"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


So, you're the one who gets to define normal? I don't think so.



As an attorney, I would think you would agree that the appropriate way to
have dealt with this situation would have been to petition the district
school committee to revise their policy *before* the prom was scheduled.

The policy in force requires dates to be of the opposite sex. Instead of
creating a public media circus, the girl and her herd of ACLU lawyers should
have sought to have the opposite sex policy changed or dropped.
If they had, the school sponsored prom would have gone on with probably only
a few raised eyebrows.

I think the committee acted appropriately. They sought to avoid any
demonstrations or problems at a school sponsored event. They suggested
that perhaps a private organization sponsor the prom instead.

In a culture based on the rule of laws, it seems that now-a-days adherence
to existing laws or rules is
optional.

Eisboch

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:57:08 -0500, lil abner wrote:



You'll find you are still in the very very small minority.
Society has defined it for thousands of years as well as the Bible.

slavery was normal in society for a thousand years. is that normal
too?

and the bible? that piece of delusional ****? the one that says in
ephesians, 6:5 that slaves should obey their masters?

that the bible you talking about?

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:58:24 -0500, lil abner wrote:



Enlightened? Does that mean tolerance or endorsement??
I will treat everyone the same but I will not endorse deviant behavior
any more than I would devil worship.

fine then commit suicide. homosexuality is normal. hatred of people
who have a private life is not

They want normal treatment behave as normal. Keep their bedroom etc
behavior private and out of our presence.

you do the same, m'kay?

Where and when I was raised big city perversions and vices were not only
frowned on but not tolerated any more than they would wife beating, or
murder.

no one gives a **** about the incestuous pig farm you were raised on

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:26:51 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


So, you're the one who gets to define normal? I don't think so.



As an attorney, I would think you would agree that the appropriate way to
have dealt with this situation would have been to petition the district
school committee to revise their policy *before* the prom was scheduled.

so if they'd said only white couples could attend, the way to change
this is 'through channels'?

i dont THINK so...

In a culture based on the rule of laws, it seems that now-a-days adherence
to existing laws or rules is
optional.


how about jim crow laws? should we have obeyed them or protested them
and disobeyed them?

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:14:36 -0800, "mgg" wrote:





Ever seen pics of the gay pride parade in San Francisco? It doesn't matter
what their sexual preference is, they are just plain weird. If they claim to
represent the gay community, it's no wonder they're "bashed."

blame the victim, eh?


I'm with you. Just keep it private.

how do you keep bigotry and hatred 'private'? they cant get spousal
health insurance. they can't adopt. they can't inherit property...

how is that 'private'?

My wife works with a guy that feels the
need to mention his "husband" (using that word), every chance he can. He'll
go out of his way to mention his "husband," and I don't even know his (the
husband's) name. That's the sad part. He's more intent in letting us know
that he's "married" to a man, then telling us about the man himself (like
his name). In other words he's flaunting his gay lifestyle to everyone he
meets. What's the point? We know he's gay, so why can't he say "Gary" (or
whatever his name is), instead of "husband?"

It's annoying.

that's what they used to say about integration

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:26:51 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


So, you're the one who gets to define normal? I don't think so.



As an attorney, I would think you would agree that the appropriate way to
have dealt with this situation would have been to petition the district
school committee to revise their policy *before* the prom was scheduled.

so if they'd said only white couples could attend, the way to change
this is 'through channels'?

i dont THINK so...

In a culture based on the rule of laws, it seems that now-a-days adherence
to existing laws or rules is
optional.


how about jim crow laws? should we have obeyed them or protested them
and disobeyed them?


Laws and the social acceptance of them are two different things.
If the laws are outdated, unenforceable or just plain wrong, there is a
legal process
available to change them. Inviting or risking conflict and violence is not
the means.

Eisboch

On 3/12/10 3:26 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


So, you're the one who gets to define normal? I don't think so.



As an attorney, I would think you would agree that the appropriate way to
have dealt with this situation would have been to petition the district
school committee to revise their policy *before* the prom was scheduled.

The policy in force requires dates to be of the opposite sex. Instead of
creating a public media circus, the girl and her herd of ACLU lawyers should
have sought to have the opposite sex policy changed or dropped.
If they had, the school sponsored prom would have gone on with probably only
a few raised eyebrows.

I think the committee acted appropriately. They sought to avoid any
demonstrations or problems at a school sponsored event. They suggested
that perhaps a private organization sponsor the prom instead.

In a culture based on the rule of laws, it seems that now-a-days adherence
to existing laws or rules is
optional.

Eisboch





In *most* cases, laws that are in existence only to discriminate based
upon race, gender, whatever, should be considered unConstitutional and
just plain ignored. It is not the state's business to determine who a
teen can or cannot take to a celebratory event like a prom. In Virginia
not so long ago, it was "illegal" for blacks and whites to marry each
other. That law was unConstitutional and mostly ignored up until the day
it was tossed in the trash.

Sometimes, when trying to get unjust, unConstitutional laws dumped, it
is necessary to create "a public media circus." There's nothing wrong
with demonstrations, especially if the demonstators are polite.

Of course, Mississippi has an colorful history in how it treats
demonstrators. It used to shoot them.



--


If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.

On 3/12/10 6:33 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:26:51 -0500, wrote:


wrote in message
...


So, you're the one who gets to define normal? I don't think so.



As an attorney, I would think you would agree that the appropriate way to
have dealt with this situation would have been to petition the district
school committee to revise their policy *before* the prom was scheduled.

so if they'd said only white couples could attend, the way to change
this is 'through channels'?

i dont THINK so...

In a culture based on the rule of laws, it seems that now-a-days adherence
to existing laws or rules is
optional.


how about jim crow laws? should we have obeyed them or protested them
and disobeyed them?


Laws and the social acceptance of them are two different things.
If the laws are outdated, unenforceable or just plain wrong, there is a
legal process
available to change them. Inviting or risking conflict and violence is not
the means.

Eisboch





That's just plain silly, richard. I can think of a number of instances
in which demonstrations, peaceful and otherwise, got unjust laws or
policies changed. I'm aure you can, too. Conflict can speed along the
process.



--


If the X-MimeOLE "header" doesn't say:

Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3

then it isn't me, it's an ID spoofer.

"HK" wrote in message
m...

That's just plain silly, richard. I can think of a number of instances in
which demonstrations, peaceful and otherwise, got unjust laws or policies
changed. I'm aure you can, too. Conflict can speed along the process.



Not silly at all. I can think of demonstrations, peaceful and otherwise
that have resulted
in people killed or in the hospital. A high school prom isn't worth the
risk.

Eisboch

"HK" wrote in message
m...
On 3/12/10 3:26 AM, Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...


So, you're the one who gets to define normal? I don't think so.



As an attorney, I would think you would agree that the appropriate way to
have dealt with this situation would have been to petition the district
school committee to revise their policy *before* the prom was scheduled.

The policy in force requires dates to be of the opposite sex. Instead
of
creating a public media circus, the girl and her herd of ACLU lawyers
should
have sought to have the opposite sex policy changed or dropped.
If they had, the school sponsored prom would have gone on with probably
only
a few raised eyebrows.

I think the committee acted appropriately. They sought to avoid any
demonstrations or problems at a school sponsored event. They suggested
that perhaps a private organization sponsor the prom instead.

In a culture based on the rule of laws, it seems that now-a-days
adherence
to existing laws or rules is
optional.

Eisboch





In *most* cases, laws that are in existence only to discriminate based
upon race, gender, whatever, should be considered unConstitutional and
just plain ignored. It is not the state's business to determine who a teen
can or cannot take to a celebratory event like a prom. In Virginia not so
long ago, it was "illegal" for blacks and whites to marry each other. That
law was unConstitutional and mostly ignored up until the day it was tossed
in the trash.

Sometimes, when trying to get unjust, unConstitutional laws dumped, it is
necessary to create "a public media circus." There's nothing wrong with
demonstrations, especially if the demonstators are polite.

Of course, Mississippi has an colorful history in how it treats
demonstrators. It used to shoot them.




You are walking a fine line there, Harry. Who decides what laws or, in
this case policy, is unjust?
You are giving evidence to my point .... if you don't agree or like it ...
ignore it. Recognition of a
law becomes optional.

All your points about discriminate based upon race, gender, etc. are valid.
So, challenge them at
a school committee meeting or in court to have the policy changed. That
didn't happen in this case apparently, so the committee made the wise choice
of canceling the prom.