>I hope that girl gets out of that shitfuck little town, and then I hope a tornado turns the entire place into a hole in the ground that can be turned into a nice little lake... or a landfill. (Hey, nothing will have changed, it'll still be full of trash.)

AMEN.

>>I mean, this is just actual persecution, so who cares, right?
>Real problem that should be covered and resolved, hopefully in a way that can move society forward instead of sticking with 1950s viewpoint?
No one.
>Bullshit that isn't a problem but gets tons of unnecessary coverage?
PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE!

>despite what a hurry he was in to weigh in on some cop being abused by a cranky old black guy

Can I just state that you are spinning that event just a little, but that I don't want a new discussion on it?

Anyway, birds will fly, and pathetic normative mediocre white trash scumbags are going to be... Well, that.

>>14508
>>Can I just state that you are spinning that event just a little

You could, but you'd be wrong.

Link is gone.

Clearly this is a coverup!

Heres a link for anyone who didnt catch it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-10-noprom_N.htm

>>14511

Y'know, what I also love is how they not only told her she couldn't bring a girl to the prom, but also that she was forbidden from wearing a tuxedo.

This isn't just an anti-gay thing, it's also "Know your place, and it's in a skirt".

Holy shit, a school with stones. I thought they had been outlawed.

>>14513
>>Holy shit, a school with stones.

That they intend to throw at any female that behaves in an improper manner.

I don't see what the big deal is. In my senior prom we had a gay student attend with a male date.

>>14513
No, if they had let her go to the prom, THAT would have taken stones. This is the act of a bunch of retards thinking on a 5-year-old's level.

>>14515

That's the point, she couldn't go because she was a lesbian - and they closed the dance down for the express purpose of blocking her.

The 19th century called. They want their ignorance back.

>>14517

Yes, I know that. I just don't understand why they decided to make a big deal about her being gay.

They're a public school, they should have known that a lawsuit was guaranteed. This is porn for the ACLU, its how their lawyers get it up for their hookers.

Of course they may very well have anticipated that and are counting on the socially conservative to rally behind them.

What people did at my school, was that the gay couple would get a ticket with the lesbian couple. (there were really only one of each...openly)

At the prom they would meet up and "trade"

I'm waiting for a school that's really progressive and allows students to bring pedophiles as dates.

If you disagree that that should be allowable, you're an inbred mental dinosaur from the 16th century.

>>14524
>>14513

You know, the laziness and lack of subtlety of your trolling is, in itself, fairly annoying. You've gone meta-troll.

>>14526
>It's inconceivable that he might not agree with my personal beliefs, so clearly he is a troll

>>14527

>He tries, in the face of every philosophical progress in society since the Enlightenment, to equate pedophilia with same-sex attraction between teens. This is a belief like any other hurr durr.

Concern trolling - being dismissive and contemptuous of people who try pass of homophobic insanity as comparable to anti-pedophiliac tendencies is not a "personal belief", but a self-evident paradigm.

Stop with the intellectual and moral relativism - not approving of gay teens going to a prom is fucking retarded and evil, while not wanting a pedophile there is basic.

Besides, taking an older gentleman or lady to your prom wouldn't be illegal in the first place. And depending on the state it wouldn't be illegal to have sex with them either, Consult the map.

But I get off topic.

>>14528
Being dismissive and contemptuous of people who display pedophilophobic insanity is not a "personal belief", but a self-evident paradigm.

See, I can portray ideas as objective also.

>Stop with the intellectual and moral relativism - not approving of gay teens going to a prom is fucking retarded and evil, while not wanting a pedophile there is basic.

How interesting, twenty years ago not wanting homosexuals at a prom would be basic. I guess we just have to wait until 2030 and pedophilia will be socially acceptable, and your antiquated mentally regressive Christfag philosophy will be dead and buried.

>>14533
Obvious pedotroll.

>>14533
>How interesting, fifty years ago not wanting negros at a prom would be basic. I guess we just have to wait until 2060 and beastiality will be socially acceptable, and your antiquated mentally regressive Christfag philosophy will be dead and buried.

Wow, comparing things that are only tangentially related sure is fun!

0/10

>>14534
>Coming up with a counterargument would require thinking, so I'll call him a troll and enjoy wallowing in my own intellectual void.
>>14535
So you're saying a man cannot feel real love for a dog? Who are you to make that call? Can you provide a rational reason why the two should not have sex? Of course, we know the answer is no because you're a common closed-minded bigot who believes in shoving your own irrational, outdated morals down other people's throats. The 1800s called, your bible-humping klan misses you.

I honestly have no idea where this thread went or WTF is currently going on.

>>14536

>>14536
You're an idiot you know that? It is not the age that is important. It is the ability to give consent, and at what age a person is determined mature enough to give consent. That's why the law refers to it as the "Age of Consent"

A dog can never give consent. It is a dog.

>>14536
Oh, sorry.
Obvious pedophile/animal fucker troll.
My mistake.

>>14541
Yes, because the concept of "age of consent" isn't a recent development of western civilization and little else.

Wait, that's not right at all.

But never mind that, I'm sure whatever your Southern Baptist minister tells you is unquestionably the truth.

>>14536
>unable to deny being a troll because it's obvious to anyone with an IQ.

on topic: I could see them possibly denying them being able to go due to them being lesbians, but really, canceling the entire prom because of it is such backwards logic that they've forgotten how to put their pants on right.

>>14547
>It must be a troll, because they aren't in absolute lockstep with my own beliefs and my atrophic brain can't handle the concept of different ideas

Do the world a favor, kiddo. Turn off your computer and don't turn it back on until you've grown up. The internet will still be here for you to pollute not quite as much.

>>14550

Your IP hash changed on this one, brosef. Might wanna make sure you keep the same proxy across trolling attempts (or successes, as the case may be), otherwise people catch on to your rambling IP addresses and finger you as a troll trying to cover your ass with a proxy much more quickly.

Back on topic:

This is complete and utter bullshit and should not have happened. Those two girls are now in a pretty dangerous situation; even if the school does reinstate the prom, there will still be the issue of their fellow students thinking of them as "those queers that almost fucked up prom," and thus an elevated chance of the girls possibly ending up getting beaten by peers or getting raped (to make them straight, of course!).

That and the whole "punishing the whole to spite the few" thing. Can't man up for long enough to take a stand on something, so they pull some passive aggressive bullshit to get their way. Pussies.

>>14551
>>there will still be the issue of their fellow students thinking of them as "those queers that almost fucked up prom,"
From the look of the tactic, that's what the school was trying to do. The school probably wants them ostracized. (though probably not raped and beaten) Hopefully anyone with half a brain can see that as the intended goal.

I don't think anyone could be stupid enough to think that it WASN'T an intended outcome. Otherwise, as you said, they would have just barred the lesbians.

>>14550
>still denying being a troll and ignoring any of the other points brought up in the post.

seriously, just leave. you haven't contributed anything to the discussion, and no one wants you here. you don't even have a name, you're just another idiot anon that will soon be forgotten after you get banned for trolling.

>>14554
I see. When it's "accepting homosexuality" your inbred little hick mind thinks it's trendy and cool "like them people on the tv box, hyuck" but anything outside the jailed confines of what you've been raised to see as acceptable is evil and wrong.

You've got a neat strategy for keeping your mind clamped shut by dismissing any dissent from your worldview as trolling. I'm sure your fellow congregation would appreciate it.

>>14555
so what's your excuse for hating gays? oh, because you're obviously so enlightened about the world that you have to go to a furry imageboard and spread the word that gays are evil and should be publicly hanged. well gee, ah shore am glad you smart folks can come along and tell me how wrong ah am about everthang, ahyuk.

cool trolling, bro. now GB2 /lulz/.

You know, I'm a bit boneheaded whe nit comes to trolling and even I'm not feeding this guy.

Why exactly is a dress code in a prom necessarily a bad thing?

Should I be able to cosplay as Sailor Moon with a date who's wearing just a headband on her chest and a hula shirt?

This is not homophobia. This is the establishment of a dress code for an event. Shock. Feint.

Keep this in mind.

If she had not wanted to crossdress, then- wait for it- nothing would have happened! Nothing! She would have gone there, had a good time, and then left. Nothing would have happened. But she insisted on crossdressing, and here we are.

This is exactly what happened in the South Park episode "Death Camp of Tolerance". When there's no homophobia to be found, the gays decide to act so flamboyantly that their choice of behavior becomes an issue.

I support repealing "Don't ask don't tell", but if that repeal means that the Army Brass will be sued by the ACLU for not letting a gay male soldiers dress in female uniforms... then I'm not so sure anymore...

Geeze this is dumb. They're just lesbians not terrorists shouting bomb threats.

And this was a public school wasn't it?

>>14562

The reaction by the school is very blatantly homophobic. Also, girls can look really hot in tuxedos, and I'd sure as hell love my prom date to wear one. The clothing issue isn't relevant.

South Park is a parody show. Portraying gays as flamboyant and vocal about their sexuality is more of a gag and less of a reflection of reality. Yes, there's probably at least one gay person out there that acts exactly like that--the law of averages says it's highly likely. However, you seem to be basing your assumption of the gay community as a whole on a common media stereotype played for comedy, when in reality you probably pass a gay person on the street every day without so much as a double take.

Lastly, who said anyone wanted to wear a woman's outfit in the military? You seem to have built a straw man out of the idea that all gays want to wear the opposite sex's clothing. This isn't true, and reality is probably very close to the opposite. Again, you likely pass a gay man or woman on the street daily without looking up; a man in a dress (or a woman in a tuxedo) may not necessarily be gay, and a man in a tuxedo (or a woman in a dress) may not necessarily be straight.

Totally agree with you on the repeal of DADT though.

>>14564

Yeah, pretty sure it's a public school.

>>14561 >>14562
She didn't want to come wearing assless chaps and a strap-on, she wanted to go in a tuxedo. I'm pretty sure most proms allow tuxedos.

Yes, if she hadn't complained about not being able to wear a tux, she still would have had a prom to go to. But she had a RIGHT to go to her prom wearing a tuxedo, and the school board couldn't stand losing. She's not at fault here, the school board is.

>>14567

>Yes, if she hadn't complained about not being able to wear a tux, she still would have had a prom to go to.

You know, I'm really not so sure that would have been the case, considering she was told that if she and her girlfriend showed up to the prom in proper dress, the school might have kicked them out anyway out of some misguided attempt to "preserve the peace" (my words, not theirs).

>>14565

Thank you for this post.

The school was damned if they do, damned if they don't in this situation and opted for the cheaper result.

If the school allows it, they gotta deal with angry parents.

If the school doesn't, they got an expensive lawsuit.

Best option? No prom. No one can complain about either. No one gets what they want.

Prom is an outdated silly thing anyway.

>>14573
Right, totally the best option. Except for the inconvenient fact that the girl ended up blamed and ridiculed for it.

Know what they should've done? GET WITH THE FUCKING TIMES, REALIZE THAT GAY PEOPLE ARE NOT THE DEVIL, ACCEPT THE FACT THAT GIRLS ARE NOT LIMITED TO SKIRTS ANYMORE, AND ALLOW THE GIRL TO TAKE HER GIRLFRIEND TO THE PROM AND WEAR WHATEVER SHE WANTS! Hell, the whole town needs to do that! But no, they'd rather remain the same bunch of homophobic Bible-beating hillbillies they've been for who knows how long and pull shit like this!

>>14575

Have you ever dealt with angry parents? It's not fun and it can be expensive for the school when parents decide they don't want their kids going.

Public schools play a delicate balance of appeasement to prevent lawsuits. This is such a litigious society now that these kinds of problems are no longer solved through public discourse. They're solved in courtrooms and the best option for the school is to avoid the courtroom.

Removing the Prom ended the problem on both sides permanently. Sometimes the best thing to do is to take away the toy to keep the kids from fighting over it.

Yeah, the girls are being ridiculed, but what does that say about their classmates? On top of that, what does that say about what could have happened if the prom went on and they showed up anyway? Shit storm.

I don't care if they wear tuxedos or dicks on their nipples, but the school has to care. They're not in a great position for this. It's unfortunate.

>>14575

>not realizing that the school is in Mississippi which doesn't exactly have a great track record for being progressive when it comes to gays

>>14576

The thing is, none of the stories I've read on this situation said anything about any of the students or parents having a problem with the girl going to the prom with her girlfriend, tuxedo or not. If students/parents DID have a problem with it, then yes, I understand the school's position on this a little (despite not agreeing with it at all regardless). But if only the school board had a problem with it, then their position becomes pretty much indefensible, since it's flat out homophobic.

>>14576
>>Have you ever dealt with angry parents? It's not fun and it can be expensive for the school when parents decide they don't want their kids going.

God forbid that doing the right thing not be easy or cheap.

>>14578

According to article, the threat of a lawsuit is what prompted the school to simply cancel the event. Given the general cultural atmosphere of the district, I'm not terribly surprised.

>>14579

Well that's just it. You're dealing with a cultural attitude that what was done is in fact right. This situation really just highlights the overall problem with this debate in this country. Rather than settling this through public discourse, changing hearts and minds, etc, the tool of choice is lawyers and a courtroom. All that creates is resentment and makes the situation worse.

>>14580

>Rather than settling this through public discourse, changing hearts and minds, etc, the tool of choice is lawyers and a courtroom. All that creates is resentment and makes the situation worse.

Well, when you know that threatening a lawsuit is a good way to shut someone up, and 99% of the time people are going to back down because of what a lawsuit means (a loss, sometimes massive, of time and money that could be better used elsewhere), then OF COURSE using the threat of a lawsuit is going to seem like the better option. Why talk things through with someone who has an opposing viewpoint when you can shut them up by threatening to sue? Sure, it's stupid - but it's effective, and to many people, that's all that matters.

(And by the way, it wasn't a lawsuit from parents that shut the event down; the school board shut it down after the ACLU threatened to sue to allow the girl to go to the prom - like, y'know, she should have been allowed to in the first place - because the homophobes figured that if they didn't have a prom for her to go to, the ACLU would have no basis to sue.)

All this situation is doing is "criminalizing" homosexuality (in a sense) and making other gay students afraid to come out and be themselves, since they could now conceivably become targets of angry Bible-thumping jackasses.

The school district was in a tough spot, but like Sechs said, doing the right thing isn't easy or cheap, and they sure as bloody hell didn't do the right thing in this situation.

Also, the thing about a lawsuit-happy culture is that it works both ways. It's easy to always blame the one filing the suit and automatically sympathize with the one that it's filed against because it's cultural background noise to bemoan the sue-happy environment.

The other edge of that sword, though, is that many institutions have adopted a stance where they refuse to do anything until they have been seriously threatened with a lawsuit. Schools are the most infamous of these. Unless a teacher was actually caught diddling a kid, probably 19 out of 20 schools are only going to respond with "We're looking into the matter" and maybe slap a wrist unless they've actually got a lawyer standing in their office. Even with the lawyer, you can bet on the school to take the most half-assed approach possible.

Schools have contributed in their own way to the sue-happy culture, simply by setting a lawsuit as the minimum requirement to actually get them to pay attention to an issue.

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20100318/NEWS/3180343/1001/NEWS

>>14586

I'm not arguing about what is right and wrong in this case, just how she's going about it. Nothing makes people more standoffish than when you introduce them to your lawyer.

Look what happened in California with Prop 8. Guarantee you that prop doesn't succeed if not for the constant threats of having courtrooms decide the will of the people.

>>14603

Firing teachers is a whole other can of worms. You're talking about contracted employees that more often than not have a powerful union backing them. They're also individuals with their own rights to due process and without a conviction, there's little a school can actually do without getting a lawsuit from the instructor for breach of contract.

But anyway, I'm only criticizing the method in which cultural change is being forced in this country. I think it's far more effective to openly communicate than to litigate.

>>14611

Wonder who will offer her a book deal.

>"Guarantee you that prop doesn't succeed if not for the constant threats of having courtrooms decide the will of the people. "

That's an extremely dumb opinion. Stop having it.

It's not for the people to decide whether gay people are equal citizens or not.

Therefore, in a decent society, prop 8 would never have been conceived, let alone voted on. People are not allowed to vote on whether to deny people their self-evident rights or not.

Prop 8 was evil, it's very concept is evil and the people who voted for it invariably did evil.

>>14615

When you're discussing something as ritualistic in its nature as marriage, it's not a dumb opinion at all especially with how supportive Californians are of civil unions.

>>14617

lol, civil unions are a step down from marriage rights when it comes to legal status and tax recognitions. Civil unions are a fucking insult.

If gays don't get to serve openly in the military, adopt or be written up as legal partners, then they shouldn't have to pay as much taxes as "first rate" citizens, no?

Also, marriage predates religion. Marriage as a concept belongs to a society, not any religions in society.

Civil unions are not an acceptable compromise - policy must reflect reality, and reality is that gay love = straight love, which means all the rights, tax dividends and rules must be the same. Anything else is not meritocratic or based on reason/empiricism/self-evident metaphysical qualities, and therefore evil.

I don't want to discuss this anymore. You can have the final word if you want to.

>>14618

Now if they support civil unions as a complete replacement for marriage in our law books, complete with everything that marriage has except for a name, and everyone gay or straight has a civil union (thus "marriage" becoming a term no longer used in legal documents), then I totally support it, mostly because I want to see the commercials opposing it. I'm sure it will have something to do with storms fueled by gay sex and the souls of child sacrifices to Satan or something.

>>14620

>>14620

>>14618

That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the point I was making. If I want to convince you that your view of something is false, then I gotta communicate with you right? And do you want me to treat you as a fellow rational being whose views are valuable or do you want me to backhanded methods to force my views on you without giving you your due respect?

I think forcing the courts to make a decision on gay marriage rather than addressing the people directly is what gave you prop 8, among other props that passed in other states to officially limit marriage.

For the record, I voted NO on Prop 8. I don't give a shit WHO gets married. Why anyone would want to is actually a mystery to me.


Also, I said marriage was ritualistic, which implies its existence before modern religions, however I would like to add that marriage in the past if you wanna bring that up, was almost solely for business and breeding, not for love. In fact, marriage for love is relatively new and very western concept. So, if you wanna use the whole "it's been around forever" thing, then lets use it in its proper context and not bring up "love".

>>14623

What gave us Prop 8 wasn't the courts, it was a bunch of in-state bigots being funded by a bunch of out-of-state bigots to put a measure on a ballot to try to make an example out of California. A campaign that succeeded by "addressing the people directly," as you put it. Because the people are still a bunch of bigots themselves and are afraid of little Timmy learning that two men or two women can be perfectly happy together.

Also gay sex hurricanes or something, according to the ads that NOM put out.

>>14621

I find that macro doesn't really fit. If that was really meant for Hogan it would say "This, brother!"

... just an aside.

>>14624

What I found funny was that in the aftermath of Prop 8 passing, a number of people pointed out that it was likely because record numbers of black people voted due to Obama being up for election, and that black people actually tend to be heavy on the "social conservative" side... they like church, they don't like gay people, and they really don't like immigrants.

Of course, anyone that brings up such a thing is immediately labeled a racist, because how DARE you say that there's anything negative about black people. The explanation is obviously that a giant sleeper cell of Republicans in California all showed up to the polls, voted Yes on Prop 8 in numbers sufficient to overwhelm all the No votes cast by pro-Obama voters, completely declined to vote in the actual elections, and then went underground again.

>>14624

I like how suddenly people are trying to paint California as a land of roving hicks and bigots since Prop 8. It's this kind of emotional and irrational response that's going to keep marriage away from homosexuals.

Instead of engaging, you're name calling and crying. How do you expect to change someone's mind if your response to their view is to call them a bigot?

Hell, even Elton John said that was the wrong approach to the voters.

>>14627

>How do you expect to change someone's mind if your response to their view is to call them a bigot?

If they can't take being told the truth, that's their problem.

>>14624
>What gave us Prop 8 wasn't the courts, it was a bunch of in-state bigots being funded by a bunch of out-of-state bigots to put a measure on a ballot to try to make an example out of California.

Alright, if that's what you truly believe, then explain how the law that was in place before the courts overturned it was passed to begin with. Was that just "out-of-state bigot"s as well?

>>14626

My pet theory is that people thought that "yes" meant "yes, gay people can marry" instead of "yes, let's fuck over gay people." Probably no basis in actual fact though, and it can't really be proven.

>>14627

I'd love to engage someone logically on the idea that people can marry the same sex, but for the most part I've found that people tend not to listen to any reason besides the one they made up for themselves. At that point when a person literally has no logical argument that has not already been refuted and still refuses to accept that they are incorrect, I'm pretty sure it's safe to call them a bigot.

>>14629

I'm assuming by "the law that was in place before the courts overturned it" references California Proposition 22, on the ballots in 2000, passed, and then struck from the record in 2008 by the California Supreme Court, and then promptly superseded by Prop 8. Unfortunately I was unable to find campaign funding information from the Proposition 22 campaign, but Proposition 8's campaign was very clearly funded by out-of-state interests, including the Latter-Day Saints, as well as companies in places such as Utah and Arizona.

http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/prop8/

This is a nice search tool that looks through the donations for the Yes on 8 and No on 8 campaigns. So yes, there was funding coming in from outside California for the Yes on 8 campaign.

>>14630

This makes me feel a little better about my state: according to their records, only 27 people in NC supported Prop 8 with donations (with the top donation being $1,000), while 321 people donated to organizations against it (there were four $1,000 donations and a $2,500 dontation on that side).

>>14618
>civil unions are a step down from marriage rights
Yeah. If they're going to have two separate systems, at least make them equal.

Still separate.

But equal.

>>14635

Isn't there a supreme court decision against that

>>14630
>>My pet theory is that people thought that "yes" meant "yes, gay people can marry" instead of "yes, let's fuck over gay people." Probably no basis in actual fact though, and it can't really be proven.

I find that unlikely, considering that at some point some of these people might have gotten together to talk amongst themselves about how they voted and put two and two together.

Considering that there's precedent for people protesting a "confusing" ballot and getting a lot of attention by doing so, if such a confusion had happened I think it would have been brought to light by now.

I think that people are going to have to wake up and start understanding that The Land of Liberal Ideals and the Land of Equality And Tolerance are not automatically the same thing.

It's one of the reasons that gay people need to realize that the solution to society's inequalities is not "voting Democrat", and just forcing themselves not to notice when 99 out of 100 of Democrats with thoughts of office higher than "local campaign organizer" is going on record saying they think marriage is between a man and a woman. The Democrats convincing the alt sexuality demographic that it can only get anywhere by voting for them, to the point that most GLBT organizations are just thinly-veiled Democrat advocacy organizations, is perhaps one of the top ten massive PR spins in the last century.

Since I'm finding myself posting more and more frequently I'm taking up the name of the best rare parrot in the universe, the Kakapo. To complete the rite of passage for this name, I will be raping an Englishman's head shortly.

>>14641

Yeah, that's kinda why I thought it was silly and said I couldn't prove it.

Basically everything anyone thinks they know about either side of American politics has been sold to them by one of two massive political machines, neither of which actually does anything that the people that vote for them think they do except carry a name. Consequently, I hate every politician ever. Except Teddy Roosevelt; he's exempt, mostly because I'm concerned about his ghost strangling me to death at night with nothing but his mustache.

Back on topic a bit more, did anything else come out of this story yet? If they're headed to court, I'd love to see something like the Prop 8 Trial Tracker back in January except with this case instead of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, unless it's videotaped and put on Youtube, in which case it's better.

So basically, the gay demo is so small that neither side thinks it's worth the loss of voters they'd get by catering to it?

>>14620

That's what I've always favored over either of the other options anyway. So far you two and Mason "Tailsteak" Williams are the only other people on earth I've ever seen step forward with that position, though, so good luck ever getting it to stick. I imagine most people would brand it as "forced fake compromise" at best, and "pandering to [insert arguer's opposing party here]" at worst.

Didn't "marriage licenses" not exist in the US until they needed a way to ban interracial marriage, anyway? That's what I was told at least (I was also told it didn't happen until after the Civil War, but that's a little hard to swallow).

>>14646

I believe it came about to support the tax breaks being given to families and make sure couples were really married. It was part of the attempt, successful, to create the middle class in the 50s.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000972-504083.html

>Schools Superintendent Teresa McNeece testified in front of a federal judge Monday that officials had discussed not sponsoring the prom even before McMillen's rule-challenging request, and cited liability concerns over alcohol and drugs at a school sponsored event.

>McNeece testified that the final decision to cancel the prom came as a result of the controversy surrounding McMillen's request.

So basically, they just wanted an excuse to cancel the prom, and the lesbian was the best scapegoat. Nice.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2010/03/ellen-degeneres-constance-mcmillen-college-thirty-thousand-tonic.html

Okay, this is pretty cool.

This, however, is not: http://www.shewired.com/Article.cfm?ID=24662

>>14746
>Schools Superintendent Teresa McNeece testified in front of a federal judge Monday that officials had discussed not sponsoring the prom even before McMillen's rule-challenging request, and cited liability concerns over alcohol and drugs at a school sponsored event.

>McNeece testified that the final decision to cancel the prom came as a result of the controversy surrounding McMillen's request.

Bullshit.

And I hope the furniture mart catches fire and burns down around their bigoted little ears.

I'm telling you. She's gotta write a book next.

That 30 grand is just the beginning of the kind of cash she can make off all this.

Still no prom, but the courts did find in favor of Constance McMillen that her rights were violated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100323/ap_on_re_us/us_lesbian_prom_date

>>14645
Yeah, pretty much. If I had a penny for every person who still thought that MAYBE 1 percent of America cared about gay rights, and 1/10th of 1 percent WERE gay...

Essentially, though, it's that they're not voting for what they think will get people to vote for them...at least not directly. They're voting for what will keep the lobbyist money flowing in, which lets them make flashier and wider-spread ads. And "the people" do seem to believe the ads.

Mind, not all lobbies are expressly anti-gay per se - there are lobbies from the NRA (quit claiming "the government" is about to "take away all our guns" - we've seen no signs that they want to do anything like that anyway, but even if they did, they won't with the NRA watching) and from all the major insurance firms (hence why the health bill had zero legislation designed to get the insurance firms to stop smashing the public with killer fees) But there are enough religious groups with large bankrolls lobbying to keep many Congressmen from voting for gay rights.

Something I'd like to opine here: I believe we must stop thinking of and calling these fights "for GAY rights". We really need to remind people that these are HUMAN rights. We're not fighting for a splinter group - these are human beings, being denied basic rights, and that needs to stop.

Oh look a WestBubbafuck town actually giving a shit about faggots and doing some to upset the entire studnet body for the sake of PRINCIPLES AND MORALS that they don't even believe in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01prom.html
Sooo... Irony. Yeah.

>>15017

Atheists need to get more street cred and support before groups like the ACLU consider them worth the trouble over other more popular minority groups.

>>15051

We chose to be atheists, and be part of a minority. Gays and ethnic minorities couldn't choose.

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/04/06/constance_mcmillen_fake_prom

Any sympathy you MAY have had for the school board/town/etc.? Yeah, that should be dead as soon as you read this.

>>15103

Someone... get me a shitload of kerosene, a cage full of rats, and a grill lighter.

That town is late for its preview of the fires of Hell.

>>15106


While I can't fault you for being passionate about this issue, your response to it is... well...


I await whatever punishment comes my way.

Funny thing...there were minority students at the "real" prom.

They should get a civil rights history lesson: 45 years ago in Alabama, whites pulled the "fake prom" trick on a black girl - http://bit.ly/cRfZJY (Link goes to Google News.)

Gotta fuckin' love the South.

This town should change its name

>>15112

You're a real prick sometimes, Id.

>>15116

Careful about venting, or His Holy Smugness ID_Fox might call you an internet tough guy and then smarm about expecting a banning in Eagleland as if he were one of the whiny little Lulztards we get in here.

>>15103
After all the shit she's been put through, they pull this crap. To the residents of Itawamba, I can say only this: FUCK YOU.

Words cannot express my anger and disgust.

>>15115

Guilty, and I apologize.

http://www.queerty.com/constance-mcmillens-high-school-also-suspended-a-transgender-student-just-cause-20100325/

http://www.akawilliam.com/classmate-explains-why-constance-mcmillen-was-sent-to-fake-prom-because-shes-lesbian/

Fuck. That. Whole. Goddamn. School.

>>15136
I can't believe that cunt had the gall to start her first post with "Open-minded Readers Only." People say they should just fire the school's administration. After what I've been reading, I think they should just firebomb the whole damn town.

>>15137

"Open-minded readers only" is and always has been social site code for "People that agree with me only".

I think this one image eloquently sums up my reaction over the entire course of this thing.

Someone build this and use it on this town.