# Hot Lesbian Teen Denied Prom in Mississippi...



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2010)

Man, there were no hot lesbians dancing with each other at MY prom.  That would have sizzled.

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



> Miss. prom canceled after lesbian's date request
> 
> By Chris Joyner, USA TODAY
> JACKSON, Miss.  A Mississippi county school board announced Wednesday it would cancel its upcoming prom after a gay student petitioned to bring a same-sex date to the event.
> ...



And by the way, she's 18, so I'm allowed to think she's a hottie.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 11, 2010)

Aye, she's better than average and no mistake.  Shame she bats for the wrong team .  

It must be because of my uptight Englishness that I don't find Lesbians (TM) the near universal 'turn on' that they seem to be .  Less frown inducing than the male version of same-sex intimacy (due to the less unpleasant 'plumbing' interactions) but still a DNA dead-end.

Mind you, there have been studies that suggest that homosexuality *does* have a useful role to play, at the community level, when it comes to the reproductive success of the 'tribe' as a whole.  It centres around the prescence of additional protectors, carers and providers for children that are not that persons own.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 11, 2010)

The school has no balls.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 11, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Mind you, there have been studies that suggest that homosexuality *does* have a useful role to play, at the community level, when it comes to the reproductive success of the 'tribe' as a whole.  It centres around the prescence of additional protectors, carers and providers for children that are not that persons own.



A role formerly occupied by eunuchs.  I agree, much nicer.  And hotter.


----------



## Steve (Mar 11, 2010)

It's a shame that this is an issue at all.  I mean, really.  To cancel prom instead of dealing with this is just ridiculous.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 11, 2010)

One other question...

Would this be an issue is the subject was ugly as sin?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 11, 2010)

Not really, Bob.  

It all seems a little over-hyped to me.  If there were pre-announced plans for what we shall euphemistically call 'inappropriate behaviour' in public then there might be cause for a bit of nay-saying.

As it is, I think the school played the hand they were dealt poorly in terms of the decision they made.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 11, 2010)

> Constance McMillen says she didn't want to go  back, but her father told her she needed to face her classmates and  school officials in Fulton. McMillen says one student told her, "Thanks  for ruining my senior year."


 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,588967,00.html?test=latestnews

And in the end that is how this will play out.  The school won't be the bad guy for discriminating against her. The school won't be seen as the bad guy because rather than let the girl and her date in, they canceled the whole thing.

No.  She's the bad guy.

Want to bet she'll get some serious threats, possibly even be assaulted?

Gee, I wonder how they'll react to that.  "No witnesses" "lack of evidence" "these things happen".

The school should be ashamed of itself. Great roll models there.


----------



## Omar B (Mar 11, 2010)

That's a shame, we had many gay couples at my prom ... but that was NY and not Mississippi.  I hope she moves out of that little burg soon.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 11, 2010)

There is much that I find laughable in this story were it not for the fact that an eighteen year old kid ends up taking the fall for the cancellation of the prom.

School administrators often vet the dresses worn by young ladies to avoid complaints and drama and all the rest. Ms  McMillen would actually be doing them a favour. Notwithstanding that she's a pretty lass, I suspect a heterosexual girl might have gotten a pass on the tux.

Every prom has its rebel. My prom had the guy in top hat and tails with the white sneakers, which, come to think of it, I'm sure every prom has had.

A school, school board, and parents ought first and foremost to concern themselves with the safety of youngsters on the big night out. Drinking and premarital sex of the time honoured constants of prom night -- and I would be far more concerned that no one is driving and that proper precautions are being taken.

Although I disagree vociferously with the position of the school board, I reluctantly accept that they see themselves in this moral gate-keeping role. Religious or secular, schools do make decisions based on their understanding of a moral code and do indeed impose that code upon their charges.

HOWEVER, when they state...



> Due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events, the Itawamba County School District has decided to not host a prom at Itawamba Agricultural High School this year.



...they have declared themselves unfit to lead or educate. 

Since when is a serious discussion of individual rights a distraction to learning? This is learning. For that girl to stand up and ask the question, 'Why can't I bring my girlfriend to the prom?' is a wonderful learning opportunity. If the board feels that strongly about their position, here's their chance to explain it. Here's a chance for a young person to get up and speak her mind. Here's a chance for a community of learners to actually learn something. And that doesn't mean they all have to agree.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 11, 2010)

The land of the free.


----------



## MJS (Mar 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Man, there were no hot lesbians dancing with each other at MY prom. That would have sizzled.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-10-noprom_N.htm
> 
> ...


 
Well that makes 2 of us because there were none at my prom either. LOL.  Seriously though....it sounds to me, like this is some serious discrimination.   I'd like to see the policy that they have.  And the idea of having a seperate prom??  Sounds like more discrimination.  The school may as well have seperate drinking fountains, lunch rooms, class rooms, etc.  How crazy can they be?

2 words come to mind...law suit.


----------



## David43515 (Mar 11, 2010)

We had a couple girls in Tuxes at my prom and the only problem was that the other girls got jealous of how easily they could dance in them.

I know some schools say that since the prom is a formal affair only couples can attend, no one is allowed to go stag. Mine wasn`t that way and the article doesn`t say if that`s the case with the school in Mississippi. But I wonder how many girls in the past went with a same sex friend? Did the world end and I missed it? According to the article the girls date would be another student from the same school, so it`s not as if this is something that the other students haven`t been around every day.

I thought the schools claimed that part of their goal is to prepare kids to interact in society like adults. This just seems childish and hateful to me.


----------



## grydth (Mar 11, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> It's a shame that this is an issue at all.  I mean, really.  To cancel prom instead of dealing with this is just ridiculous.



It is the reactionary way of making sure that no lesbians can come to the prom.... an' no commie ACLU can sue us, neither, cuz we cancelled the hole thang, so there!

This is a school 'reasoning' this way.... imagine what goes on in the heads of the local uneducateds....


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 11, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> The land of the free.



and the home of the -

Oh wait. She was brave. to stand up for her rights within a bible belt and say she has a right to bring her loved one to her prom.

Home of the brave, for sure.


----------



## JDenver (Mar 11, 2010)

'..hot lesbian teen..'

This thread gives me the willies.


----------



## MJS (Mar 11, 2010)

http://www.itawambacountyschools.com/non-discrimination.htm

HA!!  I had to laugh when I saw this.  Umm...sounds a bit contradictory IMO.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Mar 11, 2010)

MJS said:


> http://www.itawambacountyschools.com/non-discrimination.htm
> 
> HA!! I had to laugh when I saw this. Umm...sounds a bit contradictory IMO.


 
Well it doesnt mention anything about sexual orientation, so they are not going against their own policy.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 11, 2010)

Omar B said:


> That's a shame, we had many gay couples at my prom ... but that was NY and not Mississippi.


 And that is the whole crux of the situation. Folks down dere jes t'ain't at all outta the "do everythin' th' bible tells ya to do (or not do)" and into the 21st century way of modernized thinking. 
Basically majority still rules doesn't it? At least we're still a democracy? If most of the folks down there don't want it do they still need to cowtow to the wants and desires of one or two of the minority? 
It does suck to be out-numbered but it IS what our society is based on ... isn't it? Or did we turn totalitarian (or is it socialist?) overnight when I wasn't looking? 
Laws can be changed anywhere... provided enough people vote for the change. Look at New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The school board makes the final decision and since she is STILL a student there at the school she must adhere to the rules and accept the decision of the present governing body. 
Don't like it... move. 
On other threads I've mentioned that I'm irked to no end by folks whining that they aren't getting what they want. I think the terminology I used was... Spoiled Brats! (and it's not just gays/lesbians). This is just another case of it. She (and her GF) have lived there long enough to KNOW that they wouldn't be accepted as a couple at the prom. But she went ahead and asked anyway... kudos to her for at least trying... but dollars to doughnuts says she already knew the answer ahead of time. 
Again, I've nothing against gays/lesbians ... if it's the lifestyle they choose to live then okay... but until all the laws have been changed everywhere, accept the fact that you're going to have to either move to where it IS accepted (and now-a-days it's a LOT of places to choose from) or accept that you won't be accepted. If you love living in a particular area or have to for some reason or another then deal with how the society you live in is.


----------



## Omar B (Mar 11, 2010)

But cancel the prom for everyone because they don't like what 2 people are up to?  Why not burn down the school too, just to make sure no gays ever go there?

This amounts to punishing all the kids because they don't like the lifestyle of two of the kids.  Sounds a bit drastic to me.


----------



## David43515 (Mar 11, 2010)

I don`t think the school is even against it because they`re encouraging a private group to hold a prom for the kids. The school just doesn`t want to take responsability for saying it`s okay.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> It must be because of my uptight Englishness that I don't find Lesbians (TM) the near universal 'turn on' that they seem to be .  Less frown inducing than the male version of same-sex intimacy (due to the less unpleasant 'plumbing' interactions) but* still a DNA dead-end*.



I have all the kids I will ever have so I don't mind the DNA dead end.
Bring it on I say 



Sukerkin said:


> Mind you, there have been studies that suggest that homosexuality *does* have a useful role to play, at the community level, when it comes to the reproductive success of the 'tribe' as a whole.  It centres around the prescence of additional protectors, carers and providers for children that are not that persons own.



Given that there are hundreds of species that engage in homosexual activities, I'd say nature knows what it is doing. So it is quite ironic that several US states still have laws against same-sex sex and even oral sex for being a crime 'against' nature. If anything, not having oral sex should be a crime against nature... (hm... maybe I should write this down )


----------



## Bruno@MT (Mar 12, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> and the home of the -
> 
> Oh wait. She was brave. to stand up for her rights within a bible belt and say she has a right to bring her loved one to her prom.
> 
> Home of the brave, for sure.



Well... yes.

But otoh there is also an entire school board consisting of cowards who are so afraid of public opinion that they cancel the entire thing instead of making a decision.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 12, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Well... yes.
> 
> But otoh there is also an entire school board consisting of cowards who are so afraid of public opinion that they cancel the entire thing instead of making a decision.



Or.....

it could also be the home of the wusses, too.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, she's better than average and no mistake. Shame she bats for the wrong team .
> 
> It must be because of my uptight Englishness that I don't find Lesbians (TM) the near universal 'turn on' that they seem to be . Less frown inducing than the male version of same-sex intimacy (due to the less unpleasant 'plumbing' interactions) but still a DNA dead-end.
> 
> Mind you, there have been studies that suggest that homosexuality *does* have a useful role to play, at the community level, when it comes to the reproductive success of the 'tribe' as a whole. It centres around the prescence of additional protectors, carers and providers for children that are not that persons own.


Its not as if Americans all want to befriend a lesbian. I assure you, none of the lesbians I work with at the factory have to deal with a big fan club. Its just kinda hot on the surface.
Sean


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> Its not as if Americans all want to befriend a lesbian. I assure you, none of the lesbians I work with at the factory have to deal with a big fan club. Its just kinda hot on the surface.
> Sean



Depends on what kind of lesbians they are.  If they're just the sort who share a preference that straight dudes have also, then cool.  If they're the sort who hate dudes because they feel that they themselves were cruelly snubbed by God, then they're not much fun to be around.  I've met both types, have been friends with the former.  The latter scare me.  It's like, woah, excuse me, I'm sorry I was born with junk, but that's no reason to hate me, I didn't ask for it any more than you asked not to have any.  And some of them could no doubt pound me into the ground like a tent stake; frightening.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Depends on what kind of lesbians they are. If they're just the sort who share a preference that straight dudes have also, then cool. If they're the sort who hate dudes because they feel that they themselves were cruelly snubbed by God, then they're not much fun to be around. I've met both types, have been friends with the former. The latter scare me. It's like, woah, excuse me, I'm sorry I was born with junk, but that's no reason to hate me, I didn't ask for it any more than you asked not to have any. And some of them could no doubt pound me into the ground like a tent stake; frightening.


 I_ have a friend whom worked security for a Lilithe Fair show. She said this one guy would not leave this one Gal's girlfriend alone. She kept warning him to stop but he wouldn't. My friend said she proceeded to beat that guy down. They had to cart him off in an ambulance._
_Sean_


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Touch Of Death said:


> I_ have a friend whom worked security for a Lilithe Fair show. She said this one guy would not leave this one Gal's girlfriend alone. She kept warning him to stop but he wouldn't. My friend said she proceeded to beat that guy down. They had to cart him off in an ambulance._
> _Sean_



Well, I would not say that being a lesbian and being able to defend oneself necessarily makes one the sort I was referring to, but let's just say I've met a few women who had bigger biceps than mine, a better bench press, more impressive tattoos, could probably kick my butt all day long, AND who seemed very much to dislike me for the sin of having been born with wedding tackle.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, I would not say that being a lesbian and being able to defend oneself necessarily makes one the sort I was referring to, but let's just say I've met a few women who had bigger biceps than mine, a better bench press, more impressive tattoos, could probably kick my butt all day long, AND who seemed very much to dislike me for the sin of having been born with wedding tackle.


Pssst. They are just playing hard to get. Be persistant LOL
Sean


----------



## cdunn (Mar 12, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> And that is the whole crux of the situation. Folks down dere jes t'ain't at all outta the "do everythin' th' bible tells ya to do (or not do)" and into the 21st century way of modernized thinking.
> Basically majority still rules doesn't it? At least we're still a democracy? If most of the folks down there don't want it do they still need to cowtow to the wants and desires of one or two of the minority?
> It does suck to be out-numbered but it IS what our society is based on ... isn't it? Or did we turn totalitarian (or is it socialist?) overnight when I wasn't looking?
> Laws can be changed anywhere... provided enough people vote for the change. Look at New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The school board makes the final decision and since she is STILL a student there at the school she must adhere to the rules and accept the decision of the present governing body.
> ...


 
Frankly, the rule of the pure majority is naught but anarchy. Unless the rule of the majority is tempered by a rule of law which recognizes the humanity of the minority, then it deserves to be challenged and overthrown. 

Oh, and the lesbian couple at my senior prom both wore dresses. It was a lot cuter than one in a tux.


----------



## Omar B (Mar 12, 2010)

Wow, the two girls you know are not gonna get knocked up on Prom Night can't go, hilarious.  I hope they have their own party because the gays really know how to throw a shindig.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 12, 2010)

Just to illustrate how the news media is really an arm of the bread-and-circuses light show, this story is even on the BBC now .

I feel sorry for all wrapped up in this farrago but it's not international news for crying out loud!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 12, 2010)

Yes it is. It's news that as the enlightened nations continue to expand recognized rights and differences, the US continues to hold to ignorance and bigotry while falsely claiming to be a "land of the free", etc etc etc.. Some will latch onto tht, run with it, expand it, embellish it, and so on.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

cdunn said:


> Frankly, the rule of the pure majority is naught but anarchy.



Actually the rule of pure majority is the opposite of anarchy.  Just sayin'.



> Unless the rule of the majority is tempered by a rule of law which recognizes the humanity of the minority, then it deserves to be challenged and overthrown.



I think challenging it is fine, but laws are not wrong just because they are the rule of the majority.  Sometimes the 'humanity' of the minority is icky.  I'm not interested in supporting the 'rights' of people who think female circumcision is OK, for example.  I don't care if their rights are being trampled or not.

What people generally mean when they defend the rights of the minority is that they want the rights THEY are in the minority about to be respected.



> Oh, and the lesbian couple at my senior prom both wore dresses. It was a lot cuter than one in a tux.



Man, I missed out on all the good times.


----------



## cdunn (Mar 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually the rule of pure majority is the opposite of anarchy. Just sayin'.


 
Not really. It is the rule of the strong over the weak, making things however they want, because the weak have no say in things. The only difference is the definition of strength. The most fundamental law in the US is packed with the recognition of the ability of the majority to wreak wrongs, and it is a primary reason that so much of the highest levels of Government are not directly elected. It is the reason that our most fundamental rights are explicitly named, and ensured. 



> I think challenging it is fine, but laws are not wrong just because they are the rule of the majority. Sometimes the 'humanity' of the minority is icky. I'm not interested in supporting the 'rights' of people who think female circumcision is OK, for example. I don't care if their rights are being trampled or not.
> 
> What people generally mean when they defend the rights of the minority is that they want the rights THEY are in the minority about to be respected.


 
This is deeply related to my point. The morality of a law, its inherent usefulness in maintaining society, and direction the whims of the majority have involving it are entirely seperate things. All of them have to be considered, and when the other two outweigh the whims of the majority, then, the whims of the majority must be set aside.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

cdunn said:


> Not really. It is the rule of the strong over the weak, making things however they want, because the weak have no say in things. The only difference is the definition of strength. The most fundamental law in the US is packed with the recognition of the ability of the majority to wreak wrongs, and it is a primary reason that so much of the highest levels of Government are not directly elected. It is the reason that our most fundamental rights are explicitly named, and ensured.



I think you may have a different understanding of the word _'anarchy'_  than I do.  It literally means 'no rule'.  It's not rule by the strong, it's no rule at all.  In a theoretical anarchic state, the moment one group imposes their authority on another group (think warlords in Somalia), then it is not anarchy any longer.  Warlordism is chaotic, but not anarchic.

And as I've said before, our fundamental rights are NOT explicitly named and ensured.  Our fundamental rights are ALL rights, named and un-named.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights contains a list of prohibitions; rights which the federal government is explicitly forbidden to infringe.



> This is deeply related to my point. The morality of a law, its inherent usefulness in maintaining society, and direction the whims of the majority have involving it are entirely seperate things. All of them have to be considered, and when the other two outweigh the whims of the majority, then, the whims of the majority must be set aside.



No.  The Constitution is the final arbiter.  All power flows from the people, and majority absolutely rules EXCEPT where it is a) specifically given to elected representatives to act on our behalf (not by proxy), or b) when such majority rule violates the prohibitions set forth by either the US or respective state constitutions.  The law knows nothing of morality, nor should it.

If the majority wishes to do something which is immoral (in your eyes, in my eyes, in anybody's eyes) AND it does so by plebiscite, referendum, or national convention (commonly used by states in the USA), AND it does not violate existing prohibitions in the federal or state constitutions, then it is absolutely legal, and too bad for the minority being whacked with that 'tyranny of the majority'  stick.

Your argument would require people to agree on a common moral standard, which we do not, and to set aside the Constitution in favor of what that moral standard sees as 'fair'.  This leads us to two problems.  First, as mentioned, no one agrees on what moral is and isn't; and second, as morals change over time, our basis of government would change, subject to the ebb and flow of public opinion and popular memes.  What seems very cool today might be anathema tomorrow and vice-versa.  What happens when some future generation decides that it's perfectly moral to enslave people again?

The Constitution is the bedrock defining basis of our laws.  It is not subject to change based on whim or fancy or even 'just' or 'moral' behavior.  That means it is sometimes unjust, unfair, even immoral.  If the problem is severe, it can be corrected - via amendment.  If the people cannot gather together in sufficient numbers to amend the Consitution, then too bad, so sad.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 12, 2010)

Majority Rule is Mob Rule. The Founders knew that, which is why they designed things the way they did.  Damn shame we haven't kept to those ways.  Also a damn shame our so called lawmakers worry more about their own asses than doing what is right. 

Right now, there is little legally one can do to prevent situations like the OP from happening. Until Gays are universally granted recognition and their rights protected, they, like any other unprotected minority group will have problems.


----------



## grydth (Mar 12, 2010)

Update: The Associated Press is reporting that the ACLU has now sued in Federal Court to force the school district to hold the prom.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Majority Rule is Mob Rule. The Founders knew that, which is why they designed things the way they did.  Damn shame we haven't kept to those ways.  Also a damn shame our so called lawmakers worry more about their own asses than doing what is right.



Nevertheless, the plebiscite exists.  It has in no way been declared unconstitutional.



> Right now, there is little legally one can do to prevent situations like the OP from happening. Until Gays are universally granted recognition and their rights protected, they, like any other unprotected minority group will have problems.



What is the difference between the 'unprotected minority group' of homosexuals and the unprotected minority group of stamp-collectors of pedophiles?

As I mentioned, people tend to want protection of the groups they think are deserving of protection.  What is the difference between the groups you want protected and the group I want protected and the group down the street wants protected?


----------



## Flea (Mar 12, 2010)

grydth said:


> Update: The Associated Press is reporting that the ACLU has now sued in Federal Court to force the school district to hold the prom.



Wow.  You really DO gotta fight for your right to party!

In my neck o' the woods several years ago some teens had the kryptonite cojones to establish a GLBT student club in their little high school in Appalachia.  Naturally the school went through all the same gyrations.  The only way they could get out of the discrimination charge was to shut down all student clubs, so they did.  Which naturally pissed everyone off, and with good reason - how could these kids get into quality colleges without extracurriculars?  So the parents countersued, and the sodomite teens carried the day.

Fred Phelps sealed the deal with a celebratory picket.  Perhaps this prom will be so lucky.  Or better yet, maybe they'll get Pansy Division to play.


----------



## geezer (Mar 12, 2010)

I think cancelling prom was a _great idea_. I wish my school would do that. I'm a high school teacher and got assigned "Prom 
Duty" this Spring. I usually get assigned "Game Duty". Now I can handle that. But Prom Duty! I gotta dig up a tie somewhere and spend endless hours standing around some noisy rented resort/ball room pestering kids not to dance "dirty" Aaaaghhh! Hell, come to think of it, I skipped my own prom in high school... 'course I was at an all-boys school my senior year, so it _was_ hard to find a date... 

Anyway, I say let the kids get together and set up their _own damn party!_ That's what we did in the old days, and it was way better than prom. As for the two girls that started this whole thing, Good show. At my age I'm too old to challenge authority like that. If I get fired, my family will be in a bad way. Revolution is for the young. Shake things up while you can, girls.


----------



## searcher (Mar 12, 2010)

Just a few things:

I feel super bad for the girl havign to go back to school and face her classmates. I have a feeling she may receive some beatings for this whole fiasco. A shame.

We had no "alternative" lifestyle peopel when I went to school. Where I am from, they would have disappeared and nobody would have asked questions. Yes, it is that bad there. 

Bill-you need an eye exam. She may be 18, but she is NOT hott.verkill:


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 12, 2010)

grydth said:


> Update: The Associated Press is reporting that the ACLU has now sued in Federal Court to force the school district to hold the prom.



I listened to the girl being interviewed on CBC radio this evening. She was quite delightful, well-spoken, bubbly. Displayed a sense of equanimity about the whole affair -- she talked about supportive friends at school and offered only that she is sometimes the subject of "smart" comments when she's with her girlfriend in the hall.

She expressed sadness that the prom was canceled for all but was adamant that it was a choice the board made and not her fault. She was all in favour of a private prom being held but suspected in her community that "private" would mean she and her girlfriend would not be included.

She also defended the State of Mississippi as good place with much to recommend it, though not quick to pick up on progressive ideas.

I'm rooting for this girl -- seems like a good kid.


----------



## MJS (Mar 12, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> And that is the whole crux of the situation. Folks down dere jes t'ain't at all outta the "do everythin' th' bible tells ya to do (or not do)" and into the 21st century way of modernized thinking.
> Basically majority still rules doesn't it? At least we're still a democracy? If most of the folks down there don't want it do they still need to cowtow to the wants and desires of one or two of the minority?
> It does suck to be out-numbered but it IS what our society is based on ... isn't it? Or did we turn totalitarian (or is it socialist?) overnight when I wasn't looking?
> Laws can be changed anywhere... provided enough people vote for the change. Look at New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The school board makes the final decision and since she is STILL a student there at the school she must adhere to the rules and accept the decision of the present governing body.
> ...


 
Kinda just like we see in the martial arts, with some people living in the past, fearing to adapt things, training to present day, there are people in real life, that still live like they were living 50yrs ago.  Why?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 12, 2010)

MJS said:


> Kinda just like we see in the martial arts, with some people living in the past, fearing to adapt things, training to present day, there are people in real life, that still live like they were living 50yrs ago.  Why?



Someday your cherished notions will seem quaint and old-fashioned, and some young person will claim you're 'living the past' and 'afraid to change'.  They'll be right, just as you are now.  Your reply will be the same as mine - why should I live the way YOU want me to live?  How about I choose how I want to live and you choose how you want to live?

But you don't see that now.  You imagine you will change with the times, you'll never grow old, you'll stay modern and hip and with it.  You won't.  Neither will I.  And so it goes.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Mar 12, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Man, there were no hot lesbians dancing with each other at MY prom. That would have sizzled.


 
Bill,

Let me confess something. I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

Sad, isn't it.

Deaf


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 12, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Yes it is. It's news that as the enlightened nations continue to expand recognized rights and differences, the US continues to hold to ignorance and bigotry while falsely claiming to be a "land of the free", etc etc etc.. Some will latch onto tht, run with it, expand it, embellish it, and so on.



Bill, you seem such a lefty when it comes to social issues, but when it comes to economics.....  =]

I'm glad we agree on the social issues though.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 12, 2010)

Nani?


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 13, 2010)

I ain't gonna lie - I stopped reading at "hot lesbian teen".  We had some fugly straight couples at our prom though.  Shoulda cancelled on aesthetic grounds.

Just wanted to throw that out there.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 13, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Bill, you seem such a lefty when it comes to social issues, but when it comes to economics..... =]


 
Welcome to the wonderful world of libertarianism.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 13, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Bill,
> 
> Let me confess something. I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
> 
> ...



I just threw up in my mouth a little.


----------



## David43515 (Mar 13, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I just threw up in my mouth a little.


 
:lfao:


----------



## Stac3y (Mar 15, 2010)

I went to a academic and performing arts magnet school in South Louisiana. Surprisingly, though we had girls in tuxes, there were no cute boys in prom gowns.


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 15, 2010)

Stac3y said:


> I went to a academic and performing arts magnet school in South Louisiana. Surprisingly, though we had girls in tuxes, there were no cute boys in prom gowns.



thats because of the double standard, we can do things that would get boys criticized to death if they did stuff Like if we wore men's clothes, who cares? But let a man try to wear a dress.......


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 15, 2010)

Hey, it worked for J. Edger Hoover......


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 15, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Hey, it worked for J. Edger Hoover......



lol


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 15, 2010)

Update:



> New Orleans Businessman Steps Into 'Same Sex Prom' Controversy*Itawamba Students Have Second Option For Prom*
> 
> 
> *NEW ORLEANS, La. -- *A New Orleans businessman said he's waiting to hear from the students of Itawamba Agricultural High School. Sean Cummings has offered to host their prom at his hotel. The Itawamba County School District cancelled the event after 18-year-old Constance McMillen wanted to wear a tux and bring her girlfriend.The story gained national attention and McMillen spoke out, saying it wasn't fair. Cummings said the prom must go on, despite the controversy. He's even offered transportation to the International House Hotel in New Orleans.
> ...


----------



## blindsage (Mar 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Someday your cherished notions will seem quaint and old-fashioned, and some young person will claim you're 'living the past' and 'afraid to change'. They'll be right, just as you are now. Your reply will be the same as mine - why should I live the way YOU want me to live? How about I choose how I want to live and you choose how you want to live?
> 
> But you don't see that now. You imagine you will change with the times, you'll never grow old, you'll stay modern and hip and with it. You won't. Neither will I. And so it goes.


NO, Bill.   You will always be modern, hip and with it.  Forever, dammit!


----------



## Gordon Nore (Mar 16, 2010)

The school board hearing is this Monday...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iQRDDMNSipfZL1NVG-gK2OLZHJUwD9EG1BHG4



> JACKSON, Miss.  School officials in a rural Mississippi county told a lesbian student to get "guys" to take her and her girlfriend to a high school prom and warned the girls against slow dancing with each other because that could "push people's buttons," according to documents filed Tuesday in federal court.
> The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Itawamba County School District and some officials at Itawamba Agricultural High School on behalf of Constance McMillen, 18, who wanted to escort her girlfriend to the prom and wear a tuxedo. A hearing is scheduled for Monday to hear an ACLU motion that seeks to force the district to hold the April 2 prom it canceled after McMillen made her requests.


----------



## Carol (Mar 16, 2010)

That part of the country has banned a lot of things because they "pushed people's buttons".


----------



## grydth (Mar 16, 2010)

Maybe this episode will lead to "Footloose" being remade, with a slightly modified theme.......


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 19, 2010)

searcher said:


> Bill-you need an eye exam. She may be 18, but she is NOT hott.


 
My, you have high standards. If I were still high-school age, I'd have gladly worn a dress if it meant a date with her.  

*glances around at all the stares*  

What?  :rofl:


----------



## Carol (Mar 19, 2010)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> My, you have high standards. If I were still high-school age, I'd have gladly worn a dress if it meant a date with her.
> 
> *glances around at all the stares*
> 
> What? :rofl:


 
:roflmao:

As long as you have the legs for it. :lol2:


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Mar 25, 2010)

I joined her facebook group


----------



## Blade96 (Mar 26, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Bill, you seem such a lefty when it comes to social issues, but when it comes to economics.....  =]
> 
> I'm glad we agree on the social issues though.



I just realized in my post here I called Bob Bill. Wtf....

Durrrrr.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 26, 2010)

Heh.   Look in Random Acts of Sanity, series of posts "What I Believe".  Puts much of my views out in the open.


----------

