That is despicable. Even if I may disagree with someone about something - that is low!

I suppose there's another side to this story. There always is. But these folks who organized and held the "secret" prom do seem to lack any kind of class.

That said, as a parent, I'm not that big a fan of proms anyway. They're supposed to be fun, aren't they? But they seem to generate as much adolescent drama as fun, and this whole thing in Mississippi just seems to make it worse.

I have to hand it to the parents. They got their "no gays allowed" prom, and managed it in such a way that McMillen has no one to sue.

So, if you want to host a party with your own money, you have to invite anyone who might wish to go? Last I checked, people could still host private parties-although not for much longer no doubt.

I imagine the parents were pissed at her for getting their kids prom cancelled. They wanted to give their kids a prom. They should invite the cause of all the problems why?

Come on, Momof4. Miss McMillen didn't cancel their prom. She didn't even get the prom cancelled. The kids and their parents can thank the school district for that. One kid doesn't have that much power.

So maybe Miss McMillen was trying to take a stand for her rights; agree with it or not, she can do that. And yes, the parents are perfectly able to put together a prom on their own, and can make sure they exclude anybody they wish.

And what's the result? A separate party for the kids nobody really wanted. A big party for everybody else, and they sure showed that McMillen girl a thing or two, didn't they? Of such things, friends, are lifetime memories made. And that's just too damn bad.

You know something? I almost included a line in my last post that went along the lines of "Momof4 and irlandes will be tickled pink!" But I left it out, because I thought it would be mean.

Farrar, you're a total fucking asshole!

I hope your kids manage actually manage to grow up to be decent people in spite of you. And that at least some of the kids at this prom will one day wake up and realize what a despicable thing they did.

I could go on and on about your brain-damaged observations, starting with dismissing the senior prom as just a "party," but it would be wasted on the likes of you, scumbag.

Yeah, unless there is something I don't know about, I'd say this was wrong.

Uh, is it just me or does the libertarian philosophy completely drop off of this particular blog when gays are involved. Rule of law. Consent of the people type stuff. These people wanted a prom where they could enjoy themselves instead of being used in a bid for attention by the gay community. They paid for it with their own funds. WTF is the problem.

The girl who wanted to take her girlfriend to her prom could have. But she demanded the school recognize her *in the bedroom tendencies* and then contacted the media and involved the courts when they didn't kowtow to her idea. She announced her intentions and expected everyone to applaud. They didn't.

And is anyone really shocked that the kids didn't show up for her prom, which is really what it was- her prom. Old saying from my grandmother, it fine to stir the pot but don't shit in it. She could have gone with her girlfriend and everything but not announced her intentions to everyone involved. This would have been stirring the pot. People would have talked but the media and all the attention, including the lawsuit, wouldn't have been focused on that prom. Instead she chose to take a huge smelly dump in the pot and invited a bunch of people to watch. The other kids had what was a most natural reaction. She brought the media focus on the prom and that combined with her *it really is all about me* attitude turned the other kids away from it. They rejected her premise that the prom should be focused on her. I guess they felt that they should be able to enjoy that night too.

Read what she says, it shows pretty clearly that she thought the prom was supposed to be about her dreams. And lets be honest here. She got the US government to force a celebration of her on the school district. That alone should be worth the world to her. And people showed up to her prom. Those people came to that prom to support her. And what did she do? She left. She couldn't have more than said hi to everybody before 30 minutes passed and she was out of there. They came to support her and she bailed on them then called to ask if she could go to the other prom to hang out with them instead. What a narcissistic little bitch.. The people who actually wanted to be with her weren't good enough for her?

She say's her feeling were hurt. Well now she knows how her 5 real friends(lucky her to finally know who the are), all those other kids who had their prom ruined and their parents to have to spend more out of pocket for a nonpublic prom- feel. Ohh them and everyone else who had their feeling hurt in high school. Everyone who has never had their feelings hurt raise your hands.....

Or should they have all been forced to go to the school prom to avoid hurting her feeling. A sort of backward affirmative action rule. Cause nothing says best night of high school like having reporters hanging around your school with some twit pointing at everyone and explaining that all those homophobe meanies lost a court case and you all were ordered by a judge to hang out with her. Tell me is loosing a court case like a dare or a bet where the embarrassing consequences are the point.

old rpm daddy: So maybe Miss McMillen was trying to take a stand for her rights;

Or maybe the school through down the gauntlet first and forced McMillen's hand.

After all, she's been out as a lesbian since eighth grade, so it wasn't like she was dropping a huge bombshell. And there is the fact that the school stated on the announcement before McMillen did anything that the couples would only be opposite sex. And when McMillen requested that she be allowed to bring a same sex date, she was advised that she couldn't go stag, and could only have an opposite sex date. "Hey, guys in McMillen's graduating class! McMillen, the student that you've known is a lesbian for four years, needs a 'beard' so she can go to the prom. Any takers?"

She was also advised that if she and her girlfriend made anyone uncomfortable, she'd be kicked out. So, basically, any student who doesn't like lesbians (even if he/she has had no contact whatsoever with McMillen)is free to go any of the faculty members and simply say that McMillen and her date is making them uncomfortable, and they're gone. But no...none of the students would do something like that, right?

Gee...kind of a precarious position she's in, huh? You don't think the school was actually planning to bar her from her own prom at the very outset, do you? Naaaaah...they wouldn't do something like that.

Who is Farrar?

"So, if you want to host a party with your own money, you have to invite anyone who might wish to go?" Some how I really can't picture you grin and bearing it if the your kids were in the same situation because of their mixed race heritage. Telling me that this would never happen in Texas makes you delusional.

josephine: The girl who wanted to take her girlfriend to her prom could have.

That is not true. You need to acquaint yourself with the facts of this case.

Fuck you two, princess, except I'm not a man so I can't fuck you. Nice of you to post a self=portrait, though, I'm sure we're all glad we know what you look like.

It's Farrar Sanchez, BTW, and I live in round rock texas, and my kids are fabulous. Even if they hated gays they would be, but I don't hate gays so I won't raise them to, although they don't know what gay is yet, thank god for conservative towns, because "some men like to put their penis's in other men's butts" isn't a talk I care to have yet.

If someone wanted to host a party and not invite my kids, they'd be welcome to. It's happened already this school year, and will again. Personally, when I throw a party, I invite every kid in the class, but not all parents can afford or want to do that, and that's their right. For now.

Forcing kids to show up with a date is very inappropriate, regardless of what their sexual preferences are. Don't kids have enough sexual pressure on them already?

It's unfortunate that there wasn't a gay guy at the school. She could have been his date's date and he could have been her date's date.

"Uh, is it just me or does the libertarian philosophy completely drop off of this particular blog when gays are involved." Not in the least. Just cause I don't want the feds to force you to do something doesn't mean I have to like or respect your decision, I just can't deprive you of it. There's little any of us should be able to do about what those (primitive bigot)parents did. However we can look at them as hate filled primitives and treat the accordingly.

I was straight but geeky, and was bullied in school. Being smart was seen has a moral defect. I graduated, found friends at college and have had a good life. I have never been back for a reunion in 30 years. The Class committee still can't understand why. Small towns show the best and worst of our tribal tendencies.

I hope this girl can leave town in 2 years and never look back.

While I support the legal right of people to invite everyone in the class except one kid to their party, I reserve the right to think they are raging assholes.

The school board (and the city) may find itself in for a rough ride legally. According to the opinion by the judge hearing the case (see http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03org - particularly page 11), he sided with the student with regard to the school board clearly violating her First Amendment rights, but he declined to grant an injunction forcing the prom to go forward because, in part, the school board represented to him that the parents were organizing a "private prom" that would be open to ALL students, including Constance. If Constance/ACLU wants to pursue the matter further and it can be determined that any of the defendants (i.e., the school board, principal and assistant principal) were in any way involved in coming up with the dual prom scam, they are in for it. No judge likes being lied to.

While I support the legal right of people to invite everyone in the class except one kid to their party, I reserve the right to think they are raging assholes.

I was going to say this, but you got here first. Maybe they have the legal right to do this, but, in geek parlance, their epic-level douchebags critted the decency monster in the Hateful Humans campaign.

"Or maybe the school through down the gauntlet first and forced McMillen's hand."

Patrick, I wasn't knocking Miss McMillen in particular. I don't know whether she wanted to be the center of controversy or not, but she sure was, and didn't back down from a fight when it came to that. I don't envy the position she's in, though. And again, cancelling the original prom wasn't her fault.

They couldn't go stag? That's surprising. In my day (we rode to the ballroom on a dinosaur, if you must know), it was kind of expected for attendees to go as couples. But my eldest went stag with her girlfriends to her senior prom five years ago, and going without a date appeared to be more common than it was before. Shoot, if they'd have let people go stag to this prom in Mississippi, the controversy factor would have dropped by half.

"Uh, is it just me or does the libertarian philosophy completely drop off of this particular blog when gays are involved ... They paid for it [the prom party] with their own funds. WTF is the problem."

NicoleK and MonicaP (whom I get mixed up sometimes) said it better, so I shouldn't pile on, but as far as I know, libertarian philosophy doesn't proscribe moral judgment. I'm not in favor of the ACLU suing to make a school board hold the prom they just cancelled, but I think they're pricks for cancelling it. Nor would I be in favor of making the parents' group explicitly invite Miss McMillen if they didn't want to, but I still think they're pricks for excluding her.

Oh, and one more thing. I would imagine that half the boys at the prom will be trying to get inside their dates' dresses in the backs of their daddies' crewcabs, which should give pause to at least some parents. But what's everybody worried about? That McMillen girl! She wants to wear pants! She wants to wear pants!

I thought I was supposed to be the jerk around here, but these folks have completely outdone anything I'd dream of. What a train wreck of petty motivations in conflict. It looks like everybody lost.

Oh cry me a big liberal river...

Shut the hell up! As was said in previous posts. they had a party and did not invite her. Too bad. Guess she can get all of her attention somewhere else.

Don't cry too hard for her...she now has $30,000 free college tuition money to blow. Of course, she'll flunk out anyway, as she does not appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed...then she will sue the school for not giving her a "safe" environment in which to study as a lesbian.

Man, this lesbian stuff is really spreading...there wasn't any when I went to school, but now they are popping up all over the place!

Please read "You're teaching my child what?" by Dr. Miriam Grossman to learn the truth...

"Man, this lesbian stuff is really spreading"

Nominated for Straight Line Of The Day.

I thought I was supposed to be the jerk around here,

There's a lot of competition for that title.

there wasn't any when I went to school, but now they are popping up all over the place!

You're totally right. Those dykes should shut up and pretend to like dick like they used to so you don't have to be exposed to such tawdry behavior.

"Please read "You're teaching my child what?" by Dr. Miriam Grossman to learn the truth..." Yup mix of bullshit and cherry picking. She takes a grain of truth and tries to pass it off as 50 lbs bag of sand.

"f someone wanted to host a party and not invite my kids, they'd be welcome to. It's happened already this school year, and will again. "

Don't play dumb. You KNOW that there's a huge difference between not being invited to a couple birthday parties and being the only person not invited to a giant, schoolwide party that every single student and parent in your class has conspired to throw behind your back. I seriously doubt you'd be okay if that happened to one of your children.

For that matter, I wonder what you'd do if one of your kids was gay? Lock her in the basement? Disown him? It sounds like they're too young right now for you or them to know, but it's certainly not impossible. Just food for thought.

If they're gay, they're gay. I won't be all of a sudden for gay marriage, nor will I disown them. I just wasn't raised to think it's okay to bitch about the rain if you're the one that made the weather. Maybe history will see her as a Rosa parks, who knows, but she doesn't get to whine that it's not easy for her now.

Realistically she wasn't 'sent' anywhere. What she went to was the prom, the other students didn't attend. They went to a private party.

I don't endorse the school's actions, but the parents obviously have the right to organize a private party.

*****While I support the legal right of people to invite everyone in the class except one kid to their party, I reserve the right to think they are raging assholes.

I was going to say this, but you got here first. Maybe they have the legal right to do this, but, in geek parlance, their epic-level douchebags critted the decency monster in the Hateful Humans campaign. *****

This, thirded. What petty assholes.

>>I hope this girl can leave town in 2 years and never look back.

The town certainly hopes so.too.

This is so simple. She needs to find a place which accepts her; there are many such places. Instead she -- and y'all -- wishes to force everyone to accept her, and screw their preferences and choices.

That town did have a prom that every student was invited to and could have attended if they wished. Clearly, they didn't wish. Only five people took the invitation. Stop twisting the truth.

So, the cops were supposed to line up everyone and force them to a party at gunpoint when they preferred to go to another one?

I just posted on the previous thread on the most intolerant people believing they are most tolerant. You are not. And, smart-alecky insults directed at those who disagree with you does not change your intolerance.

What jerks! This is so unbelievably heartless.

josephine: The girl who wanted to take her girlfriend to her prom could have.

That is not true. You need to acquaint yourself with the facts of this case.*****

Actually she could have. There is more than one way to skin a cat. And if she had done so no one would have cared. She announced her intentions and picked fight. I have been following this since before Rachel Maddow put her 2 cents in.. I had read many articles about it and most of the people involved were just pissed that she was basically name calling. They were upset at her using her sexuality as a stick to beat them with.. As has been said her sexuality had been known to them since middle school. No gave a rats ass and she had attended other dances before. With this one though she seemed to want to make a point..

old rpm daddy: Patrick, I wasn't knocking Miss McMillen in particular. I don't know whether she wanted to be the center of controversy or not, but she sure was, and didn't back down from a fight when it came to that.

I didn't mean to imply you were knocking McMillen...and I wish our various websources would settle on the correct spelling of her name. I'm seeing sites that say "McMillen" and "McMillan."

But I am saying that people are weighing in without knowing the facts of this case.

This article clearly explains that could not have gone to the prom with her girlfriend anyway.

It even has an image of the notification stating clearly that all dates must be of opposite sex.

Momof4: my kids are fabulous. Even if they hated gays they would be

If they hated anybody on the basis of what they are rather than who they are, they would not be fabulous at all. They would be bigots, dear. Or do you think bigotry only applies to who hate anyone but gays? If that's the case, I have some news for you, which would not be surprising to anyone else...

MikeD: As was said in previous posts. they had a party and did not invite her.

You and Momof4 can both go fuck yourselves. It was not "a party." It was the senior prom. McMillan will have probably have many parties in her life, but she will never have a senior prom, thanks to morons like you.

Quite frankly, I'm glad McMillen got college money out of the deal. She deserves it. If courage in the face of adversity was financially compensated, she'd be a millionaire. And I'll be even happier when the school and the parents of the students gain the infamy they deserve as the bastion of hate and bigotry that they are.

Wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. Anyone remember the reputation a place called Kokomo, Indiana earned for itself for their treatment of a certain high schooler named Ryan White who acquired AIDS through a blood transfusion?

I just posted on the previous thread on the most intolerant people believing they are most tolerant.

I'm a judging judger who judges. "Tolerance" doesn't mean accepting every hurtful, stupid thing people choose to do to each other.

wishes to force everyone to accept her, and screw their preferences and choices.

No one has expressed a wish to force anyone to do anything. We're just calling them assholes for doing it.

Josephine: Actually she could have.

No, she could NOT have gone! Did you not see the prom announcement? All couples must be opposite sex, and McMillen was told that if she and her girlfriend made anyone uncomfortable, they would be kicked out!

What is so hard about this? Even if she and her date could have gone stag, all it would take is one student going up to a faculty member and saying, "I don't like lookin' at the two dykes over there" and she would have been kicked out.

Really very simple.

"Uh, is it just me or does the libertarian philosophy completely drop off of this particular blog when gays are involved." Not in the least. Just cause I don't want the feds to force you to do something doesn't mean I have to like or respect your decision, I just can't deprive you of it. There's little any of us should be able to do about what those (primitive bigot)parents did. However we can look at them as hate filled primitives and treat the accordingly. *****

I can live with that. I disagree with you on the merits of the case and your calling the parents bigots but I agree with letting people have and express their opinions..

My problem with this case is the use of threat or actual force of government. Have whatever opinion you want, genuinely don't care. Show up at my door with the aclu and a judge to force me to act according to your desires and I will tell you and them to go fuck themselves...even if I agree with you.. To use the government as a club to beat those who don't agree with you into submission is evil. no one has the right to do that..

josephine: My problem with this case is the use of threat or actual force of government. Have whatever opinion you want, genuinely don't care. Show up at my door with the aclu and a judge to force me to act according to your desires and I will tell you and them to go fuck themselves...even if I agree with you.. To use the government as a club to beat those who don't agree with you into submission is evil. no one has the right to do that..

Oh, I know! Why can't they just accept their status as second class citizens and stay home, missing their senior year rite of passage! Fucking dykes, always causing trouble.

"So, the cops were supposed to line up everyone and force them to a party at gunpoint when they preferred to go to another one?"

Who is saying that? Not me. But I will say that Fulton, Mississippi sounds like a town full of backwards assholes. Would it be different if a white girl was dating a black guy, and the school came out before the prom and said you had to bring a date of your same race? Well, let's say the public attention caused the school to have a prom and allow mixed-race couples, but the racist bigots in town were so offended, none of them decided to go to the prom, but instead attended a private party where mixed-race couples were not invited. Well, people can have whatever parties they want, and they can invite whoever they want, but we can still call them assholes when it's appropriate.

But how "bonus" their diversionary tactic was! They even managed to get rid of the mentally challenged students by sending them to the same fake prom. What an incredibly good idea! Mustn't have the "retards" around, making the "beautiful" students uncomfortable.

Waiting for momof4 and Mike to talk about how despicable it was to make the learning disabled students miss the prom, but not the dyke.

And by the way, what those two mental giants miss is the fact that McMillen and these developmentally disabled students weren't simply "not invited" to a party. They were sent to a fake prom, while the real prom went on in an undisclosed location.

Gee, if it's so appropriate to have a private party and simply not invite the "dykes" and the "retards," how come they simply didn't just go ahead and have their party and simply advise McMillan that she isn't invited and won't be allowed in? Why the diversion? Don't either one of you think that's a rather cruel thing for parents to do to a high school student?

"Anyone remember the reputation a place called Kokomo, Indiana earned for itself for their treatment of a certain high schooler named Ryan White who acquired AIDS through a blood transfusion?"

Do I ever. I was up the road in West Lafayette. I think he was in junior high then. Ryan White seemed like all anyone ever talked about back in those days. In Kokomo's defense, AIDS and HIV were still fairly new phenomena back then, and poorly understood by the public. According to this Wikipedia article White and his family left Kokomo due to hostility they faced there, and moved to Cicero, Indiana, where they were more welcome.

Patrick.. If she had never said anything about it she could have. Instead she decided to pick a fight. I live in Tn.. At my prom there were 4 gay couples who came to the prom together and no one gave a shit.. This was on 94.. Not exactly yesterday.. My sister went to school at the small town school next to mine. Her school had 8 gay couples of whom 6 of whom brought dates from other schools. Unless you were all but screwing each other on the dance floor you were left alone.

Facts are unless you make a stink like this no one cares about who you do in your bedroom.. Funny thing is 2 of my middle school friends were among the gay couples at these 2 proms.. one at each school.

I am wondering what the other gay kids did for prom. I have doubt there was only 1 gay upper-classman at the school. I am guessing there was a lot more here than just her being gay..

And another part of me thinks she will probably be featured on Bridezilla driving some guy crazy in the next 10 years.. What with lugs being so common and all.

OK Patrick. the prom they were went to was the school prom. Chaperoned by faculty and everything.. The private party was paid for, organized by and chaperoned by parents. It wasn't fake.. You don't shell out cash for country club facilities for fake parties.. It just doesn't happen.

Well, josephine, your indifference to the rules of grammar suggests that you have trouble reading.

The real prom was held at the Country Club. From this article:

The prom, in other words, was a sham. The rest of the student body was encouraged to attend the real prom at a local country club, with McMillen excluded.

See? Real prom at Country Club. See it now? Mr. Rogers knew you could.

joesphineMO7, do you really believe that the students of the high school are talking to "that private party we all went to instead of the prom"? Really? In your heart of hearts?

The best lies are wrapped in a kernel of truth.

And this is a particularly vicious lie. You may choose to remain willfully ignorant but kindly stop insulting our intelligence by insisting we believe it.

"your calling the parents bigots" Well if not bigots then what? The excluded a student based on her being openly gay. Sure closeted gay students could bring a date and got as long as they brought a date of the opposite sex. So basically hide who they are lest they offend some drunk red neck.

The "REAL real" prom had already been destroyed by involving the court and the media.

McMillen attended the "official" prom - which was what she fought for, and was entitled to.

If she's been out since middle school... my guess is that if the grownups had not forced the issue with the invite, most of the kids would have been indifferent.

On the other hand - if she's been out that long, why weren't more students not on her side... this may be the cherry on top of a heap-o-narcissism.

Actually, the school prom was at the Fulton Country Club.

Another party, a private one, was held elsewhere and most of the students (actually, almost all) attended that one. McMillen was not only not invited to that party, when she asked about it beforehand, she was told the prom was at the country club.

It would seem that an entire high school and the parents made a collective effort to pointedly exclude one individual from an event. They paid double the money (schools fees for a school event and, presumably, private contributions for another event) just to make sure one person knew she was not wanted.

You've almost got to admire the well-organized douche-baggery that went into that.

On the other hand - if she's been out that long, why weren't more students not on her side

Because human behavior can be ugly. In schools, which are a lot like small towns, once you're the freak, you're the freak forever.

BD, I disagree on one point and agree on another:

Where I'm not with you: "The "REAL real" prom had already been destroyed by involving the court and the media."

Leave the passive voice out of it. The school district cancelled the prom.

Where I am with you: "On the other hand - if she's been out that long, why weren't more students not on her side... this may be the cherry on top of a heap-o-narcissism."

That's actually a pretty good question. Has anyone seen any traffic on that? Although it doesn't change my opinion much, did she have friends supporting her? Was she obnoxious enough to destroy any support she might have gained? And no fair saying, "Well, it is Mississippi, after all," as that's bigotry, too.

As far as why no students appear to be supportive, I get the feeling that the adults were leading the show. I bet 1) that the students wouldn't have cared much if the administration had just let her come to prom with her girlfriend and 2) that a lot of these kids are going to grow up and feel terrible about this whole thing. Honestly, it's hard to be brave and push back against your town's culture when you're 17 years old, especially when, unlike Constance, you don't have a lot personally invested. That's why I don't feel like completely judging these other students (parents, on the other hand....) and why I am so impressed by Constance McMillen and her family. She's a tough kid.

Conan: You've almost got to admire the well-organized douche-baggery that went into that.

Hey, Conan! I was wondering where you were. I figured you were doing the smart thing by staying out of it.

Yes, I do understand what you're saying. Such a calculated move...makes me wonder if their lawyer (which they undoubtedly had when McMillen sued the school board) had a hand in this. It almost seems like a well-organized legal maneuver to give the school plausible deniability.

On the other hand, and I'm actually surprised that everyone can't see this, especially someone who feels the need to announce she's a mother of four to the world, can't see how offensive this is. "Douche-baggery" is an understatement. It's like calling Stalin "a mean person."

This is a coordinated move by virtually all the parents of the senior class in the school, to make one student feel like total shit. Even one student can bully another student. What do you call it when the entire collective parents of the student body conspire to bully one student? It goes beyond "craven" and well beyond "disgusting." "Apalling" doesn't seem to quite cover it either.

This magnitude of bullying, the parents ganging up on one schoolgirl, makes Stephen King's "Carrie" seem like a fairy tale.

God damn.

Look I'm as cold hearted as they come...and I'm no friend to the gay rights movement (limited support in limited areas, not 100% hostile)...but the first commentator had it right.

But this...This is LOW. You don't do that to your students. You don't do that to your friends.

I don't care if they don't like gays or not, there are limits to my tolerance for intolerance.

But how did this happen? I mean it seems like it would have come up in conversation at some point with other students, friends, etc? "I can't wait to go to the prom at..."
"What do you mean, the prom is at..."

See what I mean? How did this get pulled off?

Maybe we should put them in charge of Homeland Security? Talk about complicated operational management.

No matter what you think about gay people, I find it remarkable that any decent human being could support adults organizing a concerted effort to be cruel to children. Which is what this was.

Patrick wrote: "McMillan will have probably have many parties in her life, but she will never have a senior prom, thanks to morons like you."

Oh noes! Not the proms! Trying to give a damn.... nope. I still can't work up any anger about it. My well of sympathy is dry.

But hey I'm just a bitter nerd who didn't go to his prom(s). Kids are cruel, life is cruel. Life sucks, buy a helmet.

Yes, yes, Sio. It's all about the prom. Wouldn't want to overtax your twit of a brain by introducing concepts like the systematic efforts of every parent in the school coordinating their efforts toward making one student feel like shit.

Now run along and find a nice, shiny ball to play with.

As Patrick has pointed out, it has been reported that the organizers of the "private" prom/party also excluded ("failed to invite") two learning disabled students as well.

I would also like to hear momof4 defend this action as well.

Having read more about this case now...the "victim" is looking less shiny.

Bottom line is it DOES look like she picked a fight.

Nobody did seem to care much, they might not have thought it was morally right, but nobody egged her house, harassed or abused her over it, she didn't get hanged or beaten up. And she attended other events before without incident.

But this was a fight she picked. She chose to make an issue over something everyone else was willing to let slide.

I still think it was pretty slimy to throw the party and decieve her.

BUT

She brought it on herself here. Its one thing to be gay, its a VERY DIFFERENT thing to DEMAND everyone feel the way you do about it and accomadate your point of view.

Its one thing to be different, that I'm fine with, and who doesn't think lesbians are awesome? But come on...using your difference to bludgeon people with and make demands.

Sorry, no, check that, I'm NOT sorry, if someone tries that shit with me, even if I AGREE with thier point of view, I'm going to balk, become hostile, and make arrangements that exclude the loud obnoxious little source of the shit storm.

Now I can excuse this to some degree because it is a high school girl...and I've not known many high school students that weren't eager to take on the world and support their ideals to ridiculous extremes, but ADULTS are supposed to be better behaved. I understand the town's reaction, they didn't treat this girl at all poorly by any account I can find, all through her outing in middle school and up through party after party at high school. Maybe some people didn't like her orientation, but we're not talking about a Matthew Shepherd case here (gay man beaten to death for being gay, look it up, some of you may remember it)

This high school girl wanted a fight over her principles, she started one, and the town reacted accordingly, revoking their former tolerance.

Remember, tolerating something is not the same as embracing it.

They tolerated her before she made a fight over it. She wasn't willing to extend them the same courtesy over the prom. She didn't want tolerance, she wanted them to change their value system to hers, and they were well within their rights to refuse. I don't like the deceptiveness involved.

BUT, I can't say that I'm surprised by their reaction. If I show tolerance to my neighbor, for whatever thing he does which I don't like, I expect at least the same courtesy in return, and if my peaceful coexistance is spat upon, I have no reason not to revoke my tolerance and display the same hostility.

"This magnitude of bullying, the parents ganging up on one schoolgirl, makes Stephen King's "Carrie" seem like a fairy tale."

Actually, I was just thinking of how this was like Carrie meets Pretty in Pink. I wonder how a John Hughes/ Stephen King collaboration would have treated this?

Ben-David has a point, she's gotten a great deal of attention. However, considering that the parents excluded the special-needs students, I wonder if this was spear-headed by parents who were once the Quarterbacks and the Mean Girls, and followed passively by the other sheeple parents. Some people never leave high school.

Sorry Patrick, I cannot engage in any debate about this issue with you. I'm afraid that, with you reliance upon the 'F' word (was it 5 or 6 times in this thread), that it would be unfair of me to take advantage of you and your obvious lack of education and/or communication skills.

You might as well be saying "ug" like a neanderthal if you have to rely so heavily upon such creative (and original) prose.

By the way, you sound alot like some of the commentors over on feministing, so I wonder if Patricia might be a better name for you.

"See what I mean? How did this get pulled off? "

Cellphones, twitter probably. ever been to a rave? Me neither but I'm told you don't get to know where it is going to be held until the night of.

"My problem with this case is the use of threat or actual force of government."

Except that the school is an agent of the government. Do you really think it is inappropriate for the government to use force to ensure its agents are following policy?

I'm just waiting for people to start naming names so the web can work it's majic and ensure they get first page google ranking for a good long time.

"If I show tolerance to my neighbor, for whatever thing he does which I don't like," - this aint about a thing she did, it's about a thing she is.

You know Mike, I was thinking that your rhetoric (and I'll leave your inability to count to three out of this) is reminiscent of Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church. You can read about him over at www.godhatesfags.com.

But if you're too cowardly, er I mean, reluctant to discuss the issue with me, then perhaps some of the other commenters on this thread will indulge you. It seems like there's an abundance of viewpoints that seem radically different from yours.

I'd hate to think that you were just dying to wade into this discussion only to be deterred by my poor debating skills, or your ever-so-delicate sensibilities were offended by my use of the "f-word." So, by all means, pick a partner. You won't hurt my feelings in the least.

By the way, you called me "Patricia" and momof4 called me "princess." Would the two of you, by any chance, be homophobic? Just checking...

Regarding the question about how this got pulled off without anyone spilling the beans, I honestly don't think it would be that hard. They can talk about the prom all they want to, just not where it's going to be held. Since everyone's assuming it will be held at the same place, there's no need to discuss the location.

"I've got the limo booked for the prom! This is going to be the best bash of the year!"

"You should totally see the dress my mom got me to wear to the prom! You will just die!"

I'd imagine it would be quite simple to avoid including the phrase "...over at..." when followed by "the prom."

Jesus Christ. Does noone ever look at the supporting links?

Robert, did you miss Patricks link - the prom was opposite sex couples only, no singles.

How the fuck is that being tolerant?

You seriouly belive that in gratitude to the towns folk for not killing her or burning her house down she should just be happy that noone wants her to be seen in public on a date event put on by a high school?

What kind of peacful coexistance is it you imagine in which people whom you dont like, due to nothing more than their biological differeences, must never do anything to to show such differences in your precious presence?

lujlp: How the fuck is that being tolerant?

Oh, no. You used the f-word...well, Mike just crashed to the fainting couch again. Nice going.

thank god for conservative towns, because "some men like to put their penis's in other men's butts" isn't a talk I care to have yet. - momof4

So momof4, I assume by the way you have structured this sentance that you have already had the talk about how straigt men occasionals put thier dicks in a woman's butt?

The "REAL real" prom had already been destroyed by involving the court and the media -BenDavid

Yep, The school boards soothsayer foresaw the lawsuit and cancelled the prom before they were sued in retaliation for being sue for cancelling the prom. Thats how it happened Ben, makes about as much sense as scapgoating - by they way Ben, you still have yet to explain the "centuries of distilled wisdom" in that practice

Patrick.. If she had never said anything about it she could have - josephineMO7

Are you really that stupid josephineMO7?

Seven people showed up the the 'real' prom. McMillen and her date - 2
Two mentally hadicapped kids - 2
Three others - 3

So her entire graduating class and all of their parents, all of their undreclassmen dates and their parents went out of their way to exclude her for the prom.

Do you seriously belive that had the school not cancelled the prom, that not ONE person would have voiced a complaint. That not one person out of the hunnereds who went out of their way to humiliate and ridicule her wouldnt have said a single word to have had her thrown out?

Are you really that stupid?

Robert, where are you reading that she "picked a fight?" Or, just tell us what she did that you label as such. Is it that she wanted to go with a female date, or wear a tux? What do you think she should have done in order to NOT pick a fight? Gone with a male date and ignored her girlfriend all evening?

Ugh...I think I need to leave this discussion. I can't stand it any more. I just cannot comprehend every parent of a public school's entire senior class conspiring together just to make one student feel like total shit. Gee, I don't think she quite got the message. Maybe they should call on parents from all public schools nationwide to gang up on her. After all, against one high-school senior, you're going to need reinforcements.

Yeah, sure. She could have gone to the prom. Perhaps she should have tapped one of the mentally challenged students to "beard" for her. Then just mix with her girlfriend when she got there. Of course, all it takes is one word from any student present, claiming that the dyke is making him uncomfortable, to get her kicked out. I wonder what rights she has if someone makes her uncomfortable. If someone comes up to her and starts making homophobic slurs, can she go to a faculty member and get that student kicked out.

Pfffft. We all know how that would turn out.

And how dare I presume to say that "She shouldn't have to put on a pretense to attend her high school prom"?

Her lesbianism is her issue. It doesn't harm anyone. But no matter how far the law progresses, we'll still be around to remind the uppity dyke that she's a second class citizen. She's not accepted and she never, never, never will be. And we'll go out of our way and strap ourselves with additional expenses and send her off on a wild goose chase just to remind an eighteen-year-old high school senior just how much we hate her guts.

What is everyone so worried about? They were probably planning on dancing and socializing, getting some pictures taken for posterity, just like everyone else, not leaping to the top of the refreshment table so they can publicly finger each other!

So what if she "picked a fight"? We should be teaching our kids to stand up for fairness, not cower and cajole and think it's good enough just to be "tolerated" as long as they don't act too much like themselves.

"Instead she -- and y'all -- wishes to force everyone to accept her, and screw their preferences and choices."

Well, acceptance is supposedly a principle of christianity - to accept even those who are not like you. Doesn't mean you have to embrace their personal choices, but refusing to be at the same prom is despicable. Many of these folks probably view themselves as christians, but there's nothing christ-like about doing this to a child.

This topic actually hits home with me today, as I've just taken in a 15 yr old girl whose mom kicked her out of the house for being "a dirty little dyke". Some mom. The girl thinks she's bisexual, and dared share that with her mom.

It's her right. Her kid. But I can still think she's an asshole.

ummm, I think that mom kicking a 15 year old out is actually a violation of the law alonf the lines of child endangerment. Also, from where I stand, not being judgemental or bigoted, I think what tweeks some straight people is the fact that homosexuals make any demands. They are a minority and havinf a prom has been traditionally a hetero thing. I guarantee there were no out in the open homos at the parent's proms. I agree she called down the fury and paid a price. But I am sure that will cause some homosexual here to call me a bigot, which I am certainly not, I prefer the term "traditionalist".

The intolerance of some on this thread is astounding. Thank gawd I have not raised my daughters to be so intolerant of someone, and to look past their qualities as a human being and only judge them on their sexual preferences. My youngest daughter at 13 was demonstrating with a local group in support of the rights for gays to be married in California. A very proud moment for me, believe it or not. My middle daughter's college roommate is a lesbian. My daughter went through the training with her roommate so their apartment could be designated a "safe space" on campus. And to top that off, this year one of my dearest friends who - GASP - is a lesbian has moved in with me because she's on difficult financial times. We must seem like some kind of freak show to some of you. I can just say that I'm very proud that my daughters can look past sexual orientation and accept the person for who they are and not what label they wear.

RE: her "picking a fight". Who cares? Its completely irrelevant even if she did.

Teenagers pick fights all the time for a whole bunch of things and different reasons (important and non-important alike).

How did the adults respond? Okay, thanks.

Unacceptable.

No wonder God smote Mississippi with Katrina. If those people don't start stoning their homosexuals and adulterers and people who work on the Sabbath they're gonna get smacked down again.

Canceling the prom and blaming it on the minority student is the only way to save the righteous white Christian heterosexual Republican majority from the wrath of this vengeful Creator.

And on a secular note, good on you, Mississippi, for keeping your reputation consistent! From noose to nookie we always know where you stand.

Amy, the "safe space" is just a designation were gays and lesbians can go if they are having issues on campus - whether it stems from their sexual orientation or not. Just a place for someone to go if they need someone sympathetic to their issues. Their apartment is dangerous, but for other reasons - I saw the bathroom this past weekend for the first time in quite a few weeks.

By the way, thank goodness my daughters are as tolerant as they are. When my daughter was doing her housing selection last Spring, the ResLife person didn't tell my daughter her roomie is gay. We found out on move-in day. Had this been a person without the character that I believe my daughter possesses, it could very well have been an issue.

What the parents should have done was hosted a prom without the stupid date and dress code rules so that the kid could bring who she wanted and screw the district in the process.

Since there was no other sign of previous discrimination, I see their actions as being less about the gay thing and more about punishing the kid who endangered their white trash debutante ball.

Wow. I'm a bit late to this thread, but I agree with the others who have posted that this was a despicable thing for adults to have done to seven specific children. The securing of two venues and the funding of everything must have been done by, or at least supervised by, adults who work at the school and/or parents of children at the school. I almost wonder if they've deluded themselves into thinking that this was actually a good solution for everyone: everyone gets a party and no one has to socialize with the "troublemaker."

I am very often proud to be from the South, but this is the kind of thing that makes me want to send out a mass letter saying "We're not all like this!" I actually went to my senior prom with my gay friend. I wasn't his beard, it's just neither of us was seeing anyone and we decided we'd have fun together. Most of our friends hung out in a big group at the prom anyway. He wasn't out to many people at that point, but most knew he was gay and that I wasn't his girlfriend, but we never heard a peep from anyone. I don't think it would have been a huge deal if he had shown up with a boyfriend, but I don't know for sure. I do think that our friends would have stood by him regardless.

I'm still questioning the fact that the kids weren't allowed to show up solo. I was struck by that in the first article posted here, too. It's almost like they were making an effort not to leave any loopholes.

And, mike, you're hilarious, talking about Patrick's "obvious lack of education and/or communication skills." Obvious, huh? I'm highly amused. I went toe-to-toe with Patrick soon after I started posting here, and the man has chops. Granted, he can (in my opinion) be a bit harsh right off the bat at times, but he is clear and illustrates his points well, should he actually bother to engage with those who call him names. I have to say, calling a man by a woman's name isn't exactly pointing out his lack of rhetoric skills.

I didn't say she should be grateful for not having her house burned down or anything. But there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Nobody seemed to mind having her at these other parties until she chose to make an issue out of it.

There is a BIG difference between simply not hiding who one is...and rubbing people's noses in it. If you can't see that much, then we have nothing to discuss.

-----------------------------------------------

You're quite far off on christian doctrine lovelysoul. To put it simply, "Accept the sinner, not the sin." Those who openly embrace "sin" as acceptable, are not going to be embraced, the one who sins and repents on the other hand, would, or should, be. I'm not even a religious person, and I know that much.

-----------------------------------------------

Ok, lets take that sentence, "So what if she picked a fight?" Good question. I'll tell you so what, so the people of that location have their rights to. And one of those rights is freedom of association. They are under no obligation to accept someone that violates their beliefs and demands everyone else change their beliefs to accomodate her.

I'm all for tolerance, but not at the point of dictatorship. Tolerance is a voluntary state, which was rightly withdrawn when she chose to make an issue out of it. God forbid she should, for one damn day, appreciate that for the last what, 6 years, her town made no issue of her openly gay lifestyle. Now for a place like that, that is not a small concession.

Its one thing to make no big deal about it for a place where its fairly common and nobody gives it a second thought. But you're talking about a place yanked right out of a century past, and still she by no account I can find, suffered so much as a snide comment in all those years. SO the prom is coming up, final big event really for them, and for one damn day they think she...this ONE SINGLE PERSON, could MAYBE, adapt to their values for an evening. That MAYBE, she could act like their values mattered too, that MAYBE, she cared enough about her fellow students to not make them uncomfortable for an evening, and simply enjoy everybody's company?

Nope, got to make a stand, got to make a fight out of it, screw their 6 years of tolerance and decency, how dare they expect this one person to adapt to her home town for a night, she should be able to be who she is 100% of the time and everybody else just has to go along with her and say its ok.

Um, no, FUCK that.

-------------------------------

Y'all have no problem with her values or sexual orientation? Cool, got it, frankly I agree. But we're not talking about you.

There is an entire society in miniature in which she was born and raised, that apparently treated her decently all the way up to the last year and never demanded that she change or made her suffer for her differences in values. Now she chose to live in the very opposite of their beliefs, and made sure every single one of them was aware of it. She lived honestly, and that took courage I'll admit. Its not easy to stand out sometimes.

But as much as you want to praise this girl to the skies...when do you talk about everybody else's values? When do you give equal attention to the rights of others not to have their values snubbed?

You're all upset at this girl for being snubbed at the prom.

But didn't she snub them too? How is one OK and the other not?

Sorry, but there are no heroes here. The adults of the town could have and should have behaved a lot better.

But I don't feel sorry for the person that demands an entire school change all their values and then gets all shocked when they stop being tolerant.

There is a fine line with tolerance, and it goes both ways. Live and let live means giving both sets of values credence. They didn't give her any problems over her values for years. Not until she decided to take an issue with theirs. When she stopped being tolerant of them, they stopped being tolerant of her.

The results ain't pretty, but for anyone with a brain, they're not surprising.

I was following the back-and-forth on the thread, not knowing what to think, until I came to the part about the fact that McMillen's companions at the fake prom were the mentally challenged kids. I admittedly had mixed feelings, but upon reading this, my jaw just dropped. Maybe the skrool administrators SHOULD be thrown into a pit (ref. to earlier thread), along with these parents. Would it really have been so wrong to invite McMillen and the "short bus" kids to the same prom?

I disagree with the use of force to make the
skrool board go with McMillen's wishes in the first place, but the way these sperm- and egg-donors (can we really call them parents?) handled things afterward is reprehensible. Fuck them.

They should run Fulton, MI into Ithaca, NY and watch the knuckle-draggers and libtards eliminate each other like matter and anti-matter!

But I don't feel sorry for the person that demands an entire school change all their values and then gets all shocked when they stop being tolerant.

So, this was their way of saying "You'll realize you should be grateful you had it so good before"?

Also, the statement that you're making that McMillen was trying to force the entire school to change its values is a tricky one, considering that she was trying to "force" them to treat her like everyone else. I still actually question the legality of a school dictating who can show up with whom, or that no singles are allowed. But getting back to the "values," she wasn't saying (nor am I saying) that the entire student body and faculty must line up to tell her that they approve of her. Letting a lesbian attend her senior prom is not demanding that the students, teachers, and parents change their values, unless number one on their lists of values is that lesbians (and apparently the learning-disabled) are not allowed to do what their classmates do.

But didn't she snub them too?

I don't understand this. Please explain how she "snubbed" them.

They didn't give her any problems over her values for years.

Because the issue of attending the prom didn't come up for years. Either the school already had the "no same-sex couples" rule on the books, or they added it when it looked like some same-sex couples wanted to attend the prom. It's all well and good to say that you have no problem with someone's sexual orientation, but it seems to be a different story when a girl wants to go to the senior prom with her girlfriend. I'm thinking your alleged tolerance was lip service until this came up.

Not until she decided to take an issue with theirs.

I take issue with their values, too, since it seems their so-called values include barring people from the prom for their sexual orientation.

When she stopped being tolerant of them, they stopped being tolerant of her.

What a ridiculous statement. She stopped being tolerant of people who wanted to keep her out of her senior prom because she's gay. She stopped for the reason I said above, that it wasn't as much of an issue until she actually wanted to show up to the dance with another girl while wearing a tuxedo (both of which she asked permission for, by the way). And the "they stopped being tolerant of her" thing is just ugly. See my first statement in this post for what I think of that.

I'm really beginning to hate the word tolerant. You've been throwing it around, Robert, but I'm not sure you fully understand what it means in this context. It's not just accepting other points of view unless you actually have to stare them in the face. From dictionary.com:

1.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3.
interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

It's not enough to say that you tolerate something when you're never faced with it, only to dig in your heels when it gets a little close for your comfort. I think the "freedom from bigotry" part is especially apt here.

They should run Fulton, MI into Ithaca, NY and watch the knuckle-draggers and libtards eliminate each other like matter and anti-matter!

I'd buy tickets to that.

Someone posted a list of the bigots involved in attending the fake prom...love to see these kids get shut out of college/jobs/shunned for their cruelty and bigotry:

http://itawambabigots.tumblr.com/

Robert, pull your head out of your ass long enough to explain something to me.

How in the hell were they being 'tolerant' of her by saying she could not come to the prom alone, or with her girlfriend. And if she did come with a beard she could still be expelled if at any time just one of the hunndereds of students, who would later go on to exlude her from the private prom, were to complain.

How the fuck, by any stretch of the imagination, is that tolerance?

Somewhere between:

"Since there was no other sign of previous discrimination"

and

"So what if she picked a fight"

... that is the grey area that interests me.

She's been out for six years, with no incident (if there had been previous bullying it would have been included in the axe-grinding news reports).

So where did the "same sex only" part of the invitation come from?

Parents or students?

Response to "picking a fight"?
Was it a long-standing pattern of exploiting people's tolerance?

A lot of effort was expended here - on both sides.

That doesn't just happen - and it's too easy to dismiss this as raw hatred when she's enjoyed civil treatment all these years.

Ben-David, I'll reiterate what I said above. I think part of it may be that some of these people were fine with her being gay as long as she didn't show it. There was no previous incident because she didn't show up at a school dance with her girlfriend. It's easy to say you are tolerant of others if you've never had to have them look you in the eye while you're tolerating them. Also, I agree with what someone said above: the kids were probably mostly okay with her going to the prom, but the adults were the ones who pitched a hissy and had the school district cancel it. The kids only turned on her after the prom was cancelled. And, like I said, the adults were the ones who organized (or at least funded and signed for) the new prom and the sham prom for the seven pariahs. I place the blame mostly on the faculty and parents in this situation.

Yes, yes, Sio. It's all about the prom. Wouldn't want to overtax your twit of a brain by introducing concepts like the systematic efforts of every parent in the school coordinating their efforts toward making one student feel like shit.

Now run along and find a nice, shiny ball to play with.

Posted by: Patrick at April 7, 2010 11:47 AM

Perhaps I'll start to give a damn about something as bloody frivolous as a prom dance or as sheepmommy said, "white trash debutante ball" when I find that shiny (disco?) ball.

Oh and a full court press via the courts/government and a media blitz isn't always going to win hearts and minds, no matter if it is right legally/morally/ethically.

Damn crazy thing, society.

josephineMO7 -

What a well written and spot on post! You nailed that one. This was not about rights, it was about shoving someone's sexuality down everyone's throat. She was going to communicate a message? Well, she has every right to do that. Everyone else, however, is not required to listen. That is OUR right.

Robert: There is a BIG difference between simply not hiding who one is...and rubbing people's noses in it.

BULLSHIT! I'm sick and tired of hearing people complain about how gays supposedly rub their sexuality in peoples' faces.

Just how does that work anyway? How does she rub people's nose in her lesbianism? What was she doing? Getting six inches from peoples' faces while swapping spit with her girl friend? Do they go to the middle of school cafeteria and munch each other in front of the entire student body?

Oh, I get it...only heterosexuals are allowed to dance with each other, hold hands in public, have weddings, casually kiss, etc. Or go to high school proms with the rest of the seniors. But if gays do that, they're "inyoface" about it.

Jesus, fuck you fundies are morons.

It wasnt about her shoving her sexuality down everyones throat. She was quite civil about it up to the point the school cancelled the prom to end run around her getting permision thru the proper channels.

JenK, she was not allowed to bring her date, she and her date were not allowed to go 'alone' and meet. She was told that at any time were one of her classmates to complian - THE SAME CLASSMATES WHO WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO LIE TO HER ABOUT THE REAL PROM - she and her date would be expelled from the party.

What fucking planet do you live on where the phrase 'why cant I go to my prom like everyone else' is shoving her sexuality down everone elses throat?

THe only people who made an issue of her sexuality was the school board and all but the 3 students who werent mentally handicapped also excluded from the real prom

By the way have you seen any of those photos from the fake prom? Seem girls tounge fucking each others throats is fine with those upstanding christians, so long as the girls in question touch a cock within the next couple of hours.

So Amy, you think it's great that a roommate would go to "safe place" training and learn all about being open and accepting of people who happen to be gay, accomodating, all that stuff. When are you signing up to learn to be accomodating and accepting of religious people? We're waiting....since one should openly accept people for all that they are, not discriminate, etc, right?

That's great, that it wasn't an issue, but I also find it disturbing that it might be.

Amy, in a perfect world you're right, it shouldn't be an issue. But as we can see from the case at hand as well as from some of the comments, it's obviously still an issue for people of a certain ilk. By way of background, I was brought up in a very conservative household, in a Free Will Baptist Church and was myself accused of being a lesbian at the age of 13 because my best female friend spent nearly every weekend at my house because her house was tyrannical. By the way, I never bought into the church's indoctrination (I always was a rebel) and left my parents' church as soon as possible. My parents have also "seen the light" and aren't the blind followers they were when I was still at home.

"white trash debutante ball" - Woot woot! (Hit SAVE and commit this phrase to memory.)

"When she stopped being tolerant of them, they stopped being tolerant of her."

Bullies always have a justification for being bullies. Few people are so purely cruel that they'll bully without one.

"You stared at me!" "You took my seat! Or, as poor Phoebe Price heard, "You took my boyfriend!"

These are all "reasons" that bullies find to justify their mental and physical cruelty.

Add "She snubbed us" or "She rubbed our face in it" to the list.

This girl has been bullied. The saddest thing to me is that only 5 students came to "her" prom, and two of those were mentally-challenged also being excluded by the others. This is the sort of "values" you think should be maintained?

I guarantee my daughter would've been there. And she's popular, so she would've brought a lot of her friends to stand up for tolerance. That's the kind of values my child has.

There are some great anti-bullying and tolerance programs in schools now. One actually goes in and finds students like my daughter - respected student leaders - and teaches them about signs of bullying and how they can intervene in positive ways. These kids often make a huge difference because they have the power to sway opinion. They learn it's their duty to look out for other students, not turn away while someone else is being victimized.

Yet, it seems no one in this town has the guts to stand up against bullying. Not one parent showed up to the fake prom, or tried to teach their own child that this sort of mass exclusion of others is wrong?

It takes a special kind of "mean girl" to organize an entire prom behind someone's back. You know there are some proud bitches in that backwards town patting themselves on the back, and cackling about how they tricked A CHILD.

Would they have felt even better if she'd gone home after the "prom" and hung herself?

I guess I don't know much about "christian values" because I don't see where this behavior is anything but evil.

Alright, lets get down to the bottom line.

If I'm engaging in behavior that makes my coworkers uncomfortable, I stop.

They may very well be in the wrong, but that doesn't make their discomfort less real.

I can be myself any time, why shouldn't I make a certain level of accomadation for them?

If they're engaging in conduct that makes me uncomfortable, I'd ask the same thing. It hasn't happened, because I'm utterly shameless in almost any way...but in theory it could, and I'm confident that they would show enough respect for myself and my system of beliefs and manners, that they would refrain from the behavior in question.

Now lets have another hypothetical.

Lets suppose I was engaging in behavior I knew my coworkers were uncomfortable with. And now lets assume that I don't refrain from it. I not only continue it, I make a point of ensuring that they know I'm continuing it.

Who is the antisocial one THEN? The people who are uncomfortable? Or the one who is making them that way deliberately?

THAT is what I mean by rubbing their noses in it.

If I behaved that way, it would be no surprise that I would not be invited to events or functions involving them.

-------------------------

The girl in this particular story knows damn good and well the value systems of her friends, neighbors, parents and friends parents, she knows exactly what that town believes in. None of those values are sudden or new or unknown. She might not agree with it, but she refuses to make any concession to their values, insisting at all times that she be able to practice hers.

So...she refuses to show any concession to their beliefs, why should they show any more concessions to hers?

Robert, if you were bringing your wife in the office to have sex on the desk, then you're right. You (or anyone of any sexual persuasian) should stop that.

But if you can keep your wife's photo on your desk, openly admitting you're married, or bring your wife to a company party, or hold her hand in public, then you are wrong to believe that a gay couple shouldn't also have those freedoms, even if it makes you "uncomfortable".

This girl wasn't engaging in inappropriate displays of affection - rubbing other people's noses in her private sexual behavior. She simply wanted to attend her prom with her date, like anyone else. Dancing with each other shouldn't cause anyone such discomfort that they would ban them from an event.

First of all, it's dark. Second of all, you don't have to look at them if you don't want to. Third, they're not doing anything the other straight couples aren't doing.

I think "discomfort" is just a catchphrase for "disapprove". We all know certain outragious behaviors that would make our co-workers or neighbors genuinely uncomfortable, but that doesn't get to be used as an excuse to discriminate against others you simply disapprove of.

I'm sure Josephine has been thoroughly savaged by now but come on... how do you people even look at yourselves in the mirror every morning? Ostracize and humiliate a poor high school kid because she happens to be gay? Utterly pathetic.

Stay classy southern U.S. Gawd it would be great if your kids all turned out to be gay...

"So...she refuses to show any concession to their beliefs, why should they show any more concessions to hers?"

If you make the concession of accepting the continued injustice you've experienced to date, we'll make the concession of suspending our persecution of you.

Yeah, that's the same thing.

Be nice if the adults in this two-bit town started 'treating others as they would hope to be treated' (heard that somewhere before - nice ring to it).

It is despicable for them to do this for ANY reason, it doesn't matter whether she is gay or "wanted attention" as the kids claim. What if those kids are correct, that it was personal against her for "who" she is, not "what" she is, does that really make it better?

Should parents bring up their kids to hate and ostracize anyone differnet? What happens when these kids get into the workplace and find they have to deal with people they don't like? Not only will they all get fired but they'll get sued for breaking any number of employment laws. Too bad the parents supported their actions instead of teaching them to accept other people, just like Jesus did. Christians nowadays have so forgotten who he was and what he stood for.

So robert if the town had a problem wth a black person being black an dating a black woman, your proosal would be that in deference to the values and beilfs of others he should bleach his skin white and date a white womn so as not to offend anyone?

Because that is what you are arguing in reagards to this girl. That she needs to change her biological apperance and date wom society dem acceptable

Fuck you

"Lets suppose I was engaging in behavior I knew my coworkers were uncomfortable with. And now lets assume that I don't refrain from it. I not only continue it, I make a point of ensuring that they know I'm continuing it.

Who is the antisocial one THEN? The people who are uncomfortable? Or the one who is making them that way deliberately?"

As lovelysoul did a great job of explaining, a lot depends on what the behavior IS. If your co-workers are "uncomfortable" because you eat pork, or because you read the Bible at your desk, or because you wear green, or engage in any other behavior that DOES NOT IN ANY WAY INFRINGE UPON OR AFFECT THEM, then no - you are not the antisocial one. In that case I would say you work with a bunch of assholes who need to suck it up and get over it.

I really did want an answer to my question. It wasn't rhetorical. I really would like to know how I, as a gay man, could rub someone else's nose in it. What would it take for me to do that?

Regarding Robert's asinine argument about engaging in behavior that makes someone uncomfortable, lesbianism isn't a behavior. The girl is a lesbian. The only reliable way of making someone stop being gay is to kill them.

South Park, in its deceptively profound manner, touched on this in the first season episode, Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boatride. Stan had a gay dog. One of the methods that effectively illustrated this absurdity is that he put his dog through commands. "Sit...good boy. Shake...now speak. Okay, now, don't be gay, Spark. Don't be gay."

As Pirate Jo points out, you're being unreasonable if someone is doing something that makes you uncomfortable that isn't harming you or anyone else. If someone smokes, you have a right to object if they smoke around you. If they bathe too infrequently, if the stench bothers you, you have the right to object.

But their sex life does not concern you. And unless it concerns the underage or non-consensual, it doesn't concern anyone else either.

There are things worth getting upset over, and there are valid reasons to object to certain types of people at your prom. If McMillan were an incorrigible bully or drug dealer, the objections to her presence might be warranted. Her lesbianism is most definitely not.

*****But if you can keep your wife's photo on your desk, openly admitting you're married, or bring your wife to a company party, or hold her hand in public, then you are wrong to believe that a gay couple shouldn't also have those freedoms, even if it makes you "uncomfortable".

This girl wasn't engaging in inappropriate displays of affection - rubbing other people's noses in her private sexual behavior. She simply wanted to attend her prom with her date, like anyone else. Dancing with each other shouldn't cause anyone such discomfort that they would ban them from an event.*****

You beat me to it. "Straight" girls dance together all the time as well - are they going to stop that now, too? God forbid, the might catch The Gay. *eyeroll*

Unless they were bumping and grinding on the dance floor, (and same rules apply for the straight couples) there was nothing to bitch about. Some people are complete intolerant assholes.

I really did want an answer to my question. It wasn't rhetorical. I really would like to know how I, as a gay man, could rub someone else's nose in it. What would it take for me to do that?
You always act like a histerical granny (compare the language of your posts with abyone else's) but if someone says anything about behaving yourself properly, you raise hell saying these people oppress you not because of your bad manners but because of your sexuality.
Is this answer clear enough?

It makes no sense at all actually.

Amy:
her mother told me she'd "never seen a Jewish girl before," and the girl asked me if I had horns.
- - - - - - - - - -
Happened to my mom's uncle in WWII - sent to a base down south.

Me writes: You always act like a histerical granny (compare the language of your posts with abyone else's) but if someone says anything about behaving yourself properly, you raise hell saying these people oppress you not because of your bad manners but because of your sexuality.

Is this answer clear enough?

Not really. Your problem is with rude people, not homosexuality. In fact, your post said nothing about homosexuality at all, much less rubbing anyone's nose in it.

You could try again to address homosexuality being rubbed in someone's face, or you could wait for someone more articulate (which in your case, would be just about anyone on this board) to give it a try.

You could try again to address homosexuality being rubbed in someone's face, or you could wait for someone more articulate (which in your case, would be just about anyone on this board) to give it a try.

I'll try again.
Noone is interested in your sexuality, but you keep waving it like a flag - what for? If you are not picking dates here, the answer is the only one - you need this excuse to complain about people shaming you for your obnoxious behaviour.

I can rephrase it the third time, if you need it, or draw a picture, no prob.

Amy, I do believe the story about the horns. A former boss of mine (Jewish) was dating a woman. On their first date, she started going through his hair. When he asked what she was doing, she said she was looking for his horns.

You should have told him you file yours down, Amy. Or that the Jews, in their diabolical conspiracy to take over the word, have them removed in infancy.

MISSING PIECE OF THE STORY

Why did the original invites have that "opposite sex partners" line?

Was there a background of bigotry?

Or a background of in-your-face "progressive" acting out by McMillen?

Turns out McMillen was doing the "civil disobedience" shtick before the prom:

ITAWAMBA COUNTY, Miss. (WTVA) - "Everybody else does it. So I don't see why it's distracting just because it's on me."

High school freshman Juin Baize is talking about the makeup and women's clothing and boots he wore to school, which led to him being sent home.

Baize said, "They told me that I can not come to school dressed like a girl."

And that's unfair...says Juin's friend, senior Constance McMillen.

She says a group of girls came to school Thursday morning, dressed as guys in support of Juin dressing like he does.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So I now call this one as "snot-nosed progressive delivered a straw that broke the long-suffering mainstream camel's back"

Link:

http://www.wtva.com/news/local/story/School-Dress-Debate/ykCINbiIaUC-t4jOCXDpng.cspx

Sorry, Me, but you can't seem to grasp the question.

You wrote: Noone is interested in your sexuality, but you keep waving it like a flag - what for? If you are not picking dates here, the answer is the only one - you need this excuse to complain about people shaming you for your obnoxious behaviour. (Emphasis added.)

I'm trying to find out precisely what "waving like a flag" means. I ask, "What do homosexual people do that amounts to rubbing other people's nose in [their homosexuality]?" And you come back with, "You wave it like a flag."

Uh, what? You simply dragged this into another question which is arguably similar to the first one. Now I have to ask what amounts to "waving it like a flag?"

I'm looking for specifics...and you don't seem to be able to give any. And forgive me for saying so, but I don't believe you're interested at all in answering the question so much as insulting someone. Isn't that true?

Omg, she had the audacity to say something was unfair and support a friend. She's a real radical!!!

I like her more and more. It's sad that some of you are so afraid and "uncomfortable" with this girl when we need more like her.

Ben-David: Baize said, "They told me that I can not come to school dressed like a girl."

And that's unfair...says Juin's friend, senior Constance McMillen.

She says a group of girls came to school Thursday morning, dressed as guys in support of Juin dressing like he does.

How horrible. She went to school dressed like a man. (Wondering how a woman can dress unambiguously like a man. I mean, did she come to school in jeans and a t-shirt? Can't women do that anyway?)

Me, I think Patrick's sexual orientation is relevant to this discussion, because homosexuality is what this discussion is about. Unless I'm mistaken, part of posting intelligent conversation on a website is bringing personal experiences to the table when appropriate. I don't randomly tell people I'm a vegetarian, but when it's relevant to the thread, I have discussed it. From what I've read on here, Patrick doesn't turn every thread into a discussion about his being gay, he brings it up when it's relevant. Why would you want him to not bring it up in this particular thread? This one hits me pretty hard, too, as I'm a liberal from the South and I hate to see things like this in the news.

Regarding the horns, Amy, I wonder if your roommate had seen artwork of Moses with horns. Apparently, when St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, it was found that the word "karan" was ambiguous, and he mistranslated "radiated light" as "grew horns." Michelangelo's statue of Moses shows him with horns, partly because of the mistranslation and partly because Eastern culture thought of horns as a symbol of authority. It's also been argued that there was no mistranslation and the "grew horns" was symbolic in the first place.

Or maybe your roommate was just a sheltered bigot, but it's still interesting stuff.

I'm late to this and just caught up during my lunch break.

Patrick: I thoroughly enjoyed you today.

I'm from/in Boston and even the more conservative people around here are considerably more tolerant than the rest of the country. I keep forgetting that, and feel lucky to live in a place where I can go about my business and not have sexual orientation matter or be something I have to think about. It just is what it is and people around these here parts don't mind. It's nice. And I'm sorry the rest of the country cares so much. I can marry my guy. And my coworker can marry his. And we talk about wedding stuff throughout the day and it's fun and not a big deal.

Momof4. I fully respect your right not to teach your kids about homosexuality until you want to, if at all. But, the conversation is really about dudes ramming it up each other's asses...? What planet are you on?

I take it you and your husband have had sex at least 4 times. I also take it that your kids don't watch you have sex, maybe they see you kiss and maybe they know about where babies come from and have drawn their little-kid conclusions that you two have boned. But, did you sit them down and say "daddy rammed it in mommy's p***y and I liked it! And I got preggers!". By gods I sincerely hope not and don't think you did. It was probably more like "mommy and daddy love each other very much and when mommies and daddies are in love...".

I also take it that your kids witness you and your husband dealing with day-to-day issues that all couples handle. Like, who does the dinner dishes and who does bath time. Or, they see you be nice to each other. Make each other laugh. Fight over stuff. Cuddle on the couch. Etc. So your kids understand that being a couple in a relationship has a lot going on in it - there are many facets that your kids are experiencing everyday, and you and your hubby's fuck schedule is not something they're privy to...

So I'm not sure where you are getting your information about "deh gays", but according to all the gay people I know (quite a few) their relationships have more of that everyday stuff going on and we talk about all of it. And food, the weather, etc. I'm sure we talk about sex, but gays are capable of talking about other stuff, too. I guess I'm confused why the conversion about gay people has to be all about what body parts go where in the bedroom? That's like, uber specific and kind of bullshit and really crass. My mom has never talked to me about anal sex be it man on woman or man on man. Completely not something we want to talk about together. I would think it would be the same conversation: two consenting adults are in love and they choose to share a life together. The sex details aren't relevant there. You're making being gay about being disgusting and perverted and I think that's really, really sad.

But what do I know. I'm a nonpartisan agnostic girl in Massachusetts so I fear I'm a bit out of touch with the rest of America.

Ann is right too. Straight girls dance together all the time. I've chaperoned my share of school dances, and this often happens. Maybe not holding each other close, but definitely holding hands, twirling each other around. This doesn't make me uncomfortable. In fact, I worry more about the boy/girl pairings. God forbid someone gets pregnant on my watch.

All these kids are often exploring their sexual identity, especially girls. I'm finding these 16 yr olds change sexual persuasion like clothes - one day they're "bi", the next they're "straight".

Truth is, most don't know what they are. They haven't even had sex yet! The "bi" girl I have staying with me is "dating" another girl who has been sweet and caring towards her. But I asked if they'd been intimate, and it hasn't gone that far.

Call me old fashioned, but I don't see how anyone can know they're a lesbian if they haven't visited the Y. :)

She'll probably be straight again next week. These girls are very fluid and open about their sexuality, and frankly, it shouldn't matter what they ultimately decide.

Turns out McMillen was doing the "civil disobedience" shtick before the prom

Civil disobedience (from Wikipedia): Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power, using no form of violence.

You gotta watch out for those people. I hear that Gandhi was a real scrapper.

Ben-David:

Oh yes, those poor, long-suffering mainstream bigots. Wow a boy in boots and a girl with a girlfriend. Must feel like the end-times down thar in Intawamba County...

Unless I'm mistaken, part of posting intelligent conversation on a website is bringing personal experiences to the table when appropriate.
Yeah, but how can we be sure Patrick is gay? Only because he says so? He might be pretending because it is profitable to be one. Noone gives scholarships for being vegetarian, right? Might be he is a lousy hetero trying to steal someone's scholarship.
So he is possibly gay but very really and actively obnoxious, and I don't know, whether it is appropriaate.

Now I have to ask what amounts to "waving it like a flag?"
You keep screaming about your sexualiity as if it is somehow important.
Well, surprise - it is not. At all. But constant hearing about it gets boring. And it does not excuse you for being rude and histerical.

Well, Gretchen, thank you. I appreciate that. It seems most of the reactions I got was negative. To those who were offended, I'm genuinely sorry you felt that way, but for obvious reasons, this issue affects me in ways perhaps you can't understand.

I simply don't see this girl as a terrible, horrible, evil vile person. She is what she is, and I think it's likely that she can't help what she is any more than I can.

I hesitate to share this, because I know I'll be scoffed at for it. I don't ask for anyone's pity, but perhaps it will make you aware of something you didn't realize. Because while the specifics are unique to me, the sentiments behind them are anything but. Most gays go through this, or at least did during the less enlightened age when I went to school.

Here goes...I was in junior high when budding sexuality started to assert itself. I realized what was happening, was unsurprised to learn I was gay, but terrified of it, because I wasn't ignorant to how the world felt about gays, including my own relatives, and never admitted it to anyone. I didn't have to. Junior high is probably the very worst period in a child's development. I've never heard of a time when kids are more horrible to each other. It's worse than high school. The harassment got so bad, my mother (parents divorced when I was four) took me out of school, and placed me in an Episcopalian Bording School called Hoosac. Things weren't great there, but better than public school, and I stayed there till I graduated.

Episcopalianism is "Catholic-Lite." We had chapel every day and I took an active part in the vestry. They tried to put me in charge of it one year, but I resigned as Warden, because I didn't think God wanted a faggot in charge of His vestry. I never admitted I was gay to anyone, although some suspected, even said. I used to go the chapel sometimes when no one else was there and pray to be converted to heterosexuality. I'd be on my knees or prone when my knees got too sore. Sometimes I'd stay so long that I would fall asleep on the floor of the dias, which was stone.

Needless to say, nothing changed, despite the fact that I was perfectly willing to hate myself all through high school, college and the Army.

Some of you, obviously, are uncomfortable when I talk about being gay. Personally, I don't myself as being any more inyoface than Amy is about her sexuality. In fact, she talks more about her relationship than I do mine. There's a lot more talk about straight sex acts than gay ones. Although Momof4 got rather crude with her talk about anal sex, which is something I never discussed. Or how about Momof4? Her name itself is rather inyoface about her motherhood, and she gets quite riled against any non-parent who presumes to speak about parenting issues. Although I notice that she doesn't defer to me when the topic is homosexuality.

In fact, I consider myself a lot more restrained on the topic of homosexuality than a lot of posters here on other issues.

So, it's too bad for you if you're so bothered by homosexuality, and consequently me for being a homosexual. But I did the penance. I've hated myself quite long enough for your sakes. I'm simply too tired to keep doing it.

You know, this reminds me of the hysteria over rock and roll...when some thought Elvis and the Beatles shaking their hips would corrupt all America's youth. The whole verbiage of "waiving it around like a flag!" etc sounds similar to me.

Then as now, nobody can actually explain how this will corrupt or harm anybody. They can't put their fears into words because the fears aren't rational and don't truly connect with the events at hand.

Reasonable people could see that Elvis shaking his hips would not lead to their daughter's unwanted pregnancy, yet, deep down, this was the leap those who feared it were making. This was somehow going to negatively effect their lives.

Likewise, those who criticize McMillan see her not as a young girl just trying to be herself but as a symbol of terrible things to come. If we allow "her kind" to openly attend the prom, then who knows where this will lead?

Eventually, hip shaking became mainstream, and no one worried anymore about its corrosive effect, as there really wasn't any. It seemed downright silly to think that way. I hope the same will ultimately be the case here.

Gay couples are eventually going to be accepted - at proms and everywhere else - and it won't seem so odd anymore, or at least those of you who are so uncomfortable with it will realize that it doesn't negatively impact your lives like you fear it will.

Makes one (this one, anyway) muse on Fiddler on the Roof: "She's dancing! With a man!"
"I can see she's dancing with a man! And I'm
going to dance! With my wife!"
"It's a sin!"
"Wellll...it's not exactly forbidden, but--"

Gotta watch that free thinking, folks. Just brings the Cossacks down on ya.

Me: You keep screaming about your sexualiity as if it is somehow important.
Well, surprise - it is not. At all. But constant hearing about it gets boring. And it does not excuse you for being rude and histerical.

You complaining about someone else's rudeness is a little like Al Sharpton complaining about someone else's self-righteousness.

And quite frankly, I think I'm a little more restrained than some people on this thread. Lujlp comes to mind. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad for his support and don't think he's being that outrageous. He's certainly no BOTU.

To be perfectly blunt, I think your complaints about my "rudeness" and "histeria [sic]" are an excuse for being uncomfortable with something else. Of course, I anticipate that you'll start screaming hysterically (note how the word is spelled) that I've just proven your case: that every time we gays get called out for rudeness, we fall back on our homosexuality as an excuse.

No, I've looked at the other posts as objectively as I can, and I don't believe I've been the rudest, obnoxious or most profane in this thread. And I really do think you're using rudeness as an excuse for what you're really uncomfortable with. The topic is homosexuality. I am a homosexual. I think that might lend me a certain perspective on the issue. Just like some of the parents on this board think their own experiences lend them a perspective on the issue of parenting.

And NumberSix is correct. I don't mention my homosexuality when the topic is something else.

As far as "shoving it in your face": I think that the folks who are really uncomfortable with gayness feel that any acknowledgment of sexual orientation is a a form of said shoving.

In this case, based on the various sources sited, it doesn't seem as though Constance went around saying I'M GAY I'M GAY LOVE ME LOVE ME LOVE ME. But she didn't hide it. Maybe she held her gf's hand like two straight people. To them, that's shoving it in their face. The fact that she is going about her life as a lesbian is enough to qualify as rubbing their nose in her sexuality and they some how equate that to her tying them down and trying to make them watch girl-on-girl porn or something.

Further, wanting to be able to attend prom with the consenting adult of her choice is also a form of flaunting for "them". I'm sure a mixed race couple caused the same stir and I'm sure people said the same thing about those dirty heathens, too...that they can do what they want locked up in their house, but *not in PUBLIC!*. Constance wanted to be able to be out of the closet, seemingly literally and physically. She wanted to attend prom and said as much. She should have stalked off quietly into the night and gotten ravaged by wild wolves or something else that would render her a non-threat to their prissy little "comfort levels". She had no choice but to raise hell and call the ACLU because people the district was illegally, and quite rudely, excluding her from going to prom with another girl.

Wow, Patrick I'm getting all riled up. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I were also gay, it must really suck sometimes to deal with people.

I see Big Gay Patrick is posting about all that gay stuff again. Man, that guy just can't get over himself and gay, gay, blah, blah, gay...

I'd let it go -- you've given a good accounting of yourself. I don't think ME even knows what his argument is anymore.

Amy writes: I only wish I'd been more successful in this [Jewish conspiracy to take over the word].

Amy, I have to know, when you decided you were an atheist, did the horns just fall off or did you have to have them removed?

We (my siblings and I) heard "horns" comments often when growing up.

Of course, I anticipate that you'll start screaming hysterically (note how the word is spelled) that I've just proven your case: that every time we gays get called out for rudeness, we fall back on our homosexuality as an excuse.
But sure you anticipate, that is the beauty of it - you anticipate and still keep being histerical, blaming me for being right and trying to twist it over like it was going exactly as planned.

I don't mention my homosexuality when the topic is something else. When I see it I believe it. Well, may be it's some rare time when you can't get any profit from it? But this will get more and more rare, so slim hope.

In fact, I consider myself a lot more restrained on the topic of homosexuality than a lot of posters here on other issues.

Patrick, until this thread, I had no idea you were gay. I thought you sometimes missed the mark, and I don't always agree with you, but it had nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Sorry some have felt the need to bash on you for it in this thread. Makes me sad that there are still some with such a narrow-minded view of the world we live in today.

blaming me for being right

That's a nice little twisting of events you have there. You'd have to be right for Patrick to blame you for it, and I don't think you have much support in that area.

When I see it I believe it.

It's not actually all that hard to see it. You do have access to threads other than this one where you can see what other people posted.

Well, may be it's some rare time when you can't get any profit from it?

What profit is he getting now? Why haven't I heard about this? I mean, hell, if there's funding available, I'll look into it myself.

All this drama about going to prom makes me want to go to bar and have drink.

Oh and by the way, my middle daughter went to all her high school dances with a girl - couple tickets were cheaper than single tickets so they would share the cost. It was never an issue at the school. Someone said earlier that the high school may have been trying to close any perceived loopholes that Ms. McMillen might use.

Now, why my daughter never had an official date to a school dance is another story. I prefer to think it's because a) she was 6 feet tall by the time she graduated; b) she was only 12 when she started high school; c) she's very picky; and d) boys didn't think they had a shot with her (some have since told her that).

"Sorry some have felt the need to bash on you for it in this thread."

Re. my post of 1:12pm. I think it's clear that I'm on Patrick's side in this particular debate but if it wasn't, I am.

You keep screaming about your sexualiity as if it is somehow important.

Important? That's a matter of opinion. But it is relevant, since this is a topic about homosexuality.

"But, if I did have horns, I think I might spray paint them silver and cover them with Swarovski crystals."

That could probably get me to convert to Judaism.

Oh, cripes, then we could debate about horn-piercing, when you should let your little girl get hers decorated, boys painting them in gang colors and bragging about size...

I gotta re-read The Rape of the A.P.E (American Puritan Ethic) by Allan Sherman. I know a lot of the things argued about here are in there somewhere.

He tried to think of an unbreakable commandment: Thou shalt not stuff thirteen tennis balls in thy toilet.

But he knew that some people would stuff twelve balls in their toilets, and the real sinners would go for fifteen or whatever. Great book, anyway.

For those playing along at home, that's Allan Sherman of "Hello muddah, hello faddah" fame.

Um...for those playing along at home who are old enough to even know that song.

"Or that the Jews, in their diabolical conspiracy to take over the word ..."

"I only wish I'd been more successful in this ... But, if I did have horns, I think I might spray paint them silver and cover them with Swarovski crystals."

Funny stuff, Amy! I had never heard of this "horn" theory until today. Too bad there aren't more Jewish people living in Iowa, I'd love to hear more of these funny stories! These comments, though ... I laughed so hard I woke up my dog!

Very late to this party, but had to respond to Josephine, who posted: "To use the government as a club to beat those who don't agree with you into submission is evil. no one has the right to do that."

Uh, if by "government," you mean the Court system, then we actually all have the right to do that. Its not evil. Its actually pretty righteous.

And quite frankly, I think I'm a little more restrained than some people on this thread. Lujlp comes to mind. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad for his support and don't think he's being that outrageous

I've come too close to death often enough in my youth to realise something most people dont understand until their much older.

Life is way too short - fuck restraint.

If you are being an idiot I'm going to say so.
If you are incappable of arguing your position coherently I'll be more thn happy to rip your argument to shreds - feel free to do the same, people will never grow unless their assumptions and predjudeces are challanged.

You could be hit by a bus tomorrow, killed by a freak accident or bug and what will all of your self effacing refual to challange people have gotten you? Or them?

As I said - LIFE IS SHORT, FUCK RESTRAINT

Me: When I see it I believe it. Well, may be it's some rare time when you can't get any profit from it? But this will get more and more rare, so slim hope.

Look, jackass, you can see it now. You can visit my comments on Amy's columns. You'll find several columns, such as the last four, with nary a mention of my homosexuality. On this particular blog entry, of course, I mention it. Why shouldn't I? On threads about domestic abuse, people who have had experience with domestic abuse bring theirs to the table. When Amy discusses parenting, parents bring their perspectives to the table, while presenting their credentials.

So, you can spare us all the faux-indignation about how I bring my homosexuality to the table. It isn't true, and NumberSix, who has discussed far more with me on this blog than you have, has already vouched for that. Sara, who has also discussed issues with me on this blog in the past, didn't even know I was gay until this thread. Does that tell you anything?

And I really don't think anyone on this thread is convinced that your problems have to do with me supposedly bringing my homosexuality to every discussion (especially since I don't). It's all about you being uncomfortable with it. Sorry, dude. Squeamishness about homosexuality on your part does not necessitate an adjustment on mine.

The point I was making when I was asking you about how a homosexual can "rub everyone's nose in it," was that "waving like a flag," probably consists of doing the same things with the same sex partner that heterosexuals do. And I think you realized that, because you refused to give specifics.

How do the gays rub everyone's nose in it? Do they hold hands in public? Or God forbid, kiss? Do they mention same sex relationship partners in casual conversation? Do they have pictures of their relationship partners on their desks at work or in their wallet? Do they make casual conversation about dating? Do they someone in public and remark how hot that person is? Or how gorgeous a certain celebrity is?

Guess what? ...

By the way, why shouldn't my homosexuality be important to me? Isn't your heterosexuality important to you? I don't suggest that it occupies your every thought, but doesn't your domestic lives, dating lives, sex lives or whatever kind of lives you have pretty much have your heterosexuality as an integral aspect?

Of course it's important. Human beings are sexual beings.

I can also vouch for Patrick's not sharing his homosexuality in other threads. I didn't know he was gay for quite some time. In fact, in our first (heated) exchange on a domestic violence thread, I practically accused him of being a wife beater, yet he didn't even mention it then. So, he doesn't bring his homosexuality into the conversation unless it's relevant, which it obviously is here.

Thanks, Lovely. I didn't mention this earlier, because I was getting to caught up in the discussion. I guess the idea of an innocent teenager being shunned and having all the parents of the entire senior class conspire against her really gets to me. It brings me back to my own experiences. She has more courage than I do. I never told anyone. Most of my family still doesn't know.

But I wanted to say what you're doing for the girl you took in is wonderful. I don't know how this works, but I imagine there's some route you take to be a foster mother. I'd hate to think the evil shrew who kicked her daughter out might accuse you of something to get you in trouble. But I hope you're taking all the necessary precautions to legally protect yourself.

Who is more wrong, and who is "rubbing it in more": the person who makes other people feel uncomfortable and does not care/quit the behavior, or the person who would be just fine not knowing about the behavior???

What is intolerance? Isn't it not being able to respect another person's views/morals? Who is more intolerant then...the person flaunting their sexuality while knowing many people don't appreciate it, or the people who don't appreciate it?

If I like redheads better than brunettes, do I have to tell everyone about it? Or do I just continue to like redheads? Would brunettes get offended if they knew i liked redheads?

Basically, it really does not matter who (or what) someone is sleeping with. Its just sex. So why do we have to advertise it? Why do we have to ask for entitlement because of whom we sleep with? Who cares?

I don't really understand the need to advertise; the need to make sure everyone knows about it; the need to feel like everyone owes you something. Just because of who you are sleeping with????

I lived with a gay man for two years and never even knew he was gay. He seemed just like any of the other roommates I ever had. He did not flaunt it. He did not sue anyone over his sexual preference, and he did not do anything to make me uncomfortable. When I found out it was by accident, and we both laughed it up over the whole thing. I did not give one concern over who he was sleeping with, and he never cared about who I was sleeping with. No agenda and we continued living together for another year until he moved in with his boyfriend.

It is hard to feel sympathy for anyone who feels the need to act like they are special over what gender they prefer to have sex with. Who cares? On the other hand, it is all about the movement to force people to accept it whether they want to or not. I believe that this is why people act so stupidly about homosexuals...I don't care what you do I just don't want it in my face...

mike, it's not about advertising in the case of this high school girl. It's about repression. From what I've read of the case, McMillen didn't feel she should be treated "special," she felt she should be treated the same as the other high school kids who were allowed to attend the prom with dates of their choice.

I don't care what you do I just don't want it in my face...

Again, to bring it back around to the case at hand, this was what the school's point seems to be. Don't put it in our faces... by, you know, showing up at a school function with the rest of the senior class. Do you really think this point is valid? I actually tend to agree with you on people with agendas who demand special treatment, but you are off base in this case. The only thing Constance McMillen felt she was "owed" was the right to do the same things as all the others in her school. That's not special treatment, that's ordinary treatment. The reason your roommate didn't sue anyone over his sexual preference was that he was not shut out like the girl at this school. The school district cancelled the prom and then some adults conspired against her and six others to make sure they didn't attend the replacement prom. Your defense above has no bearing on this example.

and NumberSix, who has discussed far more with me on this blog than you have

Hey! Y'all said my name!

Mike: I lived with a gay man for two years and never even knew he was gay. He seemed just like any of the other roommates I ever had. He did not flaunt it. He did not sue anyone over his sexual preference, and he did not do anything to make me uncomfortable.

You lived with somebody for two years and never knew he was gay? This is why I'm asking for what "in your face" means.

So, your roommate never mentioned dating to you, and never had his dates stop over. If he had, would this have been "inyoface" about his homosexuality? Did your dates ever stop by the place during the two years he didn't know he was gay? Did you ever say a single thing to him about who you were dating that indicated you were with a girl?

I mean, I'm glad he wasn't obnoxious about it. It's not like I would ever describe my sexual acts in graphic detail to anyone. I don't feel anyone should do that. But it just seems that if he wasn't even able to make casual mention of anything that would indicate that he was gay, such as having a boyfriend or whatever, it sounds like those two years were a bit oppressive for him, watching his words carefully least you find out about him.

And why should McMillan have to do that? Did you ever know anyone in high school who was shy about what they thought was hot, or who they were dating, etc.? So, why does McMillan not have the same right?

Just like to highlight this little gem I missed eariler

"To use the government as a club to beat those who don't agree with you into submission is evil. no one has the right to do that." -josephineMO7

So one girl using the courts to defend herself from predjudice is evil.

But the ADULTS in office on the GOVERMENT school board who cancelled prom for everyone just to prevent one teenage lesbian from dancing in public, what whould you call that josephineMO7?

Becuase if it is "evil" for one CHILD to demand to be treated fairly, what the fuck do you call it when several ADULTS use their positions in local government to unduly punish a child for wanting to go to a fucking dance?

Patrick:
the Jews, in their diabolical conspiracy to take over the word
Amy:
I only wish I'd been more successful in this.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Why - didn't you get your check from George Soros this month?

Sometimes they're a little late after Passover.

I'm going on a rampage.

Mike, say this preference for redheads extends to the point where brunettes, blondes, black haired and Q-Tips actually make you go soft. Now, to apply the same standards which applied to McMillan, let's say you're gearing up for a school dance. Your girlfriend is a redhead and you love her blahblahblah.

Now, let's say the school writes on the ticket "No redheads allowed to dance with black haired men" (let's say your hair is black). It seems arbitrary, no? It also seems pretty bogus because, after all, you and your gf are just a couple who love each other. So why can't you be out in public? This same thing applies for mixed race couples.

Being gay isn't a new invention, people. It's also not a sign of loose morals or the apocalypse. Sorry, put down the bible or whatever and think about this for a minute. It's just that, nowadays, we've taken to accepting people a bit more than before. And also, partnership for the sake of reproduction and financial stability isn't the complete reason people get into long term relationships anymore. So they can branch out to do what they actually want. Yanno that whole slavery thing? Well it's over (at least in the U.S). And lynching black people? Done. Gays don't choose to be gay and more than I choose to be straight - and I'll be adamant here: I like men and there ain't nuthin I can do about it. I also didn't pick to be so white that I reflect sun and become a glowing beacon while I sit on the beach, under an umbrella slathered in SPF 1 Million. I'm also tall. So maybe I could take some part time work as a lighthouse - I can just stand on a jetti and my skin's reflection will warn ships of land. We can't choose some stuff. It doesn't make us bad or wrong or lesser than another person.

I'm sick of this conversation; it makes me want to vom. The anti-McMillan camp needs to come out and just fucking say it. Stop beating around the bush. Stop being pussies. You think gay people are immoral, that they are contrarians who are choosing to be gay just to piss you off and disgust you. Do white people date black people just to piss you off, too? I expect most of you anti's are more "lenient" with mixed race couples - but why? 50 years ago you'd probably be yacking all over the sidewalk watching a black and white person hold hands. It's not inherently bad or evil or hurtful to you personally...but 50 years ago it would have been incredibly offensive to people even though we aren't inherently against such things - we go against these things b/c we're raised that way. Today blacka nd white people can be together. B/c we've collectively changed and decided our behaviors were ridiculous and our opinions based on really fucked up thinking. This will all change. I hope to gods it will. And when your kids are all, like, 45 and you're old and they think you're a bigot and an asshole I will be glad.

Again. I cannot even fathom how I'd feel if I were gay, considering how much rage this creates. The stupidity. The intolerance. The narcissism. YOU COULD HAVE BEEN GAY. Just like you could have gotten cancer when you were 5. The whole "do what you want but don't tell me about it" is shit. I don't talk about fucking my fiance. Gay people don't do it either. But if they're being banned from prom, and they say "hey, not cool, people" that isn't the same as making you watch gay porn with your eyes propped open like A Clockwork Orange. I need a fucking drink. It's afternoon in Paris - pinot noir and brie, anyone?

Patrick: You don't advertise your sexuality anymore than a straight person. You are incredibly awesome and I really enjoy your company on this blog. Rock the fuck on, dude.

"Becuase if it is "evil" for one CHILD to demand to be treated fairly, what the fuck do you call it when several ADULTS use their positions in local government to unduly punish a child for wanting to go to a fucking dance?"

Why, luj, I'm shocked you don't know.

They would be called "righteous". And they have properly secured their golden ticket through the big pearly white gates when they die.

"Becuase if it is "evil" for one CHILD to demand to be treated fairly, what the fuck do you call it when several ADULTS use their positions in local government to unduly punish a child for wanting to go to a fucking dance?"

Yeah, apparently it's called having "values" by these bigots.

There's no way to counteract the stupidity here. One guy says he lived with a gay guy for 2 years and didn't know. Well, wonder why? I guess you didn't know him very well, and Amy's probably right that he knew better than to come out of the closet around you.

But I bet he knew YOU were straight, right? I bet you felt free to bring women around, make comments about a cute chick, or say you went out on a date with a woman.

Oh, but that's rubbing people's noses in your sexuality! How could you do that?

Gretchen's right (rock, on, Gretchen!), you should call your bigotry what it is, straight out. It doesn't matter what a gay person does or how discreet they are. You think homosexuality is immoral. And, furthermore, you think you're being "normal" when you hold your date's hand in public, or dance with her, but a gay couple doesn't have that right. They should keep their relationship completely in the closet. That is flat out what you're saying, so quit using this "rub noses" excuse. Gay couples are not asking for any different freedom than what you enjoy with your partners.

Another thing. I wonder how many of you guys who claim to be so "offended" by two lesbians dancing together at a prom have watched girl-on-girl porn and been stimulated.

Ben-David probably hasn't, but I suspect the rest of you are being hypocrites about how much this "disturbs" you, at least behind closed doors. Judging by the huge market for girl-on-girl porn, there's a lot of straight guys out there who don't mind seeing it. If you're watching that in private, then sanctimoniously complaining about two girls, fully dressed, dancing at a prom together, you have some issues.

Gretchen and Lovelysoul, thank you. Loved how you both spelled it out.

Damn Gretchen, you should go on a rampage more often. That was brilliant! *clap*

My mom is one of those people who thinks homosexuality is immoral. This is because the Bible tells her so, and as far as she's concerned there's no reason to think any further than that. I was brought up with the same dumb beliefs, but grew a mind of my own and decided I didn't agree.

I'll never forget coming back from college one summer - the TV was on and the show had a gay character. My mom (a Jehovah's Witness) and my brother (same dumb religion) made some kind of bigoted remark and I called them on it. My mom's response? "College sure messed you up."

And I just looked at her and thought, "You are such a small-minded idiot." I loved my own mom a little less that day - and I definitely respeted her less. Some people, and yes I think religion is a cause of this, are genuinely proud of themselves for keeping their thinking stuck firmly in the Stone Age. They think it makes them better people.

I can't leave well enough alone.

I support Mike and Josephine and Momof4 and everyone else in their right to be think being gay is evil. They can hold a up a bible and preach from the mountains and if anyone wants to listen, that's fine. I support the rights of the despicable parents who hosted the private prom, though it hurts me. But I think it's terrible, and I would never use your beliefs to ban you or harm you.

But no one has presented a legitimate, rational, fact-based argument as to why two girls should not be allowed into prom together. WHY is gayness gross? You can't, it's just some personal feeling - just like "I love blue/pizza/electronica/I hate Italians (obviously not since I'm marrying one)". I can't use my personal preferences to ban people or ostracize them. YOU LIKE YELLOW - NO PROM FOR YOU! "Guidos" a la Snooki and The Situation might be all the rag on MTV these days, but in the early 1900's Italian immigrants had a tough time finding jobs - what if we still acted that way?

PROVE that it's unnatural. PROVE that it hurts people. SHOW ME why holding hands is offensive. Does it mean you cannot hold hands with your wife? Do your eye balls turn into marshmallows?

No one has the guts to say "seeing two women together romantically is repulsive to me, so I will not defend them." In not defending McMillan and her gf and shaming the parents and school district, and claiming that this is "shoving their sexuality in your face", you are effectively saying that gay = wrong, and they got what they deserve. This isn't about degrees; just be plain about your opinions.

Go find a gay teenager and look that kid in the eye and tell them that their natural feelings are shameful. Convince them that they are choosing their way of life and that simply existing in the same way as you and I is detrimental to the fabric of society and population as a whole. You people and your lack of a soul, and a brain, is so repulsive to ME that I wish I could ban you from the public arena so I don't have to be near such vile people who may dare to spread their prejudice.

I'm late to the party. Someone told me it was in another thread. Anywho...

Ohhhh, the emotional rollercoaster this thread sent me on. I was starting to develop a little e-crush on Patrick then the hammer dropped! LOL!

I kid, Patrick. I really don't have much to add that you, lujip (I may have butchered that name), Gretchen, NumberSix and a bunch of other awesome posters here haven't already said (and better than I could have). You guys were great in here. Seriously, kudos to all of you.

As for Patrick's potty mouth, this is the internet, not a Presidential debate. Obviously, this topic struck a chord with a lot of people on both sides. Smart people know how to use "fuck", too. I find that the grammar police are usually the ones with the weakest arguments. I can't spell for crap. That doesn't mean I don't have some good points, however hard they may be to figure out. ;)

One thing that stuck with me from the very start of this thread (and I have read almost all of it) was momof4's comment about how her kids will be fabulous even if they hate gays. Sweetheart, if they hate gays, they will be bigots...and you will have failed MISERABLY as a mother. I am NOT one to bring anyone's kids into any debate, but you opened that door. How can anyone in this day and age say they would be proud if their children grew up hating any one group of HUMAN BEINGS blindly? You don't have to agree with their lifestyle.....hell, you can even think they are hell-bound sinners if that's what you believe your God thinks. But HATE? Actual HATE? You would be okay with that? I really hope your stopping at 4 if that's the case.

My bottom line is this: Kids have a right to go to their prom. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the school, parents and kids did everything they could to make this girl feel like an outcast. Even more damaging, these asshole parents showed their kids that this kind of behavior is acceptable....which they'll show to their kids...and so on. My 15 year old neice is gay. I've spent so much time worrying about her....not because I think it's wrong that she's gay, but because I know how cruel teenagers can be. By all accounts, she looks like a boy. I just could not be more grateful that she doesn't seem to be having these problems. When I first read this story, I was shocked. Completely shocked. I can't believe this would even happen, let alone that some people would agree with it.

Hey, geezers, if you think there weren't any gays at your proms, you are sorely mistaken. And did someone say prome was a "hetero" thing? Really? It's a HIGH SCHOOL thing, it had nothing to do with being "hetero". That's like the whole "marriage has always been a hetero thing" argument, huh? Remember how well the whole "the front of the bus is a white person thing" thing went?

Times are changing. If you don't like it, move to Iran. I hear there are no gay people there.

I think momof4 should play VERY, VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to what Pirate Jo wrote (i.e., that when confronted with her mother's homophobia, she loved and respected her mother a little bit less).

The chances are good that at least one of your children will grow up to hold different beliefs and values than you - hell, one of them might even turn out to be gay. If you express yourself to your children the way you've expressed yourself on posts here, then think very carefully about how your children will perceive you when they become adults and start thinking for themselves. One or more of them may grow up to love or respect you less - one or more of them may grow up to despise and loathe you. That would be quite sad indeed.

I just could not be more grateful that she doesn't seem to be having these problems.

Maybe she kicked all their [NSFW]s when they started in on her. :-)

"The real prom was held at the Country Club. From this article:

The prom, in other words, was a sham. The rest of the student body was encouraged to attend the real prom at a local country club, with McMillen excluded."

Here's a question for anyone with legal training:

Were any school officials involved in the planning? And if so, would deliberately excluding the disabled kids be a violation of the ADA laws?

Gretchen:
I'm going on a rampage.
- - - - - - - - - -
Indeed - that's what most progressives do when they want to force their opinion on others, without being bothered by facts-n-things.

And the most important first step in a "Righteous Wrath Rampage" is to construct a straw man opponent - since the whole point is to sidestep reasoned discussion with real people.

And it's easy since we Righteous Progressives are also telepathic - Gretchen just KNOWS what those knuckledragging neanderthals are thinking:

You think gay people are immoral, that they are contrarians who are choosing to be gay just to piss you off and disgust you.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Well, no.

We've been this way before on this blog.

1. We think homosexual behavior is dysfunctional. We don't base this on biblical edict, but on what we see going on the gay "community".

We see lives dominated by compulsive, exploitative, promiscuity. We see elevated levels of depression, substance abuse, and suicide - that can no longer be blamed on "homophobia".

We see a lot of misery.

And we don't think compulsive promiscuity is evidence of a healthy, well-adjusted adult life - we think it is negative for the individual and society.

2. We think - having used our brains to check the facts - that there is NO proof that gays are "born that way." And having used our brains to reason, we see that this is a specious argument anyway - "natural" does not equal "normal" or "moral".

(If you have trouble with that, you could suspend your "rampage" and look at the recent NY Times article about "gay" animals - where this same distinction is being hashed out in the comments section...)

3. We've also checked the long-term surveys that show 25-30 percent of teens experience TRANSIENT same-sex crushes as part of growing up.

Which makes us wary of lionizing 14-year-old transvestites or 17-year-old lesbians.

So rather than cheering McMillen and her cross-dressing friend on their way to oblivion to show how "progressive" we are - we appreciate the School Board's attempt to help that boy, and we aren't so quick to play along with McMillen's identity posturing.

(And having eyes in our heads, we see that she was probably a spiteful, nasty handful even before this incident.)

4. None of your ranting and "rampaging" will change our minds - not because we're close-minded or ignorant, but because we've already parsed the facts. And we see how desparate you are not to engage those facts.

So your heavy handed tactics just convince us you haven't anything else to go on but self-righteous puffery.

I keep hearing about how promiscuious those nasty gays are. All I can say is you should have lived in Waltucky, Michigan in the 1970's. Most of my schoolmates were screwing around by their 13th birthdays. They were straight, btw.

"We see elevated levels of depression, substance abuse, and suicide - that can no longer be blamed on "homophobia".

Yeah, right. This story proves that there's no homophobia or mistreatment of gays anymore. How could anyone think that a girl like McMillian could become depressed or suicidal?

Phoebe Prince, a straight girl, hung herself after being mistreated by her peers. Drug use, depression, and suicide are common among straight people too, as is promiscuity (Tiger Woods, Jesse James?). It's just that, for straights, there's far less stigma.

I don't understand how you can read this story - of sick adults conspiring to trick a young girl out of a prom experience just because she's gay and conclude that homophobia isn't a huge contributer to the depression and self-destructive behaviors that some gays exhibit.

You're actually using the outcome of bigotry to condone more bigotry. That's a sweet little argument, but it doesn't fly with fairminded people.

But, Ben David I thought you said the bible was centuires of distilled wisdom, why are you now saying you dont base your treatment of gays as subcitizens on you precious book?

A few questions.

1-How was suspending the transvestite permentely forcing the familly to move to another school district help?

2-Why is it when religious people decry the enjoyment of sex we are supposed to listen?

3-Why do you NEVER link to these articles you mention?

4-If there is no proof that gays are born gays then using logic there is no proof that strait are born strait. So why, when , and how did you CHOOSE to be strait BenDavid?

5-Every one has crushes as a teenager you fucking moron. There is a reason their called crushes and not true love.

6-Heavey handed tactics? Calling the hunndered or so people involved in throwing and attending a party specifically held to exclude one perosn the jackasses they are is heavey handed? Well then what do you call liars? Or the school board members who spent thousands of taxpayer money to force one child out of a party?

7-You say just because homosexuality may be natrual does not make it normal or even moral? First off natural is normal, and morality is a human convection.

After all if the morals in your torah were still valid in todays society I would be permited under the 'moral' law to kill you and your familly and rape you virginal daughters into marriage with me.

8 - This one I'll quote you directly

We see lives dominated by compulsive, exploitative, promiscuity. We see elevated levels of depression, substance abuse, and suicide - that can no longer be blamed on "homophobia".

Really? We just witnessed a case wherein an known homosexual was told she could not attend a school dance with the person she wanted to, and if she did she would be removed. When she asked a higher athourity in the school system they cancelled the entire dance just to tell her no. When she cried foul and fought to have the dance reinstaed her classmates, their parents, and school faculty threw a party and tricked her and the mentally retarded into not attending.

And your going to sit here and say that there is no homophobia? ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE?

I have never seen you advocating people with ADHD, asbergers, bi polor, or scizoid personalitly disorders being barred from taking dates to school dances or having childless marriges.

You are a bigot.

"The real prom was held at the Country Club.

The prom, in other words, was a sham. The rest of the student body was encouraged to attend the real prom at a local country club, with McMillen excluded."

Folks, the officially school-sanctioned and chaperoned prom was at the Fulton Country Club. There was another, unofficial event held elsewhere. It was put on by parents and students. McMillen was not only not invited, she was specifically excluded.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iQRDDMNSipfZL1NVG-gK2OLZHJUwD9ETS0JO0

Excerpts from the article:

But when [McMillen], her date and a friend showed up at Fulton Country Club, only four other people were there. She left after half an hour.

McMillen said she knew there was another event in the works and she has seen several pictures from the party on Facebook.

"When I found out that there was another prom, I called and asked if I was invited and (a student) told me the prom was at the country club so I took that as a 'no,'" McMillen said.

Picking through the detritus of Luj's latest - more for completeness than any hope of real argument:

1-How was suspending the transvestite permentely forcing the familly to move to another school district help?
- - - - - - - - - -
It helped by insisting that the boy present himself as... get this.... a boy.

Since most people's sexual and general identity are fluid at that age.

Instead of applauding him into an identity box he'll have difficulty with later.

And where does it say they left town?

further:
2-Why is it when religious people decry the enjoyment of sex we are supposed to listen?
- - - - - - - - - - -
Straw man.

I'm getting plenty and loving it.

In the context of a loving, trusting, adult relationship - which most gays claim to want, but cannot maintain.

That's dysfunction.

further:
3-Why do you NEVER link to these articles you mention?
- - - - - - - - - -
I did in the past - and the ad-hominem attacks by the "tolerant" just shifted to denigrating the source that published them.

You can Google "aids dutch ministry of health" or "gays suicide" all by your self.

The facts haven't helped in the past - you'll still call me a bigot to get out of real discourse.

Ah, tolerance - and that uffishly self-righteous feeling when you just KNOW you're right.

further:
4-If there is no proof that gays are born gays then using logic there is no proof that strait are born strait. So why, when , and how did you CHOOSE to be strait BenDavid?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Wow - a trifecta of PC avoidance techniques!
Straw Man/deliberate misinterpretation
False Dichotomy
"Pity-me" Emotional Pleading

The gay rights argument uses "born that way" to sidestep the discussion of whether homosexuality is normal, healthy, well-adjusted - or a pathological, maladapted set of behaviors.

There is no need to prove that straights are born straight - most of us have no problem notiticing that it is widespread, healthy, and normal.

You then insert the notion of choice - which I never mentioned. You do this to build a victiology-based emotional argument that gays should be accepted because "they didn't choose to be that way".

Which begs the original question of whether homosexuality is a burdensome dysfunction or not. Otherwise, wise should we pity gays?

The false dichotomy is to say that if homosexuality is not genetic, then gays must have chosen to be that way - as Gretchen so tenderly put it "to piss the rest of us off".

That's not what is being said.

We describe homosexual behaviors as compulsions that spring not from inevitable genetics, but from developmental/psychological roadblocks and misturns.

Compulsive behaviors look inevitable - and even "natural" - to those locked in those patterns. Drunks, druggies, and anorexics all plead their inability to change, and assert the harmlessness of their behavior.

But they're wrong - and The Rest of Us are right.

further:
5-Every one has crushes as a teenager you fucking moron. There is a reason their called crushes and not true love.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
1) Name-calling.
2) Yes, but gays continue this dysfunctional pattern throughout adulthood, unable to maintain stable, committed relationships even though they claim to want them.

3) Yes, but the gay lobby is now inserting itself in this process, extending "support" to school-aged children that amounts to little more than indoctrination (if not pedophilia).

If you agree with me that sexuality is fluid in youth - why is the gay lobby using the "born that way" lie to spin transient crushes into an identity straightjacket?

further:
6-Heavey handed tactics?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I refer you Gretchen the Rampager and Patrick's posts to see what these look like. You aren't doing to bad yourself with the straw men, labeling, and name-calling.

Looping back to:
7-You say just because homosexuality may be natrual does not make it normal or even moral? First off natural is normal, and morality is a human convection.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
"Convection" is a kind of oven, darling.

We've had THIS one out on this blog, as well.

What happens in the natural world does not determine morality. Scientific observation has NOTHING to say about morality.

The "gay penquin" argument is just as stupid as the "born that way" argument.

Penguins also regurtitate their food, and males and females mercilessly destroy eggs that may have come from other birds.

I hope you agree that those behaviors should not influence human morality just because they're "natural".

Homosexual behavior is not normal - the exclusive homosexual and his/her behaviors are statistical outliers.

We look at these behaviors and see that they are destructive and demeaning. We see that they do not match our notions that human sexuality should express love and respect as well as external sexual passion.

Yes, that's a "value judgment" - which I shall now hasten NOT to apologize for.

Yes, it's a "value judgment" - just like all the other laws in every book of law ever written. Get over it.

"Which begs the original question of whether homosexuality is a burdensome dysfunction or not".

Perhaps it wouldn't be if people were more tolerant, Ben-David. That's a thought you don't seem to consider.

Even if your argument is true - that sexuality is not something we're "born with" - there are no successful ways to change it. Programs that have made this claim are either outright frauds or their success is based on those who participate refraining from homosexual behavior, usually for religious reasons, but not changing their true desires.

I don't know if you have children, but, as a parent, we watch our children evolve. Yes, there are many "developmental/psychological roadblocks and misturns" along the way. Most we have little control over, despite all that we teach and model for them. Bullying, media influences, bad and good teachers, and peers also shape our children into who they become.

My son, for instance, is a smoker, which I despise. Neither of his parents smoked. Frankly, I'd much rather he be gay than sucking on those cancer sticks...but that is who he has become, at least for the time-being.

I'm not going to shun him or not love him because he smokes. I may personally believe his behavior is "dysfunctional", but I can't change it now. He is an adult. All I can control is my own behavior towards him, which is to be loving, while telling him I wish he'd stop. Shaming him or shunning him isn't likely to help the situation.

And now that so many of our kids are grown, I see many other parents facing the same sort of acceptance issues, to varying degrees. Religious parents with daughters and sons shacking up outside of marriage, some even having children out of wedlock. Carnivorous parents whose kids have become die-hard vegans, Conservative parents whose kids are liberal. Their kids have not evolved or been shaped by life exactly as their parents might've wanted. Yet, they still love and accept them.

That is the difference here. You believe that shaming gays will change them. That there must be extreme social stigma, and (I assume) that parents of a child who comes out as gay should denounce homosexuality and perhaps even shun their child until they are "cured" of this dysfunction, even though no "cures" have been proven effective, and the stigma theory hasn't worked throughout history, except to push homosexuality underground.

I don't altogether disagree with you about the crossdressing teen, as that may, in fact, be a phase and encouraging it could be the wrong move. Looking back, he may be mortified that he dressed that way in high school.

But if he is gay, whether by nature or nurture, he will be fully aware of this at some point. That is the point the rest of us have a choice about how WE address it, and I believe that acceptance - or, at least, tolerance, even of a concept you don't like - is the better model.

Not only does this improve the chances that gays can have positive life experiences, avoiding the depression and self-loathing that naturally follows being viewed as an outcast, but acceptance paves the way for gay couples to establish better, long lasting, monogamous unions.

Ultimately, beyond who sleeps with who, is the goal that people have rewarding, productive lives.

Is this really what we want to become? How can you read this, Ben-David, and think that this sort of intolerance is in keeping with your religious beliefs?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36376840/ns/world_news-africa//

BenDAvid.

First off, as Radwaste has pointed out human sexuaily is not binary. And at least 3 articles regarding the cross dressing boy mentions they moved to Florida.

Now, you talk of straw men, but you offer no proof that gays are incappable of maintaining relationships - provide proof or shut up

Homosexual behaviors have been noted in many previous civilizatons. It is only in oppressive monotheists societies in which the leaders of faith rise to power is such behavior seen as abnormal or maladaptive.

Again you liiken homosexuality to a sickness, but I notice you went out of your way to avaiod answering why ou arent as eager to deny marriage and party attendence to people who suffer from pyscological and physiological disorders.

As ffor your value judgements you will not appologise for? Religious bigots like you have opposed every step out of the hell hole that your religion helped create.

At one point slavey, torture, rape, murder, every horrible facet of the human psyche was legal, permissable, celebrated even, if done for "god"

The things you write about homosexuals were once written, and in some cases still are, about your people.

Given value judgements like yours at one point in history led to things like the Inquisition and the holocaust I dont think we should "get over it"

50 yrs ago you would have been making the same arguments about mixed race couples.

"At one point slavey, torture, rape, murder, every horrible facet of the human psyche was legal, permissable, celebrated even, if done for "god""

That's the thing about intolerance. No matter what these people (usually "moralists") are offended over, their own behavior to counteract it is usually TEN TIMES WORSE!

To me, if you compare a lesbian relationship to the horrible, mob mentality of organizing a prom behind a young girl's back, AND excluding mentally-challenged students at the same time, it's clear which demonstrates the greater dysfunction of the human psyche.

Pulling people from graves, murder, and all the other atrocious acts committed against gays in the article above also demonstrates a much greater dysfunction of the human spirit than the "gayness" those people are upset about.

Lovely can also read minds:
You believe that shaming gays will change them.
- - - - - - - - -
Well, no.
And we've done THIS part of the argument before, as well.

I think that therapy can help those who are motivated, with a range of results similar to therapy for other compulsive conditions.

I *think* this rather than *believing* it - because I've seen the research. (and luj darling - spare me the straw man of "praying it away" - I am talking about proven psychological approaches. I'm an orthodox Jew, not a fundamentalist Xtian.)

That difference in language - thinking about homosexuality instead of feeeeeling about it - is quite telling. It reveals a difference between rational, moral evaluation and the emotional posing of PC victimhood.

Lonely - your entire post is one big circular argument, based on the codependent victimology manipulation of PC discourse.

I AM a parent - so let's try it this way:

If your child were not just smoking cigarettes, but crack cocaine - would you be preaching "tolerance" or intervention?

If your kid was hooked on drugs or alcohol - or if your daughter were caught up in anorexia or bulimia, both of which have profiles of depression and suicide similar to homosexuality - would you be preaching "acceptance" or intervention?

If there was intervention that would work, as there clearly is with drugs and anorexia, of course, Ben-David, but you have no real proof that sexuality can be "cured" or effectively changed. Link us your proof.

Your whole argument is based on carefully disquising your homophobia as "concern" for the well-being of gays. If it's merely "dysfunction" that can easily be fixed, then you actually seem noble and compassionate. I hand it to you for having an inventive approach.

But let me ask you this: If suicide and depression rates for gays went down to those of straights, and they were allowed to marry, and studies proved that their marriages were just as stable and long-lasting as straight marriages (as if we have a perfect record!), would you then accept gay relationships?

In other words, if there was no "dysfunction", would you be ok with it? That's what you're implying.

I doubt it. This is just a cover for your bigotry against gays, and I find it very disappointing that you don't understand how we would hold you, as a religious man, to an even higher standard of tolerance and compassion, rather than stoking the kind of hatred that results in these parents acting in such a despicable manner. I don't believe Jesus would preach intolerance, as you are doing.

This is a man-made construct, just as all other bigotries - against race, religion, and many others. When people are living in peace and not threatening you, then you have no reason to show them intolerance.

If there was intervention that would work, as there clearly is with drugs and anorexia, of course, Ben-David, but you have no real proof that sexuality can be "cured" or effectively changed. Link us your proof.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I have linked to the proof in the past - retrospective surveys of reparative therapy show the same pattern as therapy for drugs, alcohol, and anorexia: 1/3 drop out, 1/3 are able to abandon the compulsive behavior, 1/3 gain insight and partial control, but are unable to renounce their compulsive behaviors after just 1 round of therapy.

They were denied by ad-hominem attacks - the most ludicrous of which was when Patrick admitted he had little scientific background, but poo-poohed a website by a scientist simply because the man's book was published by a Christian publishing house.

So who's creating a skewed "construct"? And relentless ignoring the nuanced reality of their interlocutors?

Again, we note the omniscient mind-reading of the righteous progressive:
Your whole argument is based on carefully disguising your homophobia as "concern" for the well-being of gays.
- - - - - - - - - - -
... because you just KNOW that all religious people are evil hypocrites. They couldn't possibly really care!

Talk about a self-serving "construct"!

At least you seem to admit the truth in this paragaph:

But let me ask you this: If suicide and depression rates for gays went down to those of straights, and they were allowed to marry, and studies proved that their marriages were just as stable and long-lasting as straight marriages (as if we have a perfect record!), would you then accept gay relationships?

In other words, if there was no "dysfunction", would you be ok with it?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
... so you DO admit that compulsive promiscuity is the norm in the gay community?

You DO admit that the indicators of dysfunction - depression, substance abuse, suicide - have not gone down significantly despite a generation of "tolerance"?

To answer your hypothetical - yes, I would have to re-examine the Torah's prohibition of homosexuality IF there were no evidence of dysfunction.

But that's a *hypothetical* - and laws are passed based on REALITY. And in reality clear, predictable patterns of dysfunctional behavior are evident, and are the norm.

So - going back to the notion of who really has "concern" for gays:

How is the homosexual or the community helped by loosening society's moral code to accommodate dysfunction?

How do the following sentences hold up to reason - or real "concern" for others:

"We realize you have a problem with alcohol, so we're going to change social norms so you can get drunk without feeling so ashamed..."

"We realize you've inherited a genetic tendency for depression - so go ahead! Embrace your TRUE self! We won't INSULT you by trying to lift your spirits, or keep you from killing yourself."

This is what I mean by the codependency that underlies PC victimology: If you've hung around addicts or those locked in compulsive behaviors - and I've participated in a few "interventions" - you will hear the same pleas for "tolerance" and accommodation.

The same invitation to take on the sufferer's distorted worldview.

So you write:
Perhaps it wouldn't be (burdensome) if people were more tolerant, Ben-David.
- - - - - - - - -
Yes - and the wife-beater wouldn't feel so burdened if his wife would apologize for angering him when he hits her.

And the alcoholic wouldn't feel so burdened if those around her made excuses for her behavior.

You talk about a false front of concern?
Here it is.

Most "progressives" support gay rights because of how it makes THEM feel, because of the status it gives THEM.

They applaud the cross-dressing teenager - and later, the grown man gyrating in a gay "pride" parade - and they're filled with smug, self-righteous superiority: look how sophisticated and cosmopolitan I am! Not like those knuckle-dragging rubes back home.

But they never consider what kind of life that guy in the g-string really has, who he is going home to, what would drive someone to act like that in public.

Concern?
Hah!

"... so you DO admit that compulsive promiscuity is the norm in the gay community?"

I'm not familiar with recent studies, but I know that USED to be the case. Certainly in the early 80s, when I was in NYC, gay males frequented Fire Island and bathhouses for casual sex. However, my impression is that this sort of promiscuity has diminished quite a bit since that time.

I also wonder if this legitimately can be called "dysfunction". As Amy often points out, it is biologically normal that men love sex. If you have men attracted to other men who also love sex, there's going to be a lot more sex going on! It's just logical.

You'll note this has never really been the case with lesbians, even though they are also gay, so I would suggest that it's not the "gay" element itself that leads to promiscuity.

I also don't support gay rights because of the way it makes ME feel. I have several gay friends who are happy and in good relationships, and some who, just like my straight friends, are single. I enjoy them as people, and I worry about them as much as I worry about any of my straight friends.

But I live in a tolerant area, so my gay friends do not suffer the same discrimination as is obviously occuring in other parts of the country. I believe that makes a tremendous difference in the quality of their lives, and it naturally keeps them from being as depressed or suicidal than if they lived in, say, Mississippi, for instance.

They still cannot adopt children here. I know a gay couple that has been fighting to adopt the special needs foster children they have lovingly raised for years. So, the system is not fair to them. I don't know how you calculate that we've had a "generation" of tolerance when we are still having incidents of gays being killed and discriminated against purely because of their sexuality.

However, I'm impressed that you acknowledge that if it weren't for these problems you are concerned about, you might become more accepting of gays, so I ask you to consider that the statistics are taken from all over the country, and we clearly do NOT have tolerance in many places.

I also ask you to consider that if there was more tolerance there would be less depression. If gay couples were allowed to live in peace, and their unions respected and their families acknowledged, then this would surely impact their emotional health positively.

The promiscuity, too, I believe would be lessened, as it seems to have been in places like South Beach and Key West. It probably won't go away entirely - especially among gay males because of their naturally higher sex drive - but it doesn't with straight people either. The best thing we can do to ease promiscuity, among gays or heterosexuals, is to support committed relationships.

They were denied by ad-hominem attacks - the most ludicrous of which was when Patrick admitted he had little scientific background, but poo-poohed a website by a scientist simply because the man's book was published by a Christian publishing house.

And what was that scientists feild of study? And training again BenDavid?

You DO admit that the indicators of dysfunction - depression, substance abuse, suicide - have not gone down significantly despite a generation of "tolerance"?

What tolerance? We are having this dicussion because nearly a hunndered people conspired to geher to cancel a school function and subsquently host a party with the sole goal being the exclusion of one teenage girl from a function that lasts less than a LOrd of the Rings movie.

But ofcourse you see the permenant suspention of one cross dressing male as help. Little hint 'Go away and never come back' IS NOT HELP BenDavid

To answer your hypothetical - yes, I would have to re-examine the Torah's prohibition of homosexuality IF there were no evidence of dysfunction.

BenDavd, the Torah commands execution of homosexuals, you obviously feel your god was wrong about that, incedentally wy do yu still refuse to tell us the the secret wisdom of the scapegoating practice?

and laws are passed based on REALITY.

What world do you live in? Explain the dysfuncion that magically cured itself in the last 60 yrs that allows whites people to many members of other races BenDavid. Laws once allowed all sorts of things that are illegal today. In Utah it is illegl to carry a violin case within city limits between 10 and 2.

How is the homosexual or the community helped by loosening society's moral code to accommodate dysfunction?

Probably in the same way the community was helped by loosening the moral code that once allowed puritians to beat quarkers to deah, or burn witches. The moral code of your ancestors called for death of all conquered males and non virginal females, the rape of surviving virgins, and the murder of anyone worshiping the 'wrong' god BenDavid.

Briefly - lovely writes:
my impression is that this sort of promiscuity has diminished quite a bit since that time.
- - - - - - - - -
That is not what statistics say - or what I have observed living in New York and Europe.

And since the statistics are coming out of the Health Ministries of gay-friendly locations like Holland, Scandinavia, New York, and San Francisco, the attempt to pin the continued dysfunction on external prejudice is no longer credible.

If people claim to want committed relationships, but are unable to attain them - that is dysfunction.

Talk about "natural" libido - just another variation of the "born that way" canard - cannot cover this up. Most of the men on this planet value loyalty and manage to build stable, committed relationships.

So when you write:
if there was more tolerance there would be less depression.

and:
The best thing we can do to ease promiscuity, among gays or heterosexuals, is to support committed relationships.
- - - - - - - - -

This is a non-sequitir.
You admit there is dysfunction - yet blindly repeat the PC tropes about tolerance.

If gays want to live in committed relationships, nothing is stopping them from doing so.

For centuries Jewish marriage was not recognized by Church authorities. Jews still lived in committed marriages - because that's what they wanted, and because they were psychologically capable of sustaining those relationships.

An entire body of law has been developed for unmarried heteros that give committed gays 99.99 percent of the privileges of married couples.

The problem in gay relationships is not external tolerance or recognition.

The problem is that normal sex drives have been hijacked by compulsive, addictive psychological needs - which like all such compulsions, is never fulfilled.

The problem is dysfunction.

You ply again the PC call for tolerance - But you still haven't explained how loosening society's expectations for mature relationships will benefit either gays or society.

You just feeeel it to be so, in a hopey-changey way. You want it to be true - but none of the legal experiments in Europe and Canada have made a dent in the behavior of most gays.

The solution is not to give up on standards of mental, sexual, and moral health and normalcy.

... and yes, the critique of narcisstic relationships most definitely applies as well to the hetero culture of hookups and starter marriages.

None of which amounts to an argument in favor of more of the same.

The solution is not to give up on standards of mental, sexual, and moral health and normalcy.

Talk about "natural" libido - just another variation of the "born that way" canard - cannot cover this up. Most of the men on this planet value loyalty and manage to build stable, committed relationships.

Sure BenDavid, that explains why the divorce rate is climbing and the marrige rate is falling, oh wait, it doesnt

Secndly let me say this again
MORALITY IS A HUMAN CONVENTION
at one point in time or another murder, rape, genocide, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, and polygamy were all considered normal and moral.

Interracial and interfaith marriages were at one time considered abnormal and immoral as were eating certain foods, mixing dairy and meat in the same dish and wearing cotton/polyester blends.

Morality is whatever we collectivly choose it to be

"You ply again the PC call for tolerance - But you still haven't explained how loosening society's expectations for mature relationships will benefit either gays or society."

Well, I've seen it, in my own community, where gays have thrived. They've renovated beautiful, neglected architecture, created art studios, gourmet restaurants, and theaters. In my community, gays are accepted and we have benefited enormously from their talents, humor, and intelligence. Gays have been some of the most brilliant writers and artists throughout history. These are a people defined by so much more than who they FUCK, which is all you care about. That says "dysfunction" to me.

Are you so narrowminded that you cannot see these people as anything more than what they do in the bedroom? Can you not see the many ways they have enriched your life?

How are they hurting you? You've talked a lot about how they may be hurting themselves, but how are they hurting YOU?

And, no matter what you think, aren't you hurting yourself more to be so full of intolerance? Like I said before, whatever moralists are upset over, their own behavior to counteract it is usually TEN TIMES WORSE. Aren't you betraying your own values to be so intolerant to people who are not harming you? Aren't you betraying your own values to support the hatefulness and mob mentality of this group of parents? Would Jesus really have condoned what they did to this young girl and the mentally-challenged students who suffered along with her? Are those really the "values" you want to represent?

I think you're better than that, Ben-David. I think you know it too.

Thanks, Amy. It means a lot to know you agree.

Lovely:
How are they hurting you? You've talked a lot about how they may be hurting themselves, but how are they hurting YOU?

And, no matter what you think, aren't you hurting yourself more to be so full of intolerance?
- - - - - - - - - - -
Ahhhh.... so after it all we just loop back to the old labeling and denunciation. Anyone who disagrees with me is intolerant.

Again: How are all those gay gallery owners living in private?

Every "thriving gay community" I've seen has been defined - and undermined - by the drive for promiscuous sex. This seamy infrastructure predates and underlay the galleries and shops.

In that connection, your previous mention of Key West as a center of domestic bliss was just laughable - it's a "community" defined by sex tourism.

The relationships of most of your gay neighbors are driven - and overridden - by the compulsive drives we've discussed.

Here's quote and link that explain the sleight-of-hand that erases gay promiscuity and dysfunction from the equation:

In their book The Male Couple, David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andre M. Mattison, MSW, Ph.D. (1984) write that among male couples, "Sexual exclusivity . . . is infrequent, yet their expectations of fidelity are high. Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other."

Gay couples often report that what works best for them is to engage in sexual encounters based on sexual attraction only and not emotions or affection. It is about sex and nothing more. They avoid getting to know temporary partners at any deep level, to avoid turning the encounter into something emotional that might develop into a full-blown relationship. In other words, any sexual inclusion is simply behavioral in nature, not relational.
- - - - - - - - - -
link:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-monogamous-ever-after

This affects me and the general society because it cheapens intimate relationships and introduces a view of human sexuality that many see as unhealthy and distorted.

The mainstreaming of these behaviors has already had negative impact on relationships in our society (as luj and others point out in their ass-backwards way by pleading for even more laxity).

No, I don't think this is healthy. I think it's dysfunctional.

No, the fact that I enjoy the fruits of these people's labors doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to the troubled lives they're leading - again, what does "concern" really mean?

No, I don't want this stuff to influence social mores - or how marriage is defined in our culture.

And we all know trait people NEVER have one night stands right Ben?

"This affects me and the general society because it cheapens intimate relationships and introduces a view of human sexuality that many see as unhealthy and distorted."

"...the fact that I enjoy the fruits of these people's labors doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to the troubled lives they're leading - again, what does "concern" really mean?"

Concern certainly doesn't mean outright discrimination and hate, as we've seen in this case. It's an odd argument to make that you are showing concern by promoting hate.

I don't see what you are depicting among my coupled gay friends, and it doesn't take much contemplation to realize that the fact they're settled down domestically probably plays a big part. If you're busy raising a family, you don't have much time, energy, or inclination to frequent wild orgies, straight or gay.

The solution is not to ban these individuals from enjoying the kind of relationships we all understand lead to personal fulfillment and stability. What these consenting couples do in their bedroom should be of no more concern to you than the straight couple down the street.

I live in the Keys, and Key West is not a city "defined by sex tourism". Our island chain is a tourist destination for all kinds of people from all over the globe. Whatever sex tourism may exist is only fraction of the tourist dollars Key West receives. So, that is a major distortion, rooted, no doubt, in your repulsion for gay sex, but you're ignoring how many straight people come here to get laid.

I'm in the tourism business and, every year, more straight people come here looking for sex under the sun than gays. Again, if your problem is really promiscuity, then you need to shun and discriminate against everyone engaging in it, not just one group.

But that isn't really your problem, is it? Your problem is about what gays do in the bedroom, even though it doesn't effect you at all.

mpetrie98: "Maybe she kicked all their [NSFW]s when they started in on her. :-)"

If even she's being bullied, I would hope she'd stick up for herself. Alas, she's extremely mild mannered...we've been joking since she was about 8 that if we didn't know any better, we'd think she's a stoner. LOL. That's why I was so worried about her when she came out. I don't think any of her classmates were suprised, though. She's never dated any boys and always dressed like one. I'm just glad she lives in such a tolerant community. She's a kind, considerate and caring person. She watches her little brothers and helps out around the house. She's alwasy there for her friends and family. It would absolutely break my heart to see people judge her based soley on who she chooses to love.

I'm a straight woman, so there are things about being gay and the struggles that come with it that I don't understand. I'm the first person to admit that some images of same sex PDAs make me uncomfortable (so do some opposite sex PDAs, for that matter). But I know that is MY issue, not theirs. I do understand one thing very well...love. If two people can find someone to love, NO ONE has the right to tell them it's wrong...or that they can't marry...or have children. Maybe I'm the narrow mkinded one, but I can't see how anyone can dispute that.
I can't believe anyone would think what that school did to that girl was okay...and I can't believe parents would do their kids such a disservice by letting this go on. I really hope these kids go out into the real world and see how wrong their bigoted parents are, because the last thing we need is another generation of hatred.

As for all this "picking a fight" and "rubbing it in our faces" bullsh**...

Am I rubbing my sexuality in everyone's face because I'm wearing an engagement ring? How about when I gossip with co-workers about which male movie stars I think are cute? This girl was trying to go to her prome with her girlfriend. That's all. The media brought attention to it...and it needed to be done. If there wasn't so much of this closed minded hatred in the world, these stories wouldn't need to be national news. Constance could have declined the interviews, but she stepped up and told her story. In my opinion, she's been nothing but a class act. I'm sure gay kids all over the country drew strength from her. Maybe this even inspired them to take a stand against whatever injustices they may be facing in their own schools. If that's "rubbing your face in it", good. Some people need their faces rubbed in the fact that gay people are here to stay. You are not going to scare them straight or "cure" them. They are not diseased and will not live in hiding. Imagine where we would be today if MLK hadn't rubbed America's faces in his ethnicity. If these people weren't being treated so terribly, they wouldn't need to bring these things too the attention of the media.

lovely:
if your problem is really promiscuity, then you need to shun and discriminate against everyone engaging in it, not just one group.
- - - - - - - - -
And as an orthodox Jew I don't ignore or condone this... but since I'm not a leftie, I don't shun many people outright.

Nor do I consider myself as "promoting hatred".
I agree with you that the prom situation was very... raw. But I sympathize with people who feel themselves under siege by progressives who can be very hateful.

For example: Many pro-gay activists - and some posters on this thread, probably - would consider your sympathy with the school in the case of the transgendered boy as political treason.

And they'd "shun" you for your nuanced view.

I'm pretty consistent: I don't like ANY of the progressive redefinition/loosening of marital and sexual mores. I think sex should not be recreational or casual, but part of a package that includes long-term commitment and the maturity to make that commitment. I don't support no-fault divorce or other innovations that weaken the bond of marriage. I think this sort of "liberation" has great potential to demean and exploit the vulnerable.

Regarding gay couplings - I know what I saw in New York and elsewhere, and the numbers back me up - impartial numbers from the medical and social institutions that see the human fallout of homosexual behavior.

Since we don't know each other, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

But when it comes to public policy - changing the law to accommodate gay unions - I think there is sufficient evidence that much of the gay community is still engaging in compulsive behaviors or open relationships that are not aligned with the traditional definition of marriage that many want to preserve.

I don't think I reach this conclusion from blind bigotry - you yourself seem to admit that there is dysfunctional, promiscuous behavior going on. And the article I quoted indicates that even gay "experts" have documented a preponderance of open relationships that.... *finesse* the notion of fidelity.

So I think it's a retreat from thoughtful discourse to just slap the bigot label on people like me.

We have valid grounds to doubt that most gay relationships can uphold the standard hetero definition of fidelity - or are even interesting in upholding it.

And we're not bigots for admiring fidelity, or for preferring real sexual and emotional fidelity over the compromised, self-serving redefinitions that are found in gay couplings.

Are those self-serving redefinitions found in the general culture as well? Yes - and I am opposed to those developments, too.

I understand where you're coming from, Ben-David, and thank you for the thoughful post.

The disagreement is more about the solution, and also painting all "progressives" with one brush. I don't do that with Jews, even if I encounter some who are "hateful", so you shouldn't judge "progressives" like that either.

Events like this horrible prom, and cruel parental behavior, should be condemned, on the grounds of fairness and compassion, even if that may sometimes put you on the same side as "progressives". This was more than "raw". It was wrong. Past frustrations with "progessives" shouldn't inhibit your denouncement of it.

I do acknowledge that it's more difficult for gay males to be monogamous. This is just logical, since it's more difficult for males, in general, to remain monogamous. I don't view it as a gay thing, but more of a gender thing that gays have addressed in an inappropriate manner.

I don't know the answer to that, but I genuinely don't believe it's to "cure" their gayness because I don't think that's truly possible, and therefore, not a practical solution.

We, and the gay community, should probably address it the same way we do for straight people - through education and greater awareness of the empty life and lower self-worth/depression promiscuity contributes to. Just as with straight people who sleep around, it's not their sexuality that is bad, it's how they're USING it.

I believe that the gay community HAS grown in awareness of this, certainly since the early 80s. Of course, AIDs played a role, but I also believe it's a natural evolution for groups of people to gradually become less promiscuous. Look at the "free love" generation of the 60s...they're practically all republicans now! :)

In fact, not long ago, I was on a cruise and there was a large gay group on board. I thought they'd be so much fun to hang out with, as gays usually are, but, it turned out - I swear - they were all conservative republicans! One male couple even worked for the Bush administration. BORING...old fuddy-duddies...in bed (monogamously) at 9:30.

Things are changing, Ben-David. I know homosexuality affronts your beliefs and sensibilities, but give it some time...and tolerance.

I don't like ANY of the progressive redefinition/loosening of marital and sexual mores. - bENdaVID

By this do you mean things like moving past arranged marriges? Interraicial couples? Interfaith couples? blow jobs? Sex in any postion other then lights of missionary?

But when it comes to public policy - changing the law to accommodate gay unions - I think there is sufficient evidence that much of the gay community is still engaging in compulsive behaviors or open relationships that are not aligned with the traditional definition of marriage that many want to preserve. -BEnDavid

Wouldnt that mean those particular individuals would not get married nd render you argument null and void?

you yourself seem to admit that there is dysfunctional, promiscuous behavior going on. - BenDavis to lovelysoul

she also said that more strait people enge in such behavior at her 'sex tourism' city. Why do you keep ignoring that qualifier?

We have valid grounds to doubt that most gay relationships can uphold the standard hetero definition of fidelity - or are even interesting in upholding it.-BenDavid

Standards like a falling towords a 30% enrollment rate and a failure of over half of all participants Ben?

Again - responding to luj just for completeness, rather than any hope of real engagement. And to dispel some myths about Judaism.

Let's see, we start the slogan-slinging with:

...arranged marriges? Interraicial couples? Interfaith couples? blow jobs? Sex in any postion other then lights of missionary?
- - - - - - - - - - -

Contrary to "Fiddler on the Rood" arranged marriages never involved forcing people to wed.

In the more traditional wing of the Orthodox Jewish community, parents do background checks on potential matches - but the two must meet and hit it off. In more liberal circles, dates are often set up through extended networks - friends of friends, people met at on-campus Shabbat dinners, etc.

Jewish law is quite clear that couples must meet - and be attracted to - each other, before marriage can be considered.

But both of these approaches are more likely to generate truly compatible matches than modern bar-n-hookup culture. And both offer a more balanced approach that emphasize character and life goals, rather than just physical attractiveness.

If your knowledge of Judaism is equal parts Seinfeld and Fiddler on the Roof - there's no end to the mistakes you'll make.

Next:
Interracial couples?
- - - - - - - - - -

Not an issue - Moses married an Egyptian woman. Those who criticized him were stricken with leprosy. Modern Israel has airlifted milions of dark-skinned Jews out of North Africa and Ethiopia. Any questions?

Next:
Interfaith couples?
- - - - - - - - - -

Faith is a valid consideration for building a stable, committed home. It's not prejudice to want to partner with someone who shares my Jewish faith and values, and wants to give that over to our children. It's not prejudice to not want to make babies with someone who will teach them things I strongly disagree with.

Next:
Blow Jobs?
Sex in any postion?
- - - - - - - -

Not a problem. We are Jews, not Catholics.
Here is Maimonides writing in the 12th century, basing himself on the Talmud:

"All that a man wishes to do with his wife, he can do - he can have intercourse in any way *they* wish, and kiss any organ *they* wish."

Note the "they" in there. Women are not chattel.

The rest of luj's post ignores what I have posted previously in my more thoughtful exchange with lovely.

Ben, you assume I base all of my argumnets to you in terms of Jeudism.

You said "I don't like ANY of the progressive redefinition/loosening of marital and sexual mores"

Over the last 50yrs progressive loosening and redefinition of marital and sexual mores has lead to the dicriminalization and destigmatizing of interracial & interfaith marriges and sexual acts between consenting adults.

My question had nothing to do with your religion and everything to do with your poorly worded unspecific statment.

Aside from interfaith/inerrace marriges and the decriminalization of sex acts other than the missionary position what other changes have there been to societies views on sex and marriage
Tell me Ben