Gays at Prom?!

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Y

Youngman

Guest
#1
Um, yeah. I've heard it in the news and on TV and such stuff about gay couples going to prom. In my English class were talking about pros and cons about gays at prom and the only con I can think of is that it says it's a sin in the bible. Most people counter it with 'America isn't based on religion'. I can argue the other way to that but I can't think of any more cons to gays at prom. We're supposed to come up with a list for pro's and con's of gays at prom and I'm doing the con side because it says being gay is a sin in the bible. So I need help with thinking of a better list. Comments from more then one person would be helpful! :D
 
May 15, 2012
87
1
0
#2
Well, it says so in the Bible, and some people will be unhappy about that. You could say that it would screw with the traditional prom king/queen thing, or that it goes against tradition, but that's pretty flimsy. Other than that, I don't really see.

Then again, it also says that slavery is okay in the Bible, and that bit about separation of church and state, so there's not much ground for you to stand on, sorry :(
 
N

Nancyer

Guest
#3
]]Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Isn't that the basic definition of tolerance? Tolerance seems to be getting a bad wrap by some. It doesn't mean we agree or accept another's lifestyle, beliefs or opinions. It means we respect that others have lifestyles, beliefs and opinions. Just because a gay couple wants to attend prom doesn't mean they are making a statement or imposing their own agendas. Nor does it mean that Christians attending the prom agree or approve of that couple's choices, it just means that in this country we are all free to do as we wish without hurting others. There was a time when a black student and white student couldn't attend the prom together. How wrong was that? So I don't see a problem with it, as long as ALL students respect everyone's right to be there and let that be the end of it.
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
#5
The trouble is that I am probably more against proms than I am public acceptance of homosexuality. Ohh, if only Hannah said yes.
 
May 15, 2012
87
1
0
#6
I think the OP is asking for help for why gays at a prom would be a bad thing as part of a school assignment. That being said, I don't think he'll have much success at all.

Also,
Most people counter it with 'America isn't based on religion'. I can argue the other way to that
Ummm, no, you can't really. The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity
 
B

bonnie2

Guest
#7
Not founded on Christianity but certainly on Christian principles.. probably any of our founding fathers, even the ones who were not Christians, would be apalled at the idea of a gay couple attending a prom :( It's not progress, it's degeneration.
 
B

bonnie2

Guest
#8
I don't think they should be allowed to, because I don't think other people should be forced to see that. You don't parade sin, and it is sin. It's not normal and most people would honestly say that they find it very disturbing, if they weren't afraid of all the judgment that would descend on their heads for saying so. "Haters", etc. No, it's not hatred. You still care about the people, but you don't allow them to openly parade their sinful lifestyle. I know most people in the world don't believe it is sin, but it still is, doesn't change the fact, and it's sad that people are so eager to approve of it outwardly nowadays for political correctness.
 
B

bonnie2

Guest
#9
Like we can't read the Bible in public at a school, especially as teachers/ school personnel. Heaven forbid that any child should see that and think that we are encouraging our specific religion, by our personal example of practicing it. That might be offensive!! Well, homosexuality is offensive to me, and to others who may even be afraid to say so. So, if students should be protected from seeing someone reading the Bible, which might offend them; Christians should be protected from having to see gay people advertising their homosexuality, because that certainly is offensive to us Bible-believers. They shouldn't have to be subjected to the constant, subliminal message that homosexuality is a normal, acceptable lifestyle. Seeing a gay couple at a prom could certainly contribute to that. I believe in treating all people with respect and kindness but when sin is present, or even something abnormal (like being in love with a boy when you're a boy) you deal with it, you don't pretend it's normal and fine!
 
Feb 10, 2008
3,371
16
38
#10
The problem is that the question is poorly formed.

If
1) the question is about whether or not gay students should be ALLOWED to go to prom, then the answers would revolve around freedom and who's freedoms are more important/should be honored. However, I went to an incredibly conservative school, and yet know for a fact that several gay people attended my proms(8 years ago). It certainly isn't a new thing to allow them to go. In this case, the only pros and cons are "the gay people are given freedom" or "the non-gay people have their freedoms infringed upon". Not really a topic with room for much discussion.

Or
2) the question is about whether or not gay students just BEING at prom is a good or bad thing, then the answers would revolve around individual behaviors. But unfortunately when you're discussing individuals, you can't address them as "gays" it has to be "this gay" or "that gay" because individual behavior is... individual. And really has nothing to do with being at prom as much as just being in public in general. You could go on and on about this, but having little to do with prom.
 
Last edited:
P

psychomom

Guest
#11
Although the gay couples at prom may not have an agenda, be assured there IS an aganda. Check out a little known book called "Afterthe Ball". Homosexuals in the late 1980s hired some of the best PR people in the country to promote their agenda, and whaddayaknow, it worked!

If Christians have to be tolerant and respectful of non-like minded individuals, why don't they have to be "tolerant" of our beliefs? I hear all the time the gay/straight thing compared to the black/white thing, and reject it as a valid argument. God never said being a person of color is a sin---far from it!

I guess my only suggestion, as a "con" for your list, is that it would make many people uncomfortable, and is disrepectful of their beliefs. (C'mon, Jews, Muslims, and Christians are taught that homosexuality is wrong.)


Good luck, and God bless! ~ellie
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
#12
The problem is that the question is poorly formed.

If
1) the question is about whether or not gay students should be ALLOWED to go to prom, then the answers would revolve around freedom and who's freedoms are more important/should be honored. However, I went to an incredibly conservative school, and yet know for a fact that several gay people attended my proms(8 years ago). It certainly isn't a new thing to allow them to go. In this case, the only pros and cons are "the gay people are given freedom" or "the non-gay people have their freedoms infringed upon". Not really a topic with room for much discussion.

Or
2) the question is about whether or not gay students just BEING at prom is a good or bad thing, then the answers would revolve around individual behaviors. But unfortunately when you're discussing individuals, you can't address them as "gays" it has to be "this gay" or "that gay" because individual behavior is... individual. And really has nothing to do with being at prom as much as just being in public in general. You could go on and on about this, but having little to do with prom.
I see another possibility.

Perhaps the school or some other public entity is pushing for the local homosexuals to attend the prom, thus placing special emphasis on the questions having to do with values and civic intervention.
 

PopClick

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2011
4,056
138
63
#13
May 15, 2012
87
1
0
#14
Bonnie, allow me to slightly rephrase your statements below. Emphasis mine

Not founded on Christianity but certainly on Christian principles.. probably any of our founding fathers, even the ones who were not Christians, would be apalled at the idea of a gay couple attending a prom :( It's not progress, it's degeneration.
Not founded on Christianity but certainly on Christian principles.. probably any of our founding fathers, even the ones who were not Christians, would be apalled at the idea of a mixed couple attending a prom :( It's not progress, it's degeneration.

I don't think they should be allowed to, because I don't think other people should be forced to see that. You don't parade sin, and it is sin. It's not normal and most people would honestly say that they find it very disturbing, if they weren't afraid of all the judgment that would descend on their heads for saying so. "Haters", etc. No, it's not hatred. You still care about the people, but you don't allow them to openly parade their sinful lifestyle. I know most people in the world don't believe it is sin, but it still is, doesn't change the fact, and it's sad that people are so eager to approve of it outwardly nowadays for political correctness.
Forget for a moment that you're talking about gay couples here and think instead of mixed couples between black and white people. I'm sorry, but you are making the same arguments people were making not too long ago as to why blacks should be second class citizens. Should you be forced to look at mixed couples? How is that any different from a gay couple?
Also, do please remember that perhaps those gays don't have the same faith as you, and you can't restrict their freedoms because your religion tells you their behavior is inappropriate, when they might not subscribe to your religion. If they ARE christian, don't you think they're well aware of the fact the Bible says their behavior is sinful by now?
As for political correctness, I think it is about on the same level as denouncing people for their skin color, as it rightly should be.

Like we can't read the Bible in public at a school, especially as teachers/ school personnel. Heaven forbid that any child should see that and think that we are encouraging our specific religion, by our personal example of practicing it. That might be offensive!! Well, homosexuality is offensive to me, and to others who may even be afraid to say so.
Do remember that you can read the Bible in private all you want, so can teachers, but you cannot in state-sponsored public schools be led by a teacher (a figure of authority representing the government) to endorse a religious behavior. That teacher might organize a bible meeting after school hours and say rent a room just the same as any other organizations would like to rent the school, but he cannot have any special privileges because he is a teacher at that school.
If something is offensive to you, I'm sorry, but tough. You have no right to censor others because you don't like something. I personally find gross stupidity offensive (NOT saying you are stupid, far from it) but that doesn't mean I'm going to say people are only allowed to be stupid in private. You have no right not to be offended. You go out in public, you have exactly the same rights as any other individual.

[...] Christians should be protected from having to see gay people advertising their homosexuality, because that certainly is offensive to us Bible-believers. They shouldn't have to be subjected to the constant, subliminal message that homosexuality is a normal, acceptable lifestyle. Seeing a gay couple at a prom could certainly contribute to that. I believe in treating all people with respect and kindness but when sin is present, or even something abnormal (like being in love with a boy when you're a boy) you deal with it, you don't pretend it's normal and fine!
People shouldn't be subjected to the constant obnoxious message that they are sinners in the eyes of God and are going to hell as a result of it. Christians are allowed to air their messages and promote their values in public, and so is everyone else. You cannot silence a minority because you don't agree with them.
Also, would you please present evidence other than what is in the Bible that homosexuality is not normal nor fine?
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Psychomom
Although the gay couples at prom may not have an agenda, be assured there IS an aganda. Check out a little known book called "Afterthe Ball". Homosexuals in the late 1980s hired some of the best PR people in the country to promote their agenda, and whaddayaknow, it worked!

If Christians have to be tolerant and respectful of non-like minded individuals, why don't they have to be "tolerant" of our beliefs? I hear all the time the gay/straight thing compared to the black/white thing, and reject it as a valid argument. God never said being a person of color is a sin---far from it!

I guess my only suggestion, as a "con" for your list, is that it would make many people uncomfortable, and is disrepectful of their beliefs. (C'mon, Jews, Muslims, and Christians are taught that homosexuality is wrong.)


Good luck, and God bless! ~ellie
I'm sorry, because the Bible-thumping Republicans don't have an agenda?
There is also a difference between being accepting and tolerant of other people's beliefs, and letting the Christian majority get away with special privileges. As for God saying being black is not a sin, the Mormons do. Do you think we should respect the Mormon's faith and let them enslave black people because it expressively allows them to in their holy book? Come to think of it, that is also allowed in the Bible's Old Testament...
It would make people uncomfortable, I agree, and that would be a con. However, that is in no way shape or form a valid reason for trying to ban the practice or suppress a gay/LGBTQ person's rights. If Muslims told you that a woman not wearing a veil is disrespectful to their beliefs, do you think we should force women to wear the veil? How is this any different from Christians and LGBTQ people?


"separation of church and state"... where exactly does that statement appear?

Sure he can. Anybody can argue for or against anything at all. ;)
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first amendment of your Constitution? Saying your because I'm Canadian, and we have a Charter of Rights and Freedom, basically the same thing with a different name I think.
And you can argue all you want, but it's beyond reasonable doubt that the founding fathers did NOT want to establish a christian nation.


To all, I'm not attacking your beliefs or saying that they are stupid in any ways, I'm saying it is perfectly all right and reasonable for you as individuals to hold these private convictions. However, the moment you wish to apply those convictions to the public sphere, you'll need a lot more and much better arguments to get there. I also wish to point out that gay marriage has been legal in Canada since 2003, and gay rights is very much a non-issue here. People who don't like homosexuality are not homosexual, and people who do are. LGBTQ don't go out of their way to piss off people, and the people who don't like LGBTQ don't go out of their way to take their rights away. Live and let live, don't like it don't do it, do unto others as you would have done unto you, and don't assume everyone has the same morals as you do.
 

PopClick

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2011
4,056
138
63
#15
Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first amendment of your Constitution? Saying your because I'm Canadian, and we have a Charter of Rights and Freedom, basically the same thing with a different name I think.
The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the first amendment. It's not anywhere in the Constitution. It's not any kind of rule or law... it's just a phrase.

Sorry for derailing, just wanted to point that out.
 
May 15, 2012
87
1
0
#16
The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the first amendment. It's not anywhere in the Constitution. It's not any kind of rule or law... it's just a phrase.

Sorry for derailing, just wanted to point that out.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
I don't know what constitution you're reading, but it is written plain as day in the first amendment, concerning the freedom of religion, press, and expression.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Emphasis mine
Respecting the establishment of religion = the government sponsoring or taking the party of a religion, any religion. Since that is forbidden, it is clear that the government and the church must remain separate. The government cannot pass laws about religious matters, and the church cannot pass laws that would have legal power of all the citizens of the US.
 
Y

Youngman

Guest
#17
Hahaha, ok. Well thanks for all the support guys and girls! I actually posted this as a sort of expirement? Hate me for it or not I wanted to see what Christians would respond to gays at prom. I do actually have that essay and I couldn't think of cons so I figured: Well most Christians dislike the gay lifestyle so let me ask them! And I did. I, in no, disrespect gays or hate gays. I'm actually gay myself. XD I got a lot of interesting feedback, thank you all for responding. :) I'm writing an essay for gays to be allowed to go to prom thus I needed a pro/con list before I could from my teacher.

PS: The separation of church and state?
Directly from Wikipedia: (Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
 
Y

Youngman

Guest
#18
And when I said I could argue otherwise I meant that America was based on so many Christian believes, values, etc, that one could say America is almost a Christian nation
After all references to God appear on our money, in our Pledge of Alligencs (Sorry, I don't know I'd that's spelled correctly), really it's the Church and its followers that oppose Gay Marriage. Because they do oppose it and that's why Gay Marraige hasn't been passed yet. And the only agenda gays have is equal rights. We don't want special privileges, just the ones we've been denied. I don't mean to make this a huge argument but if you want to argue it with me message me or something.
 

PopClick

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2011
4,056
138
63
#19
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
I don't know what constitution you're reading, but it is written plain as day in the first amendment, concerning the freedom of religion, press, and expression.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Emphasis mine
Respecting the establishment of religion = the government sponsoring or taking the party of a religion, any religion. Since that is forbidden, it is clear that the government and the church must remain separate. The government cannot pass laws about religious matters, and the church cannot pass laws that would have legal power of all the citizens of the US.
It is by knowing what the first amendment says, that I know what the first amendment does not say.

My only point is that the phrase "separation of church and state", while used often, and (erroneously) respected as law by some, is not actually in the Constitution.

The main difference between the two phrases ("separation of church and state" and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), is that the first one could (for example) be used to disallow schoolchildren from holding a voluntary bible study on school property. The second one would prevent the government from making laws that say schoolchildren must/may not attend a bible study on school property. They are indeed different.
 
Feb 10, 2008
3,371
16
38
#20
I see another possibility.

Perhaps the school or some other public entity is pushing for the local homosexuals to attend the prom, thus placing special emphasis on the questions having to do with values and civic intervention.
Accepted, though it appears that my confusion was actually well founded and there was some deception in the OP.

If the public entities were pushing it, I can definitely name some cons. Most immediate is a push for "shock" homosexuality (Madonna), especially prevalent at that age. This then leads to a perception that the gay life style is more prevalent in today's culture. A shift in perception leads to many things. In the end, this likely leads to a larger rift forming between religious conservatives and religious liberals/others. If we stretch things a little, a shift in perception leads to more people accepting homosexuality as a choice, which leads to more people living homosexual lives, which leads to fewer people honoring an institution put in place by God himself. Thus sin abounds, and with sin, suffering.

That's a pretty big con. Then again, it's all hypothetical anyways, Ritter's alternative wasn't the true one.