- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Follow-up: lesbian high schooler's prom
Follow-up: lesbian high schooler's promFollow
That's too bad.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Trying to uphold someones civil liberties isn't quite the same thing as strict authoritarianism.
The specific cause on which the case is ruled doesn't change the resulting increase in federal power which arises as a result. Long after this student has moved on the precedent that the federal court can meddle in what should be a purely local affair will not only stand, but certainly be expanded upon.
I also disagree that civil liberties require court intervention. That's kinda the point, isn't it? Doubly so when the "liberty" in this case is so stretched as to be almost invisible. When did attending a prom become a constitutional right? Now if the police were coming into her home and arresting her because she is a lesbian, we'd have a legitimate case in which her liberties are being infringed. But not being allowed to take a same sex date to a prom because the rules a school set for attendance of said prom don't allow that?
That's a constitutional issue? Really? I don't think so...
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
50 years ago you would have been arguing why it's perfectly acceptable to ban a mixed race couple from attending the prom.
Nah, he would have said something like...
Quote:
That's not what I said either. I said that the school should allow mixed race couples to attend the prom. It's not about this one specific couple. I was stating what I thought the schools rules should be. However, I don't live in their community. It's up to them to create their own rules. And they did so. And having done so, it's wrong of one couple to assume that they don't have to abide by those rules because they don't allow them to do what they wants. I don't think that the school should be forced to let them go to the prom. I do think that the school should change it's rules to allow mixed race couples too attend the prom. Those may seem like the same thing to you, but they aren't.
Similarly, I don't think that the court should force them to change their rules either. They should change their rules because they believe that the rules need to be changed. It should come from the community of people on whom those rules are imposed. It's about maximizing liberty. If each community gets to make their own rules for things like this, then some will make good rules and some will make bad ones. However, if one community makes a bad set of rules and I live in that community I can work with the rest of the folks I live with to change the rules. If I don't live in that community, I'm not affected. If instead, we decide to have one set of rules for the whole country and all communities must abide by them, then while we might idealize a situation in which the rules we set are always going to be good, that's a pretty foolish assumption, right? What we've done is assured that if a bad rule is created, it now affects everyone. So even though your community might have selected a set of rules it sees as "good", if a higher authority has mandated a set of rules you consider "bad", you're stuck. We now have a situation were people in other communities get to impose their will on you, and you have only a small amount of say in it.
That's why conservatives oppose big government. I think that liberals get so caught up in the individual causes and the "good" which can be done by using the power of the federal government to enforce their views on social issues, that they lose sight of the bigger picture. Because the precedent's set in these types of cases aren't really about one white girl and one black boy and a prom. They are about the degree to which the federal government may force every community in the country to comply with a single position on everything. That's the danger...
I'll also point out a side aspect to this. I often argue that liberals are authoritarian in nature. This is exactly why. Liberals not only think it's "ok" for the government to step in and enforce a set of rules they like, but they believe that the government "must" do this. Failing to do so is seen as a failure to protect some right or other (sadly, with "rights" increasingly becoming defined to mean whatever the hell someone wants at any given time, like thinking all men are created equally).
The evidence of this is in this very thread. The assumption that it's somehow an outrage if the court doesn't step in and force this school to act. Heck. When I said that I agreed that the school should allow mixed race dates at prom, you apparently couldn't even imagine that I would still disagree with the ruling. It's ingrained in your political thinking that if you hold a position on something that it's right for the government to enforce it. That's why your position is authoritarian. It's also why it's dangerous. It's not about the positions on any given issue. It's about your willingness to allow the government to enforce those positions on a nationwide scope.
It all seems well and good when the things they are enforcing are things you agree with. But what happens when they aren't? Wouldn't we be better of in the "each community creates it's own laws" scenario? I think we would be...
Similarly, I don't think that the court should force them to change their rules either. They should change their rules because they believe that the rules need to be changed. It should come from the community of people on whom those rules are imposed. It's about maximizing liberty. If each community gets to make their own rules for things like this, then some will make good rules and some will make bad ones. However, if one community makes a bad set of rules and I live in that community I can work with the rest of the folks I live with to change the rules. If I don't live in that community, I'm not affected. If instead, we decide to have one set of rules for the whole country and all communities must abide by them, then while we might idealize a situation in which the rules we set are always going to be good, that's a pretty foolish assumption, right? What we've done is assured that if a bad rule is created, it now affects everyone. So even though your community might have selected a set of rules it sees as "good", if a higher authority has mandated a set of rules you consider "bad", you're stuck. We now have a situation were people in other communities get to impose their will on you, and you have only a small amount of say in it.
That's why conservatives oppose big government. I think that liberals get so caught up in the individual causes and the "good" which can be done by using the power of the federal government to enforce their views on social issues, that they lose sight of the bigger picture. Because the precedent's set in these types of cases aren't really about one white girl and one black boy and a prom. They are about the degree to which the federal government may force every community in the country to comply with a single position on everything. That's the danger...
I'll also point out a side aspect to this. I often argue that liberals are authoritarian in nature. This is exactly why. Liberals not only think it's "ok" for the government to step in and enforce a set of rules they like, but they believe that the government "must" do this. Failing to do so is seen as a failure to protect some right or other (sadly, with "rights" increasingly becoming defined to mean whatever the hell someone wants at any given time, like thinking all men are created equally).
The evidence of this is in this very thread. The assumption that it's somehow an outrage if the court doesn't step in and force this school to act. Heck. When I said that I agreed that the school should allow mixed race dates at prom, you apparently couldn't even imagine that I would still disagree with the ruling. It's ingrained in your political thinking that if you hold a position on something that it's right for the government to enforce it. That's why your position is authoritarian. It's also why it's dangerous. It's not about the positions on any given issue. It's about your willingness to allow the government to enforce those positions on a nationwide scope.
It all seems well and good when the things they are enforcing are things you agree with. But what happens when they aren't? Wouldn't we be better of in the "each community creates it's own laws" scenario? I think we would be...
Funny, looking at it from a racial discrimination lens, rather than a sexual preference discrimination lens, just makes gbaji really look like an asshat.
I guess reading through this the obvious problem is "What happens when you live in a community with 'bad' rules, and cannot change them?" I think this girl had the right answer: you get someone bigger to argue your case. Beats gbaji's idea, which seems to be "tough luck, change where you live."
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 10:25am by LockeColeMA
gbaji wrote:
Yes. With "girlfriend" in this context not having to be sexual in nature. If two straight girls want to go to the prom and don't have dates, and the rules require that they have dates who are boys, could they challenge that rule in court? Would they win?
And if they did challenge it in court, and we were for some reason discussing the issue, would anyone actually think that the prom rule violated their rights? I'm sorry. I still don't think anyone would make that argument. There's just no grounds for it at all, is there?
Belkira insisted that she would. I found that odd and unlikely. I still do...
And if they did challenge it in court, and we were for some reason discussing the issue, would anyone actually think that the prom rule violated their rights? I'm sorry. I still don't think anyone would make that argument. There's just no grounds for it at all, is there?
Belkira insisted that she would. I found that odd and unlikely. I still do...
Why wouldn't there be grounds for it? The school would be denying two girls the right to go to the prom simply because they couldn't find a guy willing to go to the prom with them. That's distressing. Extremely so, in my opinion.
Tulip,
You just assign the word right to whatever your cause of the day is don't you? I mean nobody wants to be accused of denying someone their god given, excuse me govn given, rights.
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 11:42am by knoxxsouthy
Quote:
denying two girls the right to go to the prom
You just assign the word right to whatever your cause of the day is don't you? I mean nobody wants to be accused of denying someone their god given, excuse me govn given, rights.
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 11:42am by knoxxsouthy
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Tulip,
You just assign the word right to whatever your cause of the day is don't you? I mean nobody wants to be accused of denying someone their god given, excuse me govn given, rights.
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 11:42am by knoxxsouthy
Quote:
denying two girls the right to go to the prom
You just assign the word right to whatever your cause of the day is don't you? I mean nobody wants to be accused of denying someone their god given, excuse me govn given, rights.
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 11:42am by knoxxsouthy
Can you actually argue about whether it's a right or not? Or can you just make inane comments?
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Tulip,
You just assign the word right to whatever your cause of the day is don't you? I mean nobody wants to be accused of denying someone their god given, excuse me govn given, rights.
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 11:42am by knoxxsouthy
Quote:
denying two girls the right to go to the prom
You just assign the word right to whatever your cause of the day is don't you? I mean nobody wants to be accused of denying someone their god given, excuse me govn given, rights.
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 11:42am by knoxxsouthy
As long as it's a school sponsored event, it *is* a right. The school doesn't have the right to exclude its own students from its own events.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
As long as it's a school sponsored event, it *is* a right. The school doesn't have the right to exclude its own students from its own events.
This is actually exactly what I wanted to say, but I had issues getting the words just right.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Tulip,
You just assign the word right to whatever your cause of the day is don't you? I mean nobody wants to be accused of denying someone their god given, excuse me govn given, rights.
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 11:42am by knoxxsouthy
Quote:
denying two girls the right to go to the prom
You just assign the word right to whatever your cause of the day is don't you? I mean nobody wants to be accused of denying someone their god given, excuse me govn given, rights.
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 11:42am by knoxxsouthy
And here I thought you wanted that dang government out of your life!!?!
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Varus would like the government out of his life, he just wants it to have the ability to insert itself into yours when he doesn't agree with your choices, because having choice is unamerican.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Varus would like the government out of his life, he just wants it to have the ability to insert itself into yours when he doesn't agree with your choices, because having choice is unamerican.
At least you get it. Finally, some reason from the Left.
Quote:
The decision is wrong, not because of what I personally think the school should have done, but because I don't believe that the court should be telling the school what they should do.
So the court system is not allowed to make rulings on rules passed by governmental bodies?
At least I didn't see anyone else make that point.. It's a public school, so any and every rule or standard that they pass is up to the courts to decide if it's allowable.
I thought it was well understood that a publicly operated entity that receives Federal support would be required to follow Federal statutes. My bad if that was incorrect.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
Not sure about this school, but at mine, you bought tickets as a couple, and it had to be a male and a female student at the school (or at another school in the area). The reason is precisely so that you don't get the typical "girls over there, guys over here" situation you get at most school dances.
Did you attend a single school dance after the 6th grade?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Samira wrote:
I thought it was well understood that a publicly operated entity that receives Federal support would be required to follow Federal statutes. My bad if that was incorrect.
Even privately run entities that receive Federal support have to comply, in large part, with Federal statutes. Argument for accepting no Federal funding, if you ask me, but ...
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not sure about this school, but at mine, you bought tickets as a couple, and it had to be a male and a female student at the school (or at another school in the area). The reason is precisely so that you don't get the typical "girls over there, guys over here" situation you get at most school dances.
Did you attend a single school dance after the 6th grade?
He's from a small sect of Amish electronics engineers. It's pretty rude of you to make fun of his people, Joph.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not sure about this school, but at mine, you bought tickets as a couple, and it had to be a male and a female student at the school (or at another school in the area). The reason is precisely so that you don't get the typical "girls over there, guys over here" situation you get at most school dances.
Did you attend a single school dance after the 6th grade?
He's from a small sect of Amish electronics engineers. It's pretty rude of you to make fun of his people, Joph.
Firebrand as soldering gun. I like it.
A. It doesn't matter that the girlfriend went to another school, because the district in question was allowing outside guests. Did you have to register them? Duh. That's why they were able to say no. At my prom a few years back, they were checking identities at the door (literally). Your guest needed to have been submitted two days before the prom (with your parent's approval, and theirs if they were under 18), and had to bring photo-ID with them. They also had to be under the age of 21 (presumably to avoid them supplying alcohol).
B. The dress code is also irrelevant. A school is not allowed to bar someone from attending (even classes, not just events) for wearing the opposite gender's "clothing." Even schools with uniforms have trouble legally protecting themselves from barring boys from coming to school in the regulation skirts (assuming they fulfill all length requirements and such). Private schools are another story, of course, but public ones are subject to discrimination laws and the first amendment.
[EDIT for clarification]. A school sets a list of standards regarding the amount of exposed skin, length, colors/logos/content, types of clothing, etc. that may be worn. Such as "no skirt may be more than 2 inches above the knee." Legally, they can't bar a male from wearing a skirt as long as it complies with that regulation. They are, however, free to make dress codes extremely strict, often through uniforms. But the only way to stop males/females from wearing the opposite sex's clothing is to make it all unisex, basically eliminating the skirt+blouse/dress option.[/EDIT]
C. She never blew it out of proportion. Actually, I have a lot of respect for her. When the school canceled the prom rather than let her attend, a lot of her classmates were very aggressive to her. But, even though the country's eyes were on her and many people were giving her crap, she managed to speak very eloquently about it--calmly and without anger.
D. She, and some friends, got invited to Perez Hilton's B-Day party (and he paid their expenses), which is pretty awesome. Still not a prom though.
E. Gbaji, had it just been a straight girl and her straight friend, I WOULD oppose it. Guess what, in high school I "went" to prom with one of my best friends (who is female). I'm gay, and had broken up with my boyfriend about a month before. Proms nowadays aren't just for couples. A LOT of people just go with groups of friends, with people in the group registering "dates" as friends from other schools. I have *no* problem with any sex going with any sex, regardless of orientation or whether or not they are even interested in the other.
F. In GA, a gay kid recently asked to bring his boyfriend to the prom. The school, never having had to approve it before, said yes (which set the precedent for the future). His parents, uncomfortable that this got the kid press, kicked him out. Don't you love people? He's staying with friends and still going to the prom. Cute, too.
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 2:26pm by idiggory
B. The dress code is also irrelevant. A school is not allowed to bar someone from attending (even classes, not just events) for wearing the opposite gender's "clothing." Even schools with uniforms have trouble legally protecting themselves from barring boys from coming to school in the regulation skirts (assuming they fulfill all length requirements and such). Private schools are another story, of course, but public ones are subject to discrimination laws and the first amendment.
[EDIT for clarification]. A school sets a list of standards regarding the amount of exposed skin, length, colors/logos/content, types of clothing, etc. that may be worn. Such as "no skirt may be more than 2 inches above the knee." Legally, they can't bar a male from wearing a skirt as long as it complies with that regulation. They are, however, free to make dress codes extremely strict, often through uniforms. But the only way to stop males/females from wearing the opposite sex's clothing is to make it all unisex, basically eliminating the skirt+blouse/dress option.[/EDIT]
C. She never blew it out of proportion. Actually, I have a lot of respect for her. When the school canceled the prom rather than let her attend, a lot of her classmates were very aggressive to her. But, even though the country's eyes were on her and many people were giving her crap, she managed to speak very eloquently about it--calmly and without anger.
D. She, and some friends, got invited to Perez Hilton's B-Day party (and he paid their expenses), which is pretty awesome. Still not a prom though.
E. Gbaji, had it just been a straight girl and her straight friend, I WOULD oppose it. Guess what, in high school I "went" to prom with one of my best friends (who is female). I'm gay, and had broken up with my boyfriend about a month before. Proms nowadays aren't just for couples. A LOT of people just go with groups of friends, with people in the group registering "dates" as friends from other schools. I have *no* problem with any sex going with any sex, regardless of orientation or whether or not they are even interested in the other.
F. In GA, a gay kid recently asked to bring his boyfriend to the prom. The school, never having had to approve it before, said yes (which set the precedent for the future). His parents, uncomfortable that this got the kid press, kicked him out. Don't you love people? He's staying with friends and still going to the prom. Cute, too.
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 2:26pm by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory wrote:
I'm gay,
That's too bad, sorry bro.
Quote:
That's too bad, sorry bro.
Don't be, Vaginas are gross.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
That's too bad, sorry bro.
Don't be, Vaginas are gross.
Gross I don't know about, but there are quite a few that are scary angry.
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
That's too bad, sorry bro.
Don't be, Vaginas are gross.
QFT
Flea,
lmao...Doesn't obamacare have the ability to insert itself into my life even though I don't agree with it?
So basically you don't mind shoving your beliefs down someone elses throat just so long as no one does it to you.
How can you say this with a straight face knowing obamacare is going to limit healthcare choices by pushing private insurers out of the industry?
Quote:
Varus would like the government out of his life, he just wants it to have the ability to insert itself into yours when he doesn't agree with your choices,
lmao...Doesn't obamacare have the ability to insert itself into my life even though I don't agree with it?
So basically you don't mind shoving your beliefs down someone elses throat just so long as no one does it to you.
Quote:
because having choice is unamerican.
How can you say this with a straight face knowing obamacare is going to limit healthcare choices by pushing private insurers out of the industry?
Bardalicious wrote:
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
That's too bad, sorry bro.
Don't be, Vaginas are gross.
QFT
On the upside, they rarely get used to evacuate the colon, so they've got that going for them, which is nice.
Quote:
On the upside, they rarely get used to evacuate the colon, so they've got that going for them, which is nice.
Yeah, they just occasionally excrete blood, amniotic fluids, babies and [the contents of] babies' colons.
Edited, Mar 26th 2010 2:42pm by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Recent Visitors: 661
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (661)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Follow-up: lesbian high schooler's prom
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC