Indiana High Schoolers Push to Ban Gay Classmates from ‘Traditional’ Prom

A group of students, parents and at least one teacher at Sullivan High School in Sullivan, Ind., have banded together to push for a "traditional" prom that would prohibit their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered classmates from attending

  • Share
  • Read Later
Image Pinning on a Boutonniere
Getty Images

Correction Appended Feb. 12, 2013.

A group of students and parents at Sullivan High School in Sullivan, Ind., have banded together to push for a “traditional” prom that would prohibit their lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered classmates from attending.

(PHOTOS: Last Dance: American Proms by Gillian Laub)

The group met on Sunday at the town’s First Christian Church to discuss the possibility of holding a separate, segregated dance after the principal of Sullivan High, David Springer, told a local NBC affiliate that “Anybody can go to the prom” when asked to clarify whether same-sex couples would be allowed to walk in the event’s grand march, set to be held April 27.

“We believe what the Bible says, that it says it’s wrong,” Sullivan High School student Bonnie McCammon said to WTWO-TV. “We love the homosexuals, but we do not condone what they’re doing.”

According to WTWO, one member of the group is a local special-education teacher, Diana Medley, who told the NBC affiliate, “I believe [homosexuality] is a choice. I don’t believe they were born that way. I think that life circumstances made them that way.” She says she works with students who come out to her and cares about them, even though she doesn’t “agree with them.”

The students and parents formed a Facebook page, called 2013 Sullivan Traditional Prom, to support their cause. The page has since been taken down, but columnist-activist Dan Savage has screen grabs of a few of the comments. Some of the comments defended the group’s mission (“We would like to stress to everyone that this is not a hate group. We do not hate anyone, we are not judging anyone. We are choosing to stand on the word of God”), while others urged supporters to stand together (“With all the media and stuff going on now, let us keep in mind that we are to be loving to all and to be in prayer so satan doesn’t get in to divide”).

(MORE: 10 Questions for Dan Savage)

Another Facebook page, Support the Sullivan High School Prom for All, popped up to defend the school’s LGBT students. As of Monday afternoon the page had over 6,000 Likes and was adding about 1,000 Likes an hour. The page’s administrator posted a comment, reading:

“To those of you basing the community or the entire state of Indiana, I assure you that not all of us feel this way. I live in southern Indiana not too far from Sullivan and I started this group. Attitudes are changing in this area, albeit more slowly than in some other parts of the country. We must stay vocal and focus on the positive in my opinion.”

The drama playing out in Indiana is sadly reminiscent of the story of Constance McMillen, the then 18-year-old lesbian from Fulton, Miss., who in 2010 was told she couldn’t bring her girlfriend to prom. Administrators at Sullivan High may want to take note of how McMillen’s prom story ended: faced with a discrimination lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the school canceled the dance and settled the case with McMillen for $35,000. They also agreed to enforce a nondiscrimination policy.

MORE: America’s Proms: An Emotional Night in Joplin

An earlier version of this story mistakenly identified Diana Medley as a Sullivan High School special education teacher. She is a teacher at a different area school. The story also did not clarify the difference between the ‘traditional’ prom and the school’s official prom; this has been changed to emphasize that they are separate events.

244 comments
WillieSoma
WillieSoma

The 2013 Tradition Prom page is not taken down. It was secret for a while but now is open again. It has 54 members while the Support the Sullivan High School Prom for All Students page has over 28,000 likes.

That should tell you something!

MizzStarChild
MizzStarChild

If you can't just be in the same room with gay people you have issues. This is a public school, not a place to force your religion on others. I can't think of any time when that would be appropriate. We don't live in a theocracy. Does this school want to teach their kids intolerance?

Haley
Haley

Funny, last I checked these people aren't God and they shouldn't be judging others. Live your life and quit forcing others to live the way you do. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean that is the only thing about them. People need to open their eyes and quit bullying gays.  There is absolutely so reason for it. Just because someone sins differently than you doesn't make them horrible people.  Everyone sins, they need to quit acting like they are perfect. I thought God was all forgiving? So if he is real then let him decide what will happen to them.

ReedP938
ReedP938

If your problem is with promiscuity, perhaps you should stop telling homosexuals that we are supposed to be promiscuous.

(Btw, I don't know any promiscuous homosexuals; I know of at least one who is a virgin.)

sean1982
sean1982

Dan Savage is evil and I challenge him to a boxing match, because he is so tough when he bullies people that don't accept homosexuality as normal.

TishMorgna
TishMorgna

To be pro-homosexuality is to be anti-religious.  It has to be that way because the two shall never truly merge.  You have fake religious people trying to change the realities in scripture to suit the homosexualist agenda but it will never fly with true believers.  Therefore, you must do away with morals and persecute the religious people, or you stop the indoctrination of other peoples' children into the homosexualist agenda and let the homosexual activists live their sex lives privately.  You can't have it both ways folks.

Pro-homosexualists will opt to have the persecution toward the religious.  It has ever been that way.

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@MizzStarChild I'll say they have issues, MissingChild, and I know where they're coming from. See, it's like this: while anyone can be around a homosexual person in a social setting (but secretly be thinking any of the following: Hoo, boy! What a sorry excuse for a man! or That dame sure looks butch. Must be a "sapphist". [Well, I confess that's what I would be thinking.] or There, but for the grace of God go I. or Lord, how can I reach out to them in love? [What a true X-tian might be thinking, bless their souls.]), those of us who consider homosexuality an aberrant orientation, whether as a proclivity or a propensity, find it offensive to our sensibilities to be exposed to gestures of affection between or among its endorsers. (Darn, was all that a sentence just now?!) We find those displays disturbing or outright disgusting.  

Moreover, as in the case of the students who took exception to sharing lebensraum (or at least just dancing space) with their "merry" counterparts and their analogous escorts, the alternative would also have entailed to seem to extend tacit approval of such pairings on a par with normal, heterogeneous ones; thus, their reticence at appearing at the same venue with the hipper, morally- and traditionally-unencumbered crowd. In cases like this, folks, 'tis better to remain separate, if an increasingly-liberal society of Jacobin bent insists in proclaiming Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité throughout the land for people in all manner of dubious lifestyles. Messieurs, je vous ai parlé.


KylerPhoenix
KylerPhoenix

@sean1982 ...Standing up to hate, bigotry and homophobia doesn't make one a bully. 

layer562
layer562

@TishMorgna When you start preaching about pre-martial sex, divorce, non-virginal wives (on the wedding day), the wearing of clothes made of two different types of materials, eating of shellfish, the clipping of sideburns, and bad-mouthing your parents  (almost all of these deserving of death in the Bible) in the same way you speak about "homosexuality and scripture" only then will I believe you actually care about following religious scripture as written. Until then I see it as your way of prostituting religion to suit your own inbred bigotry.

MizzStarChild
MizzStarChild

@Thetruthteller Hi MissingBrain, when I saw this I thought "Hoo boy! An idiot cult member that wants to force his cult on others by being bigoted!" and I was right! If you want to live in a theocracy go to Saudi Arabia where people have no freedom of religion. Here in the US we believe in freedom of religion, and not forcing our religion on others in public institutions just because your offended by it. This is bot unconstitutional, and it goes against the Supreme Court decision called "The Lemon Test. Look it up.

sean1982
sean1982

Dan Savage is a bully - check out the video. I don't hate homosexuals, but I do hate what they do. Just like I don't hate drug addicts, but I hate what they do. Homosexuality is abnormal and should not be promoted as a good. It is destructive to body and soul. A penis is not made to go into an anus. This is not complicated.



 

layer562
layer562

@sean1982 Standing up to bigotry and hate is not bullying, but clearly advocating he be bullied is.

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@layer562 Ok, lemme see if I can explain this for thee: what happens is that the statutes and regulations in what we call the Old Testament of the Bible were handed down by the Almighty for the physical nation of Israel to keep; these laws, for the most part, dealt with observances to be carried out (or behaviors to be abstained from) physically, as "shadows of things to come" (with the advent of the Messiah). Of course, there were likewise moral strictures and guidelines that the Israelites were constrained to keep, and these were expanded upon in their spiritual underpinnings and ramifications by the selfsame Messiah. (A very illustrative example of this concerns the lesson on "loving your neighbor and hating your enemy"; "but I say to you," Yeshua continues, "Love your enemies, and offer tefillos [prayers] for the ones bringing redifah [persecution] upon you." Then he proceeds to elaborate on the spiritual dimension of the lesson with pertinent illustrations and a rhetorical question or two. That man was WISE!)

These moral principles transcended the historical and cultural period of the national entity that was ancient Israel, meant as they were, for universal and timeless application. So it is, o critical one, that Tish makes some very valid points (perhaps on a tangent to your shrill response, but nevertheless pertinent to the topic at hand, that of homosexual behavior being at variance with Biblical principles). And far from "prostituting religion to suit (her) own inbred bigotry", the redoubtable Tish is rather being most orthodox and insightful in forwarding the truism that righteousness and immorality are mutually-exclusive.

And btw, "pre-martial" sex has a long history as a soldier's best argument with a demure ladylove. :)



MizzStarChild
MizzStarChild

@Thetruthteller I very much appreciate the compliments thank you! To leave on a positive note, I thought you are an amazing talker, and are able to intelligently consider differing points with not that much bias. Not that much is the most anyone can ask for because its almost impossible to be completely without bias with humans. Enough with the tangent though. I would have said is sooner if you didn't also say certain things I happen to passionately disagree with lol. Cheers!

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@MizzStarChild I couldn't call it a night without tipping my hat to your contemplative acumen, and it is well that it is so, in order to take our leave on a more positive note than heretofore. You know, StarChild, you're quite a thinker yourself, and a worthy debating opponent. Nuff respect. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that we might disagree on matters such as the present, and I believe I perceive a fairly decent character behind your unwavering defense of your points. I'm not just spouting niceties here - remember, I'm Thetruthteller. For the snark with my trademark, I apologize. 

Regarding your disparagement of things Biblical, I see you raise several tantalizing points, thought-provoking and deserving of a good old ramble but that, as they say, is another story.    

MizzStarChild
MizzStarChild

@Thetruthteller @MizzStarChild

When I say you are wrong I don't mean you don't have the right to have it, unless you ended up actively harming someone over it. If you just stay away from them, then you can believe in the Easter Bunny for all I care. The same goes for anyone else. I don't care if someone thinks all blonde haired people are evil, just as long as they don't go on a rampage with a razor shaving people's heads. I will call people out anytime I hear someone say something disrespectful though. It's not possible for someone to force a belief on someone, unless someone has a mind control device. I don't expect to, or want to do that to anyone. I will say if I think someone is wrong though. When someone has views that are actually based in reality, all they need is reason.

Christians are incorrect in their entire world view to begin with. To say the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, and other things irrationally would be like trying to fix a leaky water dam with a piece of gum. That entire book is based on primitive bronze, and iron age idealogies, and eventually the river of irrationality will burst through. The shellfish comment was just me joking. I don't think that could be used to show anything significant.

The Bible is just say-so, and hearsay from thousands of years ago. That is not evidence at all. The problem with hearsay is its not verifiable to any outside parties. If someone were to accept hearsay from thousands of years ago they might as well accept the Pagan or the Hindu Gods. Modern personal experiences are the same. There are all sorts of people going around saying they were abducted by aliens, or saw bigfoot. People who even say they saw God and its Allah instead. There is no way to verify their experience so its not evidence.

Faith is a faulty method, because evidence for a god would have to be objective, otherwise it's just subjective, unverifiable evidence. So there is nothing you can verify to see if something is real. Anyone can claim anything with faith. There is no way to tell between religions that use blind faith to get people to believe in something irrational so they manipulate people to do things good or bad. Con-artists love it when they can get you to believe something with no verification needed.

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@MizzStarChild You keep going around in circles more than a Ferris wheel, telling me why you think I have no right to: a set of beliefs (whether YOU agree with them or not), an opinion (whether you share it or not), an attitude or set thereof (whether you like them or not), a personal course of action (whether it resonates with you or not), and yet you bleat about living and letting live, and parroting what I said about minding one's own business. You also seem enamored of shellfish, that handy yet illusory trump card your ilk use for a royal flush against Christians (but I refer you to my response to Lard562 downthread in which I lay out why such stuff don't matter no more). Kindly traipse down and take a gander. (At it, unless you have a pet one hard by.)

So, you've done a pretty thorough job of trying to explain why no secular-minded person should oppose homosexuality (leaving the door open, however, for the religious among us to frown on it). I guess religious people may be excused, in your view, for their animus toward the deviance (my choice of word) you defend. Or would you regulate thoughts and feelings, too? 

Nevertheless, I do agree with your second-to-last paragraph; if you re-read the third-to-last paragraph in my last post more carefully, you will see that it bears this out. But a big, fat BUT: other than aiming to devalue your opponents' reasons for opposing homosexuality, and proffering a somewhat incogent rationale for supporting it, you haven't provided ME with a single valid reason why I may not think of those deviants just as I please, and give them the evil eye :) and generally just keep as far away from them as possible. And I'm not hiding behind a veneer of religiosity, either, you doofus, since I am far from being any kind of Christian myself.

Freedom cuts both ways, and homosexualists and their apologists need to just live with the fact that there will always be people who will never accept their lifestyle as normal or rational or inconsequential. You can't force anybody to like you. If you can live with that, hey, then there's hope that our democratic ideals may yet carry the day to ensure that everyone can coexist in peace, if not love. If we can agree to disagree on this one, my dear, nuff said.

MizzStarChild
MizzStarChild

@Thetruthteller @MizzStarChildSorry I didn't see in there evidence that it's somehow a threat to someone's life, I just saw that it doesn't fit in with your personal tastes, and your religion. That's not nice to make claims that it threats people's life, and to people who did nothing to you. I thought lying was against one of your religions commandments, along with eating shellfish. I don't mind at all if it's against your religion, I do mind when people force their religion on other people with different beliefs, and use that as an excuse to treat them like crap. If you are against gay relationships because of your religion....

Don't be in one. 

...It's that simple. If it's someone's religion that human sacrifice is okay, sorry that can't be tolerated. The line has to be drawn when you use your religion to harm others.

You certainly could learn a lesson from the time honored tradition of Mind-your-own-business. If it goes against your personal tastes that's not surprising because your straight. Being straight goes against gay people's personal tastes. So trying to pressure them into being straight would be like gay people pressuring you to be gay. That's how they feel. The thing to solve this is to mind your own business, live, and let live.

Everyone has their own personal tastes in what it is they like. If we all treated each other like crap because we like different things it would be a terrible place to live for everyone.

You can't assume everyone is as irrational as you. I am open to evidence, and what is objectively verifiable. I'm willing to change my mind on anything if sufficient evidence verifies it. People sticking their heads in the sand, and choosing to live in LaLa Land where everything they want to be true is automatically true does not help anything. If they were animals on the Serengeti, they would be eaten pretty fast. =) What if people were like, "I don't like having to do my taxes, so I'm going to pretend I don't have to do them." Some people do actually do that, and they wind up being audited.

Outside of religion, there is no rational reason to call gay relationships wrong. The world's largest association of psychologists called the American Psychological Association, have studied gay relationships for decades, and their findings consistently show they are not harmed mentally anymore than being in a straight relationship does anyway. They are not alone. The American Medical Association who focuses on the study of anatomy agree with them. Alnog with every major scientific organization in the country. I can give a list of them with references.

When a relationship is between 2 consenting human adult that are capable of being caring, and responsible there is nothing there to be harmed by.

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@MizzStarChildAh, so now we are having a civil discourse, are we, Misguidedchump? Well, where do I begin, to tell the story of how straight a love can be, the sine qua non to a clueless gay apologist, the simple truth about the way it should all be, where do I start..?

Let’s cut to the chase: I despise homosexuality because 1. the moral code I subscribe to condemns it; 2. it genuinely grates on my straight, testosterone-fueled, masculine nature, and 3. intellectually and aesthetically, it just flies in the face of reason. Look, missy, how can you ascribe validity to a romantic relationship in which the counterparts are not counter, not complementary, not balanced? Look at two “gay” dudes fawning over each other. Do they not represent an altogether redundant (and to moi, also ridiculous) arrangement? (And in the case of lesbians, I’m afraid the image in the minds of many males has been misinformed by pornography – you know, of two drop-dead gorgeous females, au naturel, in their own version of Twister® – ergo, an erotic fantasy [sigh!])   

I know this all means squat in the face of individual prerogative a.k.a. free will, legal entitlement, and the time-honored principle of Mind(ing)-your-own-business, but please realize that, albeit the countless studies that purport to bolster one or the other side of the straight/gay divide, each mind is made up at ground level, with individuals by and large (like Yours Truly) opting to see things based on highly subjective reasoning. Bottom line: no amount of (supposedly empirical) “evidence”, save for the personal, experiential and anecdotal, will serve to change anyone’s mind. But that’s just my take on it.

But, mindful of the above, and taking into account how the “gay” paradigm strikes me (in the craw) in the first place, I, Thetruthteller, consciously refuse to befriend or associate in my business relations with, insofar as possible, admitted homosexuals. I don’t want to eventually cave in and accept the unacceptable out of bonhomie, sympathy or feelings of personal loyalty. I’m no-nonsense like that. (Caveat: is that how true Christians behave? Nyet, since, ideally, they give the best and freely of themselves in order to reach the wayward in compassionate love, and inspiring to goodness, like their Master, with their very lives.)

The ramble aside, on the matter of my uncompromising opposition to homosexuality, I make no apologies. Conversely, I am quite willing to acknowledge your right to maintain your choice of attitude toward the orientation(s) in question, and am also well-disposed to hear you out on why you are thus inclined, if you care to share. I just might learn something. I’ll be waiting. Now, better get meself some caffeine...

MizzStarChild
MizzStarChild

@Thetruthteller Being hateful to two consenting people in love does not save lives. You need to elaborate on what you mean by that, with evidence. Not just because you say so. I know it destroys them with members of a cult disowning their children because because a goat herder somewhere in the desert thousands of years ago thinks gays are bad. Some people might say writing plays about Shakespeare makes you look gay, but that's where your mentality leads. Gay stereotypes like ear rings are incorrect. Ear rings don't make you gay. It may seem a radical way of thinking, but being attracted to people of the same sex makes you gay.

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@MizzStarChildWell, someone's back from the land of the dead to grace us with her enchanting presence once again, emerald lips and all. Rudeness, you say? Hey, Will! Tell Misplacedkid here what you thespians think of the term. W. Shakespeare: Hear ye, Mistresschurl: “This rudeness is a sauce to his good wit, Which gives men stomach to digest his words With better appetite.” It's from a play I'm working on, about Julius Caesar. I'm deliberating over what to call it. Truthteller: How about "Julius Caesar"? Shakespeare: A capital idea! Many thanks, Truthteller! Truthteller: You're welcome. There, see, Missingchimp? Thanks, Bill. And get rid of the earring... makes you look gay, man.

Anyhow, with those niceties out of the way, lemme say that I appreciate it when someone  engages me in a worthwhile dialectic, the more passionate the better, although zeal occupies, for me, a median position between intelligence and knowledge, the former on the higher end. Nevertheless, I trust we can employ good humor to tell each other the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, which happens to be my motto.

But can you handle the truth? You weep for homosexuals, and you curse conservatives. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That prohibition of homosexual liaisons, while tragic (to you-know-who), probably saves lives. And the existence of that intolerance, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at liberal gatherings, you want Shakespeare and me on this forum, you need us on this forum. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of lives spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up your hibiscus flower, and make tea with it. Either way... but we won't go there. Cheers. 



MizzStarChild
MizzStarChild

@Thetruthteller What I said was not out of anger. Its odd you don't notice your own posts because the rudeness I said was a mirror of the rudeness of your own posts. I tolerate beliefs that are just different. What I don't tolerate is hateful, and bigoted comments like that. Gay people are not hurting anyone, or saying hateful things to anyone, like you did. Its 2 consenting people in love. They are not making anyone else be gay, no one will be forced to be gay at they prom if a gay couple shows up.

The lemon test does have a funny name, but its US law that prevents religion being forced on children in schools.

Yes a Christian would think its too Muslim in Saudi Arabia, but that's the thing about theocracies, you don't get to pick the religion you live by. That's how non-believers feel when a Christian tries to force their beliefs on the rest of the population in the US. The nerve you struck was that I care about religious freedom, I don't think that's a bad thing.

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@MizzStarChild One other thing: the hibiscus flower, if eaten instead of drunk as an infusion, can stain the lips an unhealthy cadaver-green, so... oops! too late..! Never mind.

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@MizzStarChildWhat a temper you’ve got there, Misstarchyone. The better to rant and rave at you, Truthteller!

So: took your advice, went to Saudi Arabia, didn’t like it (too many Saudis), came back.

Tested the Lemon Jello®, liked it, had seconds.

But, in all seriousness, madam (hee, hee), you really should go easier on the old spleen, you know, and try to find some tolerance for opposing viewpoints when they come a-knockin’. No need to lose your equanimity over a little dissension now, is there? Unless, of course: 1. the truth touched a nerve, and/or 2. you can’t handle the truth. Quid est veritas?  The plain, unshellacked truth is that homosexuality has a finite shelf life and, out of concern for its proponents, practitioners and promoters (weeell, once I can convincingly do so with charity for all, malice toward none – working on it, working on it...), I proclaim, with steely eye and steady voice, the evils of this sexual deviance and invite its victims to a life of normalcy. It’s for your own good, Misty-eyed.

And btw, I consulted my bedside copy of “Life Cycle of the Botfly”, but could find no reference to that “bot (constitution)” to which you allude, so I surmised that you must have been tending to your collection of botfly larva and thus the Freudian slip. Happens, don’t sweat it...  Now, just where did I put my brain..?


KylerPhoenix
KylerPhoenix

@sean1982 You are a bigot and a wantwit. You make logical fallacy arguments and aren't even smart enough to realize it. Hate and bigotry are abnormal. Procreating us out of a planet is abnormal. You are sick, perverted, and abnormal. You are the cancer on this planet. 

arcadiasilver
arcadiasilver

@layer562 @sean1982  Dan Savage is the worst kind of bully. He openly harasses and mocks trangendered children, bisexuals, queer people of color, fat queers, poor queers, women, and anyone that doesnt fall into his default of white, middle class, good looking gay men. 


He's wholly unliked by most members of the LGBTQIA community, not to mention the It Gets Better monstrosity is his brainchild.  

Thetruthteller
Thetruthteller

@layer562 Well, I'm back. Hmmm... looks like this has bloomed into a full-blown polemic, as expected. Ya gotta admit, though, that the proponents and practitioners of... shall we say, scatological pursuits, have been remarkably restrained and civil in their defense of sexual deviance. But I'm being too snarky. I'll lighten up. How about this? I know on what day of the week all homosexuals were born; it's a proven scientific fact that they were all born on Sunday, to wit:

 “...And the child that is born on the Sabbath day, is bonny and blithe, and good and gay(!)” (Well, I don't know about the bonny part and whatnot, but they sure are GAY.) :)

On another note, I see good old Sean has been waging righteous warfare up and down-thread and, from the tone of his comments, holding his own against Sauron's forces and emerging unscathed. Go, Sean!

As for Danish Sausage, I beg to differ slightly on his coming across as a bully. Rather, methinks he appeared  delicate of gesture, sweetly effeminate in his overall demeanor (he...hee, hee - sorry, couldn't help it -  does have a "husband", after all) and only a tad bitchy (hey! it's in the dictionary) of attitude towards those who dared manifest an alternative opinion. So, that sad shar-pei look of his elicits not rancor, but pity, at least in my manly chest.

Nuff said for now.


jt123
jt123

@sean1982 @jt123 @layer562 Frankly, at a time when the population is growing exponentially and we are going through an energy crisis, I don't think we really need to worry about not having enough fruitfulness.

Just because something isn't necessary for society doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. Eating candy isn't necessary for society, and in fact has negative health impacts. Should eating candy not be allowed?

Saying homosexuality is not good is your opinion. You can't project your opinion onto all of society.

sean1982
sean1982

@jt123 @sean1982 @layer562 

But it isn't equivalent.  One is sterile and one is fruitful.  This is the problem!  It is different!  One is necessary for society and the other isn't.   One is good and the other isn't.  So it does make a difference.  To promote evil is never good.

jt123
jt123

@sean1982 @jt123 @layer562 The homosexual lobby is not promoting homosexuality as good, they're promoting it as equivalent to heterosexuality and deserving of the same rights.

As I've said, it doesn't matter if they're "promoting" it- that won't change anything, because no matter how many times you tell a heterosexual person that homosexuality is super awesome, that's not going to make them magically able to change their sexuality at will.

I've already told you why homosexuality is natural. Feel free to explain why it is bad for society. I'm not sure if you are saying homosexuality in general or homosexual marriage is bad for society, but here's a quote from the 2013 REPUBLICAN party platform on how marriage is beneficial to society: "The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspect" (emphasis added)

Just because something is abnormal doesn't mean it's wrong, so there is no reason that abnormal behavior should be rejected unless you can prove that it is harmful.

sean1982
sean1982

@jt123 @sean1982 @layer562 

Sure, but we shouldn't promote behavior that provides no benefit either.  I wouldn't be involved with this discussion, but for the fact that the homosexual lobby wishes to promote their behavior as a good.  It is unnatural and bad for society, but people want it to be put up on a pedastal with marriage.  This is all about forced acceptance of abnormal behavior.  I choose to be on the side of truth, goodness and beauty.

sean1982
sean1982

@jt123 @sean1982 @layer562 

We know the fruitfulness and good that we all benefit from heterosexual sex, but I find nothing good for society from homosexual sex.

jt123
jt123

@sean1982 @jt123 @layer562 "This is obvious to anyone" Obviously not. If sexual organs were not made for homosexual acts, why would they work for homosexual acts? To continue with your metaphor, let's say the penis is the hammer and the prostate is the nail. That hammer is perfect for hammering that nail. So was the penis made to stimulate the prostate?

sean1982
sean1982

@jt123 @sean1982 @layer562 

You wouldn't use a rope to hammer a nail becuase that is not what the purpose of a rope is for.  But a hammer is perfect for hammering a nail.  Why because it is what the hammer was made for.  Sexual organs are not made for homosexual acts.  This is obvious to anyone.

jt123
jt123

@sean1982 @jt123 @layer562 Oh, that's weird. I just looked up the definition of abnormal and it doesn't include the word "purpose"! Some abnormal is "not normal, average, typical, or usual". Winning an award is not normal, average, typical, or usual, so it could certainly be described as abnormal.

As I said above, under this definition, homosexuality is abnormal because it is not a trait in a majority of the population. Just because something is abnormal doesn't mean it's bad.

sean1982
sean1982

@jt123 @sean1982 @layer562 

Because the pipes don't fit according to their natural purpose.  You are simply arguing that everything is natural which is an absurd position.

jt123
jt123

@sean1982 @jt123 @layer562 Please take a few minutes to find a reputable source to support your opinions. It may surprise you, but merely saying "Not true.  Murder is not natural.  It goes against human nature" is not going to change my mind! Here is an article that discusses the work of neurologists, psychologists, and anthropologists on understanding the history of murder. It does not go against human nature. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080130/full/451512a.html

So if sex for a unitive purpose is natural, why is homosexual sex unnatural if it is for a unitive purpose?

sean1982
sean1982

@jt123 @sean1982 @layer562 

Winning an award is not abnormal, but it is something that occurs less often.  Something is normal or abnormal depends on its purpose.  A persons sexual organs are for unitive and procreative purposes.  It is normal for a male and female to have sex, but it is abnormal for two men or two women to have sex.

sean1982
sean1982

@jt123 @sean1982 @layer562 

Not true.  Murder is not natural.  It goes against human nature. 

Sex has two purpose the unitive and procreative.  The pleasure is for the unitive aspect of the man and woman.

jt123
jt123

@sean1982 @jt123 @layer562 You don't even make sense! If we educate students on gay sex, the only thing that will happen is that gay kids will have safer sex, and hopefully there will be less bullying/emotional trauma to gay kids. They would have had sex anyways, but at least if they're educated they will make smarter choices. Straight kids aren't going to become gay just because they learn that there's nothing wrong with it. You can obviously tell from my comments that I fully support gay rights, and in fact I have for many years, but I remain heterosexual.

Winning awards is an "abnormal" behavior, yet we encourage that in school. Meanwhile, homosexuality is not comparable to adultery or cheating. Your point is illogical.

jt123
jt123

@sean1982 @jt123 @layer562 The first definition of "natural" according to dictionary.com, which lists definitions based on how common they are, is "Existing in or formed by nature". So because something exists in nature does mean it's natural. Again, please stop stating your own opinions as if they magically become facts just because you believe them. And yes, murder is natural.

Also, even if you do define "natural" based on purpose, the purpose of sex organs is reproduction, not pleasure. So by your argument, all sex for pleasure is unnatural. In that case, don't single out gay sex, and don't try to force others to conform to your views.

So you see, there is really nothing wrong with my logic. Your's on the other hand...

sean1982
sean1982

@jt123 @sean1982 @layer562 

If homosexuals would have sex behind closed doors and stop trying to promote this disorder as normal then I wouldn't have a proablem.  The problem is that they want their behavior to be accepted and are using public schools to indoctrinate our children. 

sean1982
sean1982

@jt123 @sean1982 @layer562 

Don't go around telling me homosexuality is normal when it isn't.  We shouldn't be promoting abnormal behavior in schools!  A lot of people like heroin, but I don't think it should be promoted in school.  Or how about promoting adultery in school or cheating or..... I think my point is clear and incontravertable.

sean1982
sean1982

@jt123 @sean1982 @layer562 

It is unnatural because it goes against its purpose.  Because something happens in nature doesn't mean it is natural.  If that is the case then murder is natural.  Your logic is faulty.

jt123
jt123

@sean1982 @jt123 @layer562 I never argued that a penis is "supposed" to go into an anus. I recognize that the evolutionary function of a penis is for urination and reproduction. I'm just saying that there is nothing wrong with using a part of the body in a way other than its evolutionary function.

Anal sex is not "unnatural." The definition of unnatural is something that doesn't occur in nature, and homosexual behavior has been documented in over 1,000 species and is "often a product of natural selection to further the survival of the species". (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

This also makes it unlikely that homosexuality is a mental disorder, not to mention a fact that it is not considered by psychologists or doctors to be one, so I'm not sure why you think you are the ultimate source on what constitutes a mental disorder. Do you have a doctorate in psychology?

It doesn't matter if YOU condone anal sex- if it's consensual, it's really none of your business. If you don't condone anal sex, then don't have it, but don't go around telling other people what to do in their private lives. 

I like how you think you can state your own discriminatory opinions as if they are facts and expect people to just accept that. Sorry for presenting arguments that is actually supported by reliable sources.

sean1982
sean1982

@jt123 @sean1982 @layer562 

He is a bully!  So you are arguing that a penis is supposed to go into an anus.  You sure are a clear thinker.  Ummm, ears are made for sound.  And anal sex is unnatural no matter whose anus it is.  So I do not condone anal sex.  Homosexuality is mental disorder and always will be.  Sorry for saying the truth.

jt123
jt123

@sean1982 @layer562 Dan Savage is not a bully, he is standing up to people who are. If disagreeing with someone or calling them out on intolerance is how you define bullying, I think you need to consult a dictionary.

I'm also not sure how you're defining "normal" and "abnormal". If something "normal" is something that describes a majority of people, then you're correct, homosexuality is "abnormal" or not the norm, because most estimates say that 5-10% of the population is homosexual. However, just because something is abnormal doesn't mean it's bad. By that definition, blue eyes are abnormal, but that doesn't mean they're bad. And like blue eyes, you can't choose whether or not to be  gay. No one is "promoting" it, because you can't promote something that's not a choice. They are just trying to reduce stigma and stop being unconstitutionally denied rights based on discrimination.

Saying "a penis is not made to go into an anus," is a ridiculous argument. Ears are evolutionarily meant to allow us to hear predators and communicate, so does that mean listening to music is wrong because ears weren't made for that? Also, if that's your argument, you should focus on heterosexuals rather than homosexuals because 40% of heterosexual men have had anal sex according to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf). Meanwhile, only 6% of men have had any same-sex sexual behavior, including oral or anal sex, but to be generous, I'll put all of that in the homosexual anal sex category. Therefore, there are at least 6 times as many straight men having anal sex compared to gay men.

Finally, the only thing that is "destructive to body and soul" about being homosexual is when people like you bully, discriminate against, and physically and emotionally harass them.

sean1982
sean1982

@layer562 @sean1982 

Dan Savage is a bully - check out the video.  I don't hate homosexuals, but I do hate what they do.  Just like I don't hate drug addicts, but I hate what they do.  Homosexualith is abnormal and should not be promoted as good.  It is destructive to body and soul.  A penis is not made to go into an anus.  This is not complicated.