Lesbians Voted Cutest Yearbook Couple, Category Eliminated

[Premmy]

That''s some straight up bullshit, they're just two kids who love each other, I'm glad they got put back in.
personal anecdote.
interestingly enough, there's a good amount of lesbians in my current school. I'm pretty cool with them, since a few of them are friends with me. I was walking with a (heterosexual) girl to her locker, cause well, she's cute. and we happened to pass by a lesbian couple hugging,in the romantic way not the way many straight girls hug each other, the girl with me made a face, then went "ewww" when they were out of earshot.
the resulting conversation went like this.
Premo: What's with you?
girl: why do they have to do that?
Premo: what, hug?
girl: yeah it's so nasty.
Premo: they love each other, or at least they're attracted to each other peopel who like each other hug.
girl: yeah it's just wierd, why do they have to do it in public
Premo: (evil face) and fuck occasionally.
girl: eeeeeww
I've had several conversations with this same girl on the issue, usually because said lesbians greet me in the halls as I walk past.
they all go the same.

[Lady Cygnet]

I don't understand why Waukegan considers this such a big deal. So one set of the couple's parents is in denial--so what? The family is going to have to come to terms with it one way or another. She may be exploring her sexuality, but it may be that she has also discovered a warm, loving relationship that is worth her time, effort, and attention--it has been known to happen, even in heterosexual couples that young. Anyway, I will admit that if it were my daughter, I'd be might be disappointed at first, but I'd get over my own feelings to be there for her.

My own feelings regarding their cuteness aside (I think they look like sisters), I think that the category should have been kept in from the start. From what I read, there was no rule limiting the category to heterosexual couples, so there was no excuse for dropping it. In fact, I was more offended by the inclusion of a "best body" category...but that's another issue for another discussion.

[Osterbaum]

I am with the crowd on this one. What's wrong with the cutest couple being lesbian?

Let's assume for a second, that they were infact voted in the yearbook just as a statement, just to fight 'the norms' and to rebel a bit (which to me, given the info we have, seems unlikely). So what? Like this Fox guy, whoever he is, said that kids do it all the time, they find ways to rebel and what is usually done to those things? Assuming they're just peacefull little protests and/or statements propably not much if anything. So why should anything be done in this case?

And if things are as I believe they are and the matter is just quite so simple that they really are the cutest couple at that High-School, then I really don't see a matter to debate conserning wether they should or should not be in the yearbook.

It's actually kinda boring, that nobody seems to disagree about this matter. So there isn't really a debate going on here, is there.

I suppose that's better for a change.

As to the matter of, for example, the nerdy kid getting voted as most popular as a joke, then I really do have to say it wouldn't play out well for the nerdy kid in the end. Most likely.

[Seil]

See the video here.

[Donomni]

Tried, but no go.

There ya go.

Those girls deserve that place in the yearbook, really.

And, uh, lolBill, obviously.

[Tyrfing]

"One girl's mom wouldn't have wanted all the attention drawn to it," Blair said. "We were trying to prevent anyone getting embarrassed."

Trying to prevent the parent from getting embaresed? Doesn't that seem like the wrong way around? Or is it somehow a stigma to have a gay child? It obviously doesn't embarrass the kids...

Following a yearbook tradition at the school, during a week in October students wrote their nominations in 25 categories on a write-in ballot. The categories included "best dancer," "best body" and "biggest flirt." While parental consent has not been an issue for categories, the yearbook staff has omitted some winners in the past if they thought students voted for them as a joke. For example, shy nerds have been vote leaders in previous "most popular" balloting.

This is George Bush’s America™ where ballots follow the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Counting the number of votes causes them to change…

Originally Posted by Fox News

So the self-proclaimed lesbians

Who else was going to do it? Do you need the oppinion of a third party these days?

At first, school officials tried to ban the category, but finally relented despite a parental objection.

The first article said "Wouldn't have wanted" not "Objected to"... or is that too subtle a distinction to care about?

Now, I'm saying this with all due respect to these two 17-year old girls. I don't want to sound mean, condescending, or all that. I want to give you the thing.

"To read makes our speaking English ...good".

O'REILLY: ...you have to respect their point of view because it is a valid point of view. And let me tell you what the point of view is.

Yes. In the same way that they are respecting this couple.

O'REILLY: Three, an exposition of sexuality in a minor - and that's very important - in a minor situation is inappropriate in an academic setting. All of those things are valid, doctor...

OK then, let's remove the category... and while where their ban all contact between ... everyone in case they (horror of horrors) date. Because that's just not done in Highschool is it?

O'REILLY: Look, I've been very consistent on this since my first book was written. I think private behavior belongs in private settings.

BERMAN: Right.

O'REILLY: I don't think it belongs in the high school yearbook.

BERMAN: But you'd be OK with the cutest couple, heterosexual couple, though.

O'REILLY: I would be

Firstly: He wrote a book? Was it about a dog and a big red ball?
Secondly: Private Behaviour? They weren't feeling each other up in the lunch hall or anything were they? I don't see that the existence of a homosexual relationship should in and of itself be Private Behaviour.

The whole next section defies sardonic comment so:

BERMAN: They're not flaunting their sexuality any more or any less than a heterosexual couple might.

O'REILLY: You're dismissing all - look, I'm not - look, I don't want any kid to be bullied. I wrote "Kids are Americans, Too" for gay kids who are getting bullied. They should read the boo, know their rights. I don't want anything like that to happen.

Why are they getting bullied? Well firstly because all children are bullied, for petty and insignificant reasons. If you mean why are they generally bullied more? Well he need look no further than his own attitude and those that are, even a little, extreme than his.

O'REILLY: All right, doctor, that's the old argument. Let's legalize drugs because it happens anyway. There's got to be boundaries.

BERMAN: Drugs are not the same. Homosexuality is not illegal.

And you can't cause Homosexuality either. You can make people less miserable about it (if you are tolerant enough then they can even feel happy about it). I think he's confusing "more homosexuals" with "more out homosexuals". Just because people can now feel safe enough to come out does not mean that they were not there before. I keep hearing about 60 year old fathers who are only now feeling able to acknowledge their sexuality this ... repression has obviously caused no end of problems.

O'REILLY: All right, always great to talk to you, by the way. A very good debate.

What?

Originally Posted by Demetrius

I feel the need to state my views on minorities and deviations from the perceived "norm." If you are something be it, when your actions suit your reality, you don't need to shout out at the top of your lungs, "I AM DIFFERENT! LOOK AT ME BEING DIFFERENT!" It causes and enforces prejudices and gets in the way of you being you, because you're too busy informing people of who you are.

No one is shouting, no one even made an issue of it untill the year book guys started saying "Veto lol".

Originally Posted by Demetrius

That being said, "You're gay, whopee... You can go to the parade now, and make snide comments about us breeders because you are somehow better than me."

If you say so... um... Your response was a non-sequitor! Ha... I guess I can't.

Originally Posted by Demetrius

the Doctor says that coming out is difficult and cites percentages on the crap that the depressed kids do, but what would happen if there was no such thing as "coming out?" What would happen if kids didn't know how difficult it was supposed to be to express themselves? What would happen then?

You fix the world and we'll alll live in it.

Originally Posted by Demetrius

How easily can you treat someone fairly when you're thinking, "They're gay I've got to treat them extra fairly."

How is announcing (not in a special way just by the normal procedure) that the winners of a vote won being treated "extra fairly"?

Originally Posted by Donomni

Tried, but no go.

There ya go.

Those girls deserve that place in the yearbook, really.

And, uh, lolBill, obviously.

...Fox News? Fair and balanced? *sigh* Since when is the evening news a soapbox?

Told you it was long

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Talking about preferential behavior, tweaking people's views, support systems or lack thereof, the difficulty and depression associated with the whole stigma, this actually making it to national news. I am of the opinion that by making this an issue it further cements it as an issue in people's minds.

When you take away anyone who supports homosexuality being acceptable, then all you leave is people who are against homosexuality being supported. That latter of which will not stop if you ask them politely.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

How is someone like O'reilly, who is blantantly homophobic and discriminatory allowed to continue on TV?

[Mesden]

Fox News.

[Lord of Joshelplex]

Originally Posted by Mesden

Fox News.

Is Fox always like that? never watch it so I wouldnt know.