Same-sex Homecoming Court

[Rouge]

Okay, so this year at the University of North Texas, a can of worms has been opened by the LGBT (Lesiban, Gay, Bi, Transgender). They want the opportunity to run either two guys or two girls. The LGBT interrupted a Student Government Association meeting -- here, just watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SpZUyfzXI4

The main problem is that either a guy or a girl is not going to be represented on the homecoming court. There would be a guy that would be Homecoming Queen or a girl that would be Homecoming King. It's become a huge controversy on campus, all over the papers with protesters out every morning--at least for the LGBT.

So, my question for you is would you vote for yes for same-sex homecoming couples or no?

(My vote is no, because it does leave out half of the population at UNT. I have no problem with gay people; in fact two of my very best friends are gay. I don't have a problem with a gay guy running for court, but that's not the issue at hand.)

Thoughts, opinions?

[sXe_Jinxeh]

The only way I could see this working--and correct me if this is how it's done, we don't have homecoming up here in Canuckland--is if they vote for a COUPLE specifically. If it's a vote for a queen and a seperate vote for the king, I don't think it would be fair. However, if it was like a pair to be voted together, like Tim&Tom as King and Queen, I could see it working. If that makes sense.

[Shaun]

I have no problem with it, but that's also because I'm not a discriminatory bastard who intentionally upholds centuries old patriarchal systems that intentionally preference heterosexual fantasies over current cultural reality.

So, no contest from me. Let it happen.

[Rouge]

I have no problem with it, but that's also because I'm not a discriminatory bastard who intentionally upholds centuries old patriarchal systems that intentionally preference heterosexual fantasies over current cultural reality.

So, no contest from me. Let it happen.

I'm not a discriminatory bastard either, but I still don't think there should be a guy running for queen. I don't care if a gay guy/lesbian runs. I just don't think there should be a girl as king or a guy as queen. It's odd.

[Shaun]

It's only odd if you're unwilling to disrupt the patriarchal, highly hetero system. That's what King/Queen is.

[Starry]

Do they really vote for couples for Homecoming King/Queen normally? At my school, we vote individually. Thus, the King and Queen are never in a relationship anyway, so who cares? This entire Court system is promoting an outdated, patriarchal stereotype anyway.

On the other hand, my freshman year of high school, the two seniors picked for the Cutest Couple senior superlative were an adorable gay couple. It caused some controversy, but not from the school, surprisingly enough (Sure, your dad is okay with you being gay, but when it comes to broadcasting it to the entire community? No way!). But they did end up in the yearbook, and all was well in the world.

I love super liberal land.

[Rouge]

Do they really vote for couples for Homecoming King/Queen normally? At my school, we vote individually. Thus, the King and Queen are never in a relationship anyway, so who cares? This entire Court system is promoting an outdated, patriarchal stereotype anyway.

On the other hand, my freshman year of high school, the two seniors picked for the Cutest Couple senior superlative were an adorable gay couple. It caused some controversy, but not from the school, surprisingly enough (Sure, your dad is okay with you being gay, but when it comes to broadcasting it to the entire community? No way!). But they did end up in the yearbook, and all was well in the world.

I love super liberal land.

There are two people nominated by Housing, Greek Life, Athletics, something else. I'm only a freshman in college so all of this is new to me. We only had a Homecoming Queen at my high school.

EDIT: Here's the page on Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=339843015296&ref=ts

[Jack]

If they were voting for couples then I would have no problem with it. If the votes were per couple and a gay couple were voted for homecoming king and queen then it would be fine, but it doesn't make sense that they have already decided that a gay couple should be chosen. It's kind of like discriminating from heterosexuals winning it, which isn't right either.

EDIT: Nevermind, I just re read your post and relaised that they want to run a gay/lesbian couple. Which I think it totally fine.

[appleofmyeye]

...

Are you shitting me? Are people actually making such a fuss over homecoming? You would think a gay rights group would spend their time doing something productive for the movement. I personally don't want a woman as a king. Nor do I want a man modeling bras and panties in the Victoria's Secret catalogue. I also think forcing students to accept a gay king and queen is asking too much. The fact that people are getting so worked up over a less glorified prom queen amazes me.

[Shaun]

And yet you're getting worked up over it...the irony is unavoidable.

[appleofmyeye]

Meh, you have a point there. I guess it's just one of those ridiculous things that I can't make sense of.

[Shaun]

If the world made sense I think we'd all be better off...

[listophergreene]

I don't think men should be running as queens and women as kings. This is because when you allow a male to run as a 'queen candidate', you knock off a place that a female could be running. It creates an imbalance of the sexes. Now, we could open up a select number of spots on either end (for example - a king spot and a queen spot) for the opposite sex, but that could cause an imbalance of possible candidates when compared to the heterosexual/homosexual demographics of the school in question.

Let's take this court for example: Name[sex/running-as]
Jack[male/king] == Cynthia[female/queen]
Cedric[male/king] == Paige[female/queen]
Kory[male/king] == Gwen[female/queen]
Erin[female/king] == Danny[male/queen]

Now, the problem here is that it is highly unlikely that there is an even proportion of males who would run for queen to females who would run for king, and it's just as unlikely that exactly (or even around) 25% of the school's population is homosexual. It's possible to go through with this and not have any serious complications, but it just seems unfair when you realize that there are much easier ways to do things.

The solution, in my opinion, is to not define men as 'queens' or women as 'kings', as that would be incorrect (a male monarch is a king and a female monarch is a queen, regardless of sexuality). A gay male can run for king, no problems there, a gay female can run for queen, no problems there. The only distinction being made here is between males and females, and because that still differentiates between individuals, I have proposed an alternate solution below.

If someone takes offense at being coupled with someone of a different sexuality, that's their fault for discriminating. So long as the candidates run as an individuals (and don't enter the contest pre-paired as couples), everything will be fine.

===alternate solution===

However, since there will rarely be an even number of males to females, the truly equal way of doing things is to allow nominations of anyone, and not limit any spaces to kings or queens. Since homecoming is just a huge popularity contest, the two most popular individuals in the school would be the presiding monarchs.

This could possibly leave out one of the sexes, so to be truly fair, we scratch the court altogether. Nobody appears as a couple until the two people are chosen. We vote for our favorite male and our favorite female. Then we have a king and a queen, and that is all. No 'couple' to make the whole thing seem like a heterosexuality campaign.

Nontraditional? Definitely. But according to modern cultural standards it seems fair.

====

Summary: No, I would not vote yes for couples at all.
Wow, I totally over-analyzed that. Whatever, I haven't had much of a chance to think that hard all day.

[Diocletian]

Might warm up to "equal rights" once the gay pride parades stop and they cease making a big deal out of insignificant historical events and exaggerating issues (Day of Silence, anybody?).

As for this particular debate, I do agree with Adri that denying each gender its place as either King/Queen is wrong.

[Jack]

Listopher, the problem here is that they want to run a gay couple, not that there are females running for kings and whatnot. If a gay couple become homecoming king and queen, then both the king AND the queen will be male or female.

If they are running couples and a gay couple win, then they have been voted for and deserve the place, whether it means that only males would have won or only females would have won. Surely it doesn't matter if one of the sexes isn't represented if the couple are being voted for and and a gay couple wins, that means they have won through democracy. It would be discriminating for gay couples to not be allowed to run for homecoming king and queen.

[Shaun]

Leave it to listopher to maintain the dominant gendered hierarchy and complete ignore the fact that he's actively engaging in discrimination by refusing to dissolve gendered positions in a country where, gasp, there aren't actually any real kings or queens.

[listophergreene]

Leave it to listopher to maintain the dominant gendered hierarchy and complete ignore the fact that he's actively engaging in discrimination by refusing to dissolve gendered positions in a country where, gasp, there aren't actually any real kings or queens.

Why thank you Shaun ^_^

I was just saying that if we want a king and queen we might as well make them a real king and queen, instead of naming the positions indiscriminately. Key word containing 'discriminate', I know. The truly neutral thing to do would be to scratch the idea of a king and queen altogether (forgive me for mentioning that it is also contextually correct for the English language :3 ) and opting instead to elect people as humans, not males or females. And to be truly fair, we top this off by scratching couples altogether, having just one or two 'dance majesties' or something.

The entire thing can be analyzed to the extreme, and it all circles back to what appleofmyeye said. Homecoming? Honestly... I was going to mention in my previous post that LGBT is getting unnecessarily touchy, but that would have sounded terrible coming from someone with a background such as my own. (Not to discriminate against myself or anything)

So yes, leave it to me to pull that king/queen crap :3 Even in a country that has no kings or queens... whatever that has to do with it.

[Shaun]

Except, listopher, nobody elects a homecoming King or Queen with the intention of them actually being real kings or queens. It's all fake anyway. Fictional.

The LGBT have every reason to be touchy. They live in a country where only 5 states allow them to marry, where people actively seek to prevent them from living their lives and being considered Americans. Pointing out the touchiness of the LGBT community as some sort of valid argument is like pointing out that Black people are touchy about racism. Duh.

[Jack]

Pointing out the touchiness of the LGBT community as some sort of valid argument is like pointing out that Black people are touchy about racism. Duh.

Agreed, except racism is aimed at any member of a particular race (yes guys, whites too) and not just blacks. Whereas the LGBT community are being discriminated against even more directly.

[Shaun]

I would also argue that discrimination against LGBT is somewhat more personal in some respects considering that being gay or transgender is not always obvious for some. You'd have to know someone on a personal level, in some cases, to know if they were gay. That's not the case with race, since, generally speaking, we all know when someone is of a certain race, or at least of a "related" race.

But, I also want to make sure it's understand that I hate the term race and the very idea that we even think in race, and that it's born into us as part of our culture, is sick and disgusting and makes me very sad to be human...

[Diocletian]

But, I also want to make sure it's understand that I hate the term race and the very idea that we even think in race, and that it's born into us as part of our culture, is sick and disgusting and makes me very sad to be human...

It makes you sad to acknowledge genetic differences?

Don't read a biology textbook then; those things are scaaaary.

[Jack]

But, I also want to make sure it's understand that I hate the term race and the very idea that we even think in race, and that it's born into us as part of our culture, is sick and disgusting and makes me very sad to be human...

Race is genetic variations between humans. It's the way humans use different races to our own selfish ends and the way humans see certain races as better than others that sickens me.

[miss_smiley]

I'm with Drax on that one. There's no fault in our differences - it's part of what makes the world so interesting and beautiful. The marring of it is when some jerk-off decides that they're better than the others or that they can use particular aspects of their differences to push others into getting what they want.
Back to the subject - I really think the whole king/queen thing is completely out-dated anyways. It's just as stupid as racism or homophobia. It's elitist and vain and I'm glad that we don't have it in Australia.
That's my humble opinion.

[Shaun]

The genetic basis of race is weak at best. While there are obviously genes that change skin tone and other things, the basis of those genes is unknown. Race would only hold up if it was discovered that people of other skin tones, etc. were a subgroup of homo sapiens. Otherwise, we'd find out that environment created our differences and we would have no leg to stand on in the race debate, since race would not exist.

Not to mention that genetics can now tell you where your ancestors came from. It might be surprising to note that not all black people are descended from people of Africa and the same is true of people of other "races." Our origins are mixed.

[Jack]

Did anyone see Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo?

[Shaun]

No, I did not. But that's not really what we're supposed to be discussing here, so maybe we should get back on topic.

Damn those gays for wanting homecoming King and Queen for their own!

[Jack]

Ah, yes indeed. Well it kind of feels as though this debate has reached a conclusion, doesn't it?

[GeorgeMichael]

I need some quick clarification Adri, or anyone else who knows the situation. Were people running as couples before? Like do you vote for a couple as King and Queen? At my homecoming it was an individual vote and usually you would get one random popular guy with a different girl, and it would hardly be one of the real couples, so I'm not sure on that level. If your school votes on couples then yes gay people should be allowed to run for king and queen as a couple, however, if it is an individual vote I think that guys can only run for king and girls can run for queen. I mean I didn't think it would bother me, it's just that they have their dance and everything and if some random guy and a gay guy one you can't really blame anyone for feeling uncomfortable with that.

[Rouge]

I need some quick clarification Adri, or anyone else who knows the situation. Were people running as couples before? Like do you vote for a couple as King and Queen? At my homecoming it was an individual vote and usually you would get one random popular guy with a different girl, and it would hardly be one of the real couples, so I'm not sure on that level. If your school votes on couples then yes gay people should be allowed to run for king and queen as a couple, however, if it is an individual vote I think that guys can only run for king and girls can run for queen. I mean I didn't think it would bother me, it's just that they have their dance and everything and if some random guy and a gay guy one you can't really blame anyone for feeling uncomfortable with that.

What happened was this: The Greek people would vote on a couple, the housing people would vote on a couple, athletics would vote on a couple and then the student body would vote on what couple they thought was best. The LGBT thinks that it should be a king/king or a queen/queen period.

[GeorgeMichael]

OK there definitely shouldn't be only king/king or queen/queen, but if the entire thing is a couples thing then I think that they should be allowed to run. It's not conventional to many people but that's not really the point. If it was all individual voting I would understand not letting guys run for queen or girls run for king, but if it's a couple race then they really shouldn't be discriminated against in that way. If people want to call them Queen/Queen or King/King then fine but since this is a couple's race then they really shouldn't be left out, it would be wrong.

[Shaun]

I honestly don't understand why anyone cares about the whole thing. If two dudes go up there, so what? It's not real anyway. In fact, the whole thing is so pointless when you bring it to the real world that it makes no sense why anyone would find it interesting in the first place. 10 years down the line nobody is going to care who was homecoming king or queen...and those that do are kind of, well, losers.

[Jack]

I honestly don't understand why anyone cares about the whole thing. If two dudes go up there, so what? It's not real anyway. In fact, the whole thing is so pointless when you bring it to the real world that it makes no sense why anyone would find it interesting in the first place. 10 years down the line nobody is going to care who was homecoming king or queen...and those that do are kind of, well, losers.

I think the bigger issues are what we are debating rather than just "should gay couples be homecoming king/queen". We are talking more about gay rights in society and not just in some uni or wherever it is.

[GeorgeMichael]

Shaunwise! If we didn't fight about the little things who would? Rule number 38 of Zombieland: Enjoy the little things. Sure it's not important years later, or even weeks later, but that doesn't change the fact that it's important to those kids who are participating in it. It's important to them at that time, and to them it's something worth fighting for.

[silentspeaker]

I've never been apart of homecoming as my school doesn't have it but I think that there shouldn't be a big deal made about it either way. To me it seems like this is all a bit of a mess. I think that if people are having so many issues with the definition of a "queen" or "king" being male or female or gay or lesbian then why not get rid of the whole homecoming thing all together? I've never seen one before or been in one and I don't think my life has suffered because of it, so why not just stop it all together? I mean if we really want to get picky the whole thing is discriminatory as it seperates the best in ______ to the rest of the population, so really has anything changed? my answer to that is no, it's still the same contest as it always was promoting the best looking or best whatever people...no real point to that so why not get rid of it?

[Rouge]

Just an update:

It was ruled in favor of no same-sex homecoming couples.

[ScottyMcGee]

I don't even care about homecoming, therefore I don't care who's queen or king or prince or princess or what have you.

I just find this really amusing that people are fighting over rights over something so pathetic. You gotta admit, we're obsessed with this idea about having a right for this and a right for that.

Not that I mean they're wrong either. Just that the overall battle is pointless. Who gives a shit about who ends up winning?

Ya know? :mellow:

[Amour]

Something interesting here: What about transgenders in a 'singles' race? Do the same rules apply?

I'm not sure what to think myself. Because really, they're females in every sense other than their anatomy. The only problem would be the judgments of others in not letting them be a Queen. (& Vice versa)

-- As for the couples race, I agree that they should be able to run. There's no reason for them not to. A male and female don't have to be counter parts for everything, (valedictorians, council presidents, leadership representatives), least of all something superficial.

[lango]

King -> guy.
Queen -> girl.
But sure, if they wanted to make "Homecoming popular person!!"
Then vote for whatever they want.
No reason why a gay guy can't be voted King. Most kings were bissexual anyways. Asking to be voted Queen is just trying to start an argument over something truly, truly pointless.
I'm glad Brazil doesn't have that homecoming crap by the way, over half the students don't even care about whoever is the most popular kid in school.

[Shaun]

The only reason King and Queen are gender specific is due to thousands of years of gender oppression. I don't see why it matters if a dude becomes a Queen or a woman becomes a King. It's all make believe anyway and people should vote for whoever they damn well please.

[midnight-ramble]

The only reason King and Queen are gender specific is due to thousands of years of gender oppression. I don't see why it matters if a dude becomes a Queen or a woman becomes a King.

Well excepting one very exceptional case King does technically mean "male monarch" and Queen (or even more technically "Queen regnant") "female monarch". So, I mean I think that a "King" should be someone who identifies as male (this allows for transgender) and vice versa.

I mean I have no objection to "best couple" or "the two rulers/monarchs of the ball" (has less of a ring to it) , but lets keep some perspective here.. Gender is a real thing, so if you are going to use gender based terms, you should keep by them.

[Shaun]

Why do we have to keep perspective? It's NOT REAL. They're FICTIONAL titles. Gender is only a real thing in the real world, and even there it's largely irrelevant, since there is nothing about the genders that should create recognizable differences in how we treat one another. Men do women jobs; women do men jobs, and, thus, none of the jobs become gender specific at all.

It's all gender politics played out over old, absurdly sexist fields. I don't want to live in that world anymore.

[midnight-ramble]

I am not sure I get where you are coming from.. of course royalty is made up! But so far as I know King and Queen mean the same thing, except that they refer to different genders. I was only really objecting to the point that said that a King didn't have to be male. Of course they do - if a King is not male they are a Queen, for this to be otherwise you must change the definition of the word. I mean you could refer to a Queen as a King, but it would be lying, plain and simple. It is like pointing to a piece of grass and calling it violet, when it is clearly green.

This is not sexism, by no means, it is merely sexually distinguishing. By this I mean that we are acknowledging that they are male or female in their title. If you want to drop gender, fine, but use "Monarch" or similar, rather than terms that refer to gender.

Let me reiterate, I do not mind how the couples are set up - two boys, two girls, a boy and a girl, two boys and a girl - it is not important. But please, just call a spoon a spoon, not a fork.

[Shaun]

You'd have to know very little about the terms King and Queen to not understand the sexist nature of their creation. You can't say King or Queen without already speaking in the terms of gender oppression. Read a history book. A blade of grass is genderless; a King or Queen is not. The grass was not invented through a long, disturbing history of oppression against women; the King/Queen thing was. You're from the UK. You should know this better than an American like me.

And they're already LYING. None of them actually is a King or Queen. They're playing a game with the truth, which is a form of lying. If all you're concerned about is whether or not we're lying about the gendered designations, then you should be against the whole damn thing because it's all lying. There's no truth in any of it, regardless of who plays which role.

[Christfollower]

[QUOTE
And they're already LYING. None of them actually is a King or Queen. They're playing a game with the truth, which is a form of lying. If all you're concerned about is whether or not we're lying about the gendered designations, then you should be against the whole damn thing because it's all lying. There's no truth in any of it, regardless of who plays which role.[/QUOTE]

then what is the point of having the whole affair in the first place? Because it's a traditional thing. and though you may not agree with it, people like tradition.

Kings are traditionally men, Queens are traditionally women. It's how history works people. I'm not trying to be sexist, but if people are insisting on having one of these silly homecoming things (my school doesn't) then just do it that way. gays should be able to take part, but if us hetrosexuals are forced to stay within the gender based rules, then it seems reasonable to say they should be too.

[Shaun]

If you're going to play the "well it's a tradition" game with me, fine, but the following things used to be a tradition, that are no longer:
--selling women into marriage
--slavery
--burning people to death who are suspected of being witches or just heretics in general
--not letting women vote
--not letting women have control over their bodies
--not letting black people vote
--beating up black people
--killing Native Americans and selling their scalps for money
--and the list can go on and on

Traditions change, and again, this is all MAKE BELIEVE. They are not real Kings or real Queens, or any of that. It's not history. History would be if we were actually crowning a real King and Queen. Then, yeah, then it might make some sense, but sorry, that's not what is happening.

Also, you can't play the "well we should just stay with the gender based rules around" without also denying people the right to participate. Homosexuals have not been a part of these things before precisely because they maintain a patriarchal fantasy. Now you're saying we should deny them the right to participate simply because "hey, that's just the way the gender rules go." That's oppression.

If you want to live in a world where we just accept everything as "just the way it is," then go for it, but I'd prefer to live in a world a little more progressive than that, one that challenges previously upheld standards when it is absolutely necessary.

In this case, making a big deal over homosexuals wanting to be involved in the King/Queen farce at Homecoming is hardly bending the rules and is only acknowledging a reality that homosexuals are a part of the social fabric of this country and will continue to become a bigger part of it as the years go along.

[Alex]

The Brits will never give up on tradition, its just ingrained in them from the start of their schooling, it is probably futile to try and change it, Shaun =p.

Also, the bigger issue surrounding ths is as follows:

Is it ok for opression to occur if the majority wants it. Is there some objective moral standard that we need to keep, or is it relative to the society a social dilema occurs in?

[Shaun]

I don't think oppression should occur in any form, unless someone is being oppressed because they cause harm to society (we oppress murderers and rapists, for example, because they murder and rape).

[Alex]

Well, that ends the discussion right there. It is only logical that, if you believe there is some objective moral standard we need to uphold, that corruption should not occur. The other side of the coin implies that the desires of the most people reflect a societies' true morality. There are variations on those two conclusions, but they are only slight, and, in essence, it all boils down to this. Its not really something that can be proven either way. Though, that is probably not good given that this is the debate forum =p

[Shaun]

I don't think I completely follow you.

Edit: Likely because I'm somewhat scatterbrained right now, but if you could re-word that, it might help...

[Alex]

Pretty much just a rephrasing of what I said before:

Its fair to say that a same-sex king and queen couple should be allowed if you believe there is some obligation to represent an unchanging, objective, morality.

Its also fair (but, in my opinion, incorrect) to say that a same-sex king and queen couple should NOT be allowed if you believe that morality is defined by what the majority in a society want (this school voted against allowing it. Do they define the school's morality, or is morality independent of the wishes of the population?).

[Little Demon]

Really, I'm only commenting cause I need one more post before the stupid box stops calling me a newbe. That and I have nothing better to do with my time... the way is see it is that some people, but not all, need stuff to bitch about. So when a gay couple gets elected to be queen and king, two standing offices of opposing sex, they get their chance. They find something different and fuss, I myself have nothing against gay people. In fact, a friend of mine is gay. A guy should be aloud to be queen, and a chick could make a great king. Its just those people out there who have to make everything hard for the rest of us. Good luck debating over right and wrong, kings and queens, so on, so forth.

[v.w.123]

Do they really vote for couples for Homecoming King/Queen normally? At my school, we vote individually. Thus, the King and Queen are never in a relationship anyway, so who cares?

My high school was, too. I think that's the way it should be pick a girl for queen and a guy for king none of this couples stuff. Not becuase of gay or lesbian reasons but just cuz of gender reasons... nuf' said.:sleep:

[Shaun]

Or you could not shove people into pre-established, patriarchal gender roles and let people of whatever sexuality play whatever role they want. That seems the more fair route to go.

[v.w.123]

More fair or more chaotic? There has to be some kind of structure!

[Shaun]

Why? It's an imaginary, pointless concept in which someone is given a fake crown and a fake title that has no bearing on the real world. You don't become president by being Homecoming Queen or King. It doesn't get you a kickass job. It's a meaningless title, so why people are so obsessed over maintaining patriarchy for something that is inherently meaningless is absurd. Let some homosexual play around with it. What does it matter?

[Jack]

Let some homosexual play around with it.

That's a quote :P

/spam

[v.w.123]

Lol nice Drax.
Shaun: Becuase for some people it's fun. Oh but fun is meaningless as well isn't it? In that case, lets just screw it and forget about it, and homecoming all together, for a matter screw Prom too, and then how about dating, and marriage and sex, andhaving kids, and if we're gunna screw all that let's just end all life! If you end "fun" of that nature then you end alot. Why not take it seriously it's the little things that count. Every big thing is made up of little things....

[Bowie20049]

Lol nice Drax.
Shaun: Becuase for some people it's fun. Oh but fun is meaningless as well isn't it? In that case, lets just screw it and forget about it, and homecoming all together, for a matter screw Prom too, and then how about dating, and marriage and sex, andhaving kids, and if we're gunna screw all that let's just end all life! If you end "fun" of that nature then you end alot. Why not take it seriously it's the little things that count. Every big thing is made up of little things....

This has everything to do with homosexuality.

[Shaun]

Lol nice Drax.
Shaun: Becuase for some people it's fun. Oh but fun is meaningless as well isn't it? In that case, lets just screw it and forget about it, and homecoming all together, for a matter screw Prom too, and then how about dating, and marriage and sex, andhaving kids, and if we're gunna screw all that let's just end all life! If you end "fun" of that nature then you end alot. Why not take it seriously it's the little things that count. Every big thing is made up of little things....

The irony here being that in keeping your exclusive version of fun pure in the almost Hitlerian sense of the term, you're denying someone else the right to have that fun.

It's fun, it's meaningless, and the only ones not having fun are the people who don't want to face reality. Homosexuals exist. They are part of our culture, and denying them the right to participate in school events is no different than denying interracial couples to participate. Have fun all you want, just don't take that fun away from other people because you get the squigglies thinking about homosexuals.

The "you" here is rhetorical.

[v.w.123]

I don't have any issues with homosexuals (unless one comes onto me). Why, then, don't we just add one more slot on there and add them to our society like we add everything else? Make it like the advisor or something. Thats a uni-sex thing......That is what we call a comprimise...

[Shaun]

What do you mean by "the advisor"?

[v.w.123]

You know kings and queens have advisors.... I think I was being sarcastic but I can't seem to remember right now.

[Shaun]

I hope you were making a joke, because that's gloriously offensive. "Let's include them in society by letting them play pretend as figures lower on the royalty food chain." Totally a reasonable compromise, there. And this is absolutely sarcasm...

[v.w.123]

Hahaha nice.... I don't think I can take this thread seriously anymore. I was just thinking about what I'm actually debating about and, It's kind of pointless homosexuals seem mostly excepted into society anyway. This is just on small dispute, like when blacks where being excepted into the american culture. I call it growing pains I really do.

[Shaun]

You mean "accepted." Periods are also you friend.

And, yes, this debate is pointless. Homosexuals taking part in homecoming is an absurd thing to get pissy about.

[Sofiel]

It's kind of pointless homosexuals seem mostly excepted into society anyway. This is just on small dispute, like when blacks where being excepted into the american culture.

Sorry, must correct you here... I find that .. really ignorant. When a boy at our school is mercilessly picked on and beaten up because he had the 'audacity' to find himself a boyfriend, when my friend lost her best friend, who just happened to be her girlfriend, because they were too afraid to come out, when I faced this same fear and ridicule last year... You cannot be serious.

Perhaps society is improving, but homosexuals are not 'mostly' accepted. I'll agree with you when people are no longer afraid to tell someone their preferences, and when the majority of people see homophobia as a serious issue. You will not find many people using derogatory terms in reference to 'blacks', but just walking down the halls each day I'll hear at least one person calling someone else a 'fag'.

You may feel that 'blacks' are accepted in the American culture, but that does not mean that racism is no longer an issue. Just the same, you may feel that people who identify as GLBT are accepted, but that does not mean that it is no longer an issue.

I find the whole homecoming thing a little ridiculous, but it may seem important to the people involved.

Then again, maybe I'm just a little touchy on this subject. Sorry. :blush:

[KyleN]

What a touchy subject but anything that relates to religion and morals are. Anyways I am a Republican Conservative and I believe that Homosexuals should not be able to marry, but I don't believe in taking away "Fun" from them. Homosexuals should live just like any others and do what non Homosexuals do but I just don't like the marrying part.


-The reason I don't like them getting married, is becuase well if you can't reproduce than why marry if there is a god or not its not natural so it shouldn't be allowed. ( Don't call me close minded ;)
-Just live as "Partners" now the whole legal issue about them not being able to share insurance like a married couple well the law should fix that.
-To marry is to have holy union with one another, or so it states in the bible, sorry can't give you the exact verse and I might be wrong so don't take my word for it.

[Shaun]

This is for another debate, Kyle. But, the short of the previous debate on this topic is:
--Marriage isn't religious. It was appropriated by religious people into religion, but your argument essentially says that anyone who is not of your religious persuasion cannot get married, such as atheists or Buddhists. Except we can, because you can get married by a judge rather than a priest in this country. Nobody of your belief has yet come up with a reasonable argument against allowed homosexuals to get married by a judge, or by a priest of, say, a unitarian church, where homosexuality is a-ok.
--Likewise, you can't deny someone the right to marriage because it says so in the Bible. That's a violation of the 1st Amendment.
--And marriage is not always about reproduction. I hate this argument so much, because the people who make it, like yourself, have no idea what that does to women: it reduces them to baby makers. That's their whole purpose in your vision of marriage. Needless to say, I have never been a friend of patriarchy, and neither should you. It's the same institution that wouldn't let women vote.

But, that's for a different place (there's a thread about homosexuality somewhere in the debate area). So, we can take that up there if you'd like to continue this debate.

[Jack]

What a touchy subject but anything that relates to religion and morals are. Anyways I am a Republican Conservative and I believe that Homosexuals should not be able to marry, but I don't believe in taking away "Fun" from them. Homosexuals should live just like any others and do what non Homosexuals do but I just don't like the marrying part.

This is going to raise a hell of a lot of heat from other members, but right now, I can't be bothered to point out how pathetically close minded and morally undignified this is.

-The reason I don't like them getting married, is becuase well if you can't reproduce than why marry if there is a god or not its not natural so it shouldn't be allowed. ( Don't call me close minded ;)


Surely if there is God then he created Gays anyway. I would have thought that the 'reproducing' argument would be one that came from someone whose beliefs are scientifically grounded, adding to the gene pool and all that.

EDIT: Just saw Shaun's post...never mind :P

[KyleN]

This is for another debate, Kyle. But, the short of the previous debate on this topic is:
--Marriage isn't religious. It was appropriated by religious people into religion, but your argument essentially says that anyone who is not of your religious persuasion cannot get married, such as atheists or Buddhists. Except we can, because you can get married by a judge rather than a priest in this country. Nobody of your belief has yet come up with a reasonable argument against allowed homosexuals to get married by a judge, or by a priest of, say, a unitarian church, where homosexuality is a-ok.
--Likewise, you can't deny someone the right to marriage because it says so in the Bible. That's a violation of the 1st Amendment.
--And marriage is not always about reproduction. I hate this argument so much, because the people who make it, like yourself, have no idea what that does to women: it reduces them to baby makers. That's their whole purpose in your vision of marriage. Needless to say, I have never been a friend of patriarchy, and neither should you. It's the same institution that wouldn't let women vote.

But, that's for a different place (there's a thread about homosexuality somewhere in the debate area). So, we can take that up there if you'd like to continue this debate.

I have all respect for women. Sorry if I didn't explain myself the way I wanted to. I apologize.
I should of sat down and thought about my response, there it gos to show you how stupid I am.
- About the Homosexual debate yeah We'll continue it their I'll explain myself there.

Marriage is about love but between a man and a women. *Edited*