are already going against the school. There's no need to derail the thread based on private organizations discriminating against people. Either way, I'm pretty sure there's nothing legally wrong about any of this.
|
On November 13 2010 08:15 DoubleReed wrote:
I don't understand why people are doing the whole "Private School Discrimination" thing.
The school itself says this isn't a case of that. The school claims to not having a problem with lesbianism. The school claims this is an issue of gender, not sexual orientation. Just because its a private, christian school does not mean they discriminate. And quite frankly I'm surprised people assume that all private christian schools do.
So if people are saying this is open discrimination based on sexual orientation, then you are already going against the school. There's no need to derail the thread based on private organizations discriminating against people. Either way, I'm pretty sure there's nothing legally wrong about any of this.
Why would they admit to it? I hardly see that as even a remotely viable reason to dismiss this case.
|
I'm so glad I live in Australia :D
|
Here's what I hate about these types of situations. People that raise hell about these things and make the topic much more about themselves than about the greater cause.
Whatever happened to punk rock, just do what you want. If you want to goto the dance as a couple then goto the dance as a couple. Racist ways were not changed because people tried to raise an issue about Rosa Parks having to move so a white person could sit down on the bus, it changed because Rosa Parks refused to move.
If you want to change a system you have to simply do what you want, and do what you believe in then be prepared for the consequences of your actions. If you really and truly believe in something then sitting in a prison cell or getting an expulsion from the school is of no important matter if it means you're living with your own values.
Everybody seems to whine to the media these days about everything. Nobody has the balls to do something about anything. Hockey players whine to the media about headshots but nobody goes out and drops the mitts with Matt Cooke in the first minute of a game to send a message like Probert used to do if somebody looked at Yzerman funny. American football players whine to the refs now and make post game comments rather than going after dirty players like James Harrison, you better believe I'd cut him first 5 players I could if I had to play him.
People don't like the wars going on, people don't like the way homosexuals are handled but is there anybody getting arrested for simply standing in front of the white house with hundreds of others stating their beliefs and getting arrested for it? nope. Everybody relies on celebrities and the media to get their message across and sooner rather than later the world is going to be filled with mindless drones with chips in their brains and barcodes on their foreheads because frankly nobody really gives a shit anymore.
We need a more punk rock world where people do things based on their own values and belief systems and if the world gets in your way, then fuck it bring it on.
|
Stupid homophobic school... Their supposed reasons are complete BS and everyone knows it in their heart. I would prefer that they'd just be honest about their stance on same-sex relationships because that would at least provide a starting point for discussion and potentially, change.
|
On November 13 2010 02:37 Crushgroove wrote:
Legal drinking age in Australia is 18. This kid was inviting other kids to her home to illegally consume alcohol before a school function... and people are mad at the school for trying to rain on her parade? IMO, I'd prefer the school that my kids attend some day in the future just expel people who participate in illegal activity, especially if they bring other kids into it.
Her sexual preference issue is fair, however. She should be able to go the damn dance with whatever "guest" she chooses.
EDIT: After reading the post above me, I retract the last part of the statement. Schools making rules is fine, especially if they apply to everyone. I feel for troubled youth.
Source: It is legal for minors to consume alcohol on private property with the consent of their parents.
I'm going to say that again so people stop acting as if there is another story in the OP that people need to be addressing: the girls were not breaking the law by having pre-drinks at their house as long as their parents were in on it and there was an adult around, it being their house. Australian NSW law!=every other country in the world's laws.
|
Arguing that the school's excuse is bad seems a little petty, if they made up a better excuse would you then be happy? Of course they couldn't come out and say, no we dont want gays because ppl would grab their torches. But i may be biased because i would support the school denying entry. Just the same as i would support them enforcing a dress code etc.
It's a private school no? So they can pretty much do what they want within reason and if someone doesnt like it well.... dont go to that school?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
