Miss. prom canceled after lesbian's date request

[trunks2k]

However, if under 18, I think she'd lose the case because she is a minor, beneath the age of consent basically.

The age of consent has nothing to do with this case. Age of consent has to do with having sex. She could be 13 and dating a 22 year old, and as long as they don't do anything sexual, there's nothing illegal about it.

 

[super animator]

Explain to me how exactly discriminating against homosexuals isn't hateful, please.

Explain to me how is this emitting hatred?

Also, my mother said that they are making a big deal about it. I watch the news once about it, I shut off the tv because I knew that it wasn't going to be pretty.

 

[one11]

The age of consent has nothing to do with this case. Age of consent has to do with having sex. She could be 13 and dating a 22 year old, and as long as they don't do anything sexual, there's nothing illegal about it.

I think age of consent has a lot to do with winning a case based on sexual preference.

 

[super animator]

The age of consent has nothing to do with this case. Age of consent has to do with having sex. She could be 13 and dating a 22 year old, and as long as they don't do anything sexual, there's nothing illegal about it.

I find it ironic sense some teenagers are sexual active.

 

[trunks2k]

I think age of consent has a lot to do with winning a case based on sexual preference.

In what way?

 

[super animator]

I think age of consent has a lot to do with winning a case based on sexual preference.

Explain.

 

[explodingboy]

I think age of consent has a lot to do with winning a case based on sexual preference.

You do realize it's the school on trial here.. not the girl.. right?

 

[one11]

In what way?

I'd think it's obvious, one needs to be of legal age of consent to complain. IOW, they don't have the legal rights they are complaining they are being discriminated against.

Also, this girl wants to break the dress code. Does that mean anyone can show up to a prom in a Chicken Suit as a freedom of expression? I don't think so. You either go with the dress code when you pay your money, or you don't go.

 

[one11]

You do realize it's the school on trial here.. not the girl.. right?

She has to prove her case first that's why I asked how old she was. If she were under 18, I doubt the ACLU would have even gotten involved period.

 

[explodingboy]

I'd think it's obvious, one needs to be of legal age of consent to complain. IOW, they don't have the legal rights they are complaining they are being discriminated against.

so we can pick on kids as much as we want because they're not old enough to complain about it?

Also, this girl wants to break the dress code. Does that mean anyone can show up to a prom in a Chicken Suit as a freedom of expression? I don't think so. You either go with the dress code when you pay your money, or you don't go.

she very politely asked to wear what was approved for others to wear already. A chicken suit is a rather large leap into the unrelated.

 

[LightHorseman]

I'd think it's obvious, one needs to be of legal age of consent to complain. IOW, they don't have the legal rights they are complaining they are being discriminated against.

Whoa, hold on there... lets try the "change the nouns and see if this holds up" test... "a girl wants to bring a boy with her to the school dance, but the school won't allow it, because the boy is of a different ethnicity to the girl, the girl has no right to complain because she is under the age of consent"

Nope, sorry, doesn't sound right to me.

By the way, as I posted before (you may have missed it) the young lady in question is 18years old, so she's above the age of consent.

Also, this girl wants to break the dress code. Does that mean anyone can show up to a prom in a Chicken Suit as a freedom of expression? I don't think so. You either go with the dress code when you pay your money, or you don't go.

I would be EXTREMELY interested to know how firmly the school's dress code standards have been enforced in the past. Having said that, I understood she wanted to wear a tuxedo. Are you telling me that a tuxedo will not meet the dress standards for a school formal? What's everyone else wearing? Solid gold plated top hat and tails?

 

[a_nony_mous]

Explain to me how is this emitting hatred?

Also, my mother said that they are making a big deal about it. I watch the news once about it, I shut off the tv because I knew that it wasn't going to be pretty.

It's "emitting hatred," because the school is discriminating against the girl due to her sexual orientation. Surely you don't think that discrimination is loving, do you?

 

[a_nony_mous]

Unfortunately, though, people (especially kids) tend to not like to socialize with those they consider 'abnormal'. The term - as it is generally used - implies something that is "not as it is supposed to be, it implies a defect.
That is just how society (at least as I know it) reacts to the label 'abnormal', so it is better avoided.
Maybe "atypical" would be a better label for someone who brings a same-sex date to a prom, or who has never drunk alcohol at the age of 24.

Exactly. Thank you, Beechwell, for wording that better than I ever could.

 

[super animator]

It's "emitting hatred," because the school is discriminating against the girl due to her sexual orientation. Surely you don't think that discrimination is loving, do you?

I just re-read the article. I don't see how cancelling a prom that effects everybody is any form of discrimination.

It could just a mere coincidence.

 

[a_nony_mous]

I just re-read the article. I don't see how cancelling a prom that effects everybody is any form of discrimination.

It could just a mere coincidence.

But they canceled it because of the lesbian student. Just because the cancellation affects everybody doesn't mean that the cancellation itself isn't a form of discrimination. After all, if that student hadn't been a lesbian, they wouldn't have canceled the prom at all. So no, it's not a "mere coincidence."

 

[Pinhead]

I know. It's sad. How can a person be so twisted that they think that loving another human being, no matter whether that human being is straight, gay, black, white, disabled, mentally ill, young, old, etc., is a bad thing? Love is always a good thing, and I don't see why some people can't get that into their head, no matter how many times it's explained to them. It's as though some people want to be hateful or something. Either that, or they have some sort of a mental block against the concept of "love is good."

Love is always good. According to the Bible, love is caring in action. Love isn't what we feel, but what we do.
Loving another human being, no matter whether that human being is straight, gay, black, white, disabled, mentally ill, young, old, etc., is not a bad thing, in the broadest sense of the term.
It does depend on the situation, however.

Do you believe it is hateful to take exception to a 40 year old man wanting a sexual / inappropriate relation with a 17 year old girl / boy? Or is this just people WANTING to be hateful? How about a 14 year old? Is this love?

Some people have been raised / raise their children following a moral code, either religious or not. To tell someone that they are being TWISTED / HATEFUL because they adhere to their beliefs, especially religious beliefs, is being incendiary and really doesn't help your argument.

What you call hateful we call LOVE. How do you love a sinner? Must you love their sin, also?

 

[lawtonfogle]

The age of consent for what? Do you have a source for this "whatever" consent?

Consent to sexual activity, which is what is normally meant by age of consent. As pointed out, people dance and socialize at the prom. People do not (normally) have sex there.

 

[a_nony_mous]

Love is always good. According to the Bible, love is caring in action. Love isn't what we feel, but what we do.
Loving another human being, no matter whether that human being is straight, gay, black, white, disabled, mentally ill, young, old, etc., is not a bad thing, in the broadest sense of the term.
It does depend on the situation, however.

If your love "depends on the situation," then it's not Christ-like love at all. Christ doesn't love people "depending on the situation," he loves everyone no matter what. So why are you so unwilling to love people no matter what?

Do you believe it is hateful to take exception to a 40 year old man wanting a sexual / inappropriate relation with a 17 year old girl / boy? Or is this just people WANTING to be hateful? How about a 14 year old? Is this love?

You're talking about a non-consensual relationship. Homosexual relationships are consensual. Think up a better analogy.

Some people have been raised / raise their children following a moral code, either religious or not. To tell someone that they are being TWISTED / HATEFUL because they adhere to their beliefs, especially religious beliefs, is being incendiary and really doesn't help your argument.

You're saying that I'm the incendiary one here when you just compared homosexuals to pedophiles? I think you'd better take the beam out of your own eye before you comment on the speck of sawdust in my eye.

What you call hateful we call LOVE. How do you love a sinner? Must you love their sin, also?

Oh, so it's loving to hate a part of a person that they didn't even choose and they can't even change? Do you think it's loving as well to hate black skin or blue eyes? What about birth defects, should we hate those as well? I mean, what's the difference between hating those things and hating a person's sexual orientation? There is no difference, which is why so many people (like me) think it's ludicrous to hate someone's sexual orientation.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Explain to me how is this emitting hatred?

Also, my mother said that they are making a big deal about it. I watch the news once about it, I shut off the tv because I knew that it wasn't going to be pretty.

Hatred (or hate) is an intense feeling of dislike.

They dislike homosexuals enough to just cancel the prom. That sounds pretty intense to me.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I think age of consent has a lot to do with winning a case based on sexual preference.

Not really, because sexual preference is different from having sex.