WND are a bunch of assholes ; Kids attend "prom from hell"

2009-06-14 12:11:45

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5993

Family advocates are outraged by a prom held at Boston City Hall that was open to children apparently as young as 12 featuring crossdressers, homosexual heavy petting, suspected drug use and a leather-clad doorman who teaches sexual bondage classes.

MassResistance, an organization that describes itself as a pro-family action center, sent a 20-year-old college student named Max to the prom to take pictures and learn more about what Massachusetts children were doing there.

What other people do with their lives is no business of mine as long as it doesn't affect me. But why would you send somebody there to take pictures of people who obviously went to an event to be with similar types of people then post them on the internet? One of the pictures they posted was of a 14 year old kid. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuals (I'm not a huge fan) going to one of their private events and taking pictures of them for the whole world to see is a real fucked up move.

gg WND, you are only going to help get homosexual marriage passed by doing shit like this.

2009-06-14 12:14:27

#2

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6813|North Carolina

Um.... I'll put it this way. I would actually assume that this would have the opposite effect on gay marriage.

Allowing children to go to something like this was extremely bad judgment, and with a media spread on this, there will most likely be a rise in hate toward homosexuals and other people outside of the sexuality mainstream.

2009-06-14 12:18:06

#3

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5993

Turquoise wrote:
Um.... I'll put it this way. I would actually assume that this would have the opposite effect on gay marriage.

Allowing children to go to something like this was extremely bad judgment, and with a media spread on this, there will most likely be a rise in hate toward homosexuals and other people outside of the sexuality mainstream.

I'll venture to say when people see the religious groups do things like this (post pictures of kids at private events) most people will say "Wow the religious groups are some real dicks." from there you would argue they went to a private event and nobody was hurt. If any violence comes from this it'll be because WND posted pictures of people from the event.

But I don't feel like debating human nature.

2009-06-14 12:20:20

#4

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6945|Long Island, New York

Reasons like this are why I can't help but laugh when lowing (or anyone, he just happens to do it more than often) uses WND as a source and tries to pass it off as credible.

2009-06-14 12:20:53

#5

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6813|North Carolina

Macbeth wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Um.... I'll put it this way. I would actually assume that this would have the opposite effect on gay marriage.

Allowing children to go to something like this was extremely bad judgment, and with a media spread on this, there will most likely be a rise in hate toward homosexuals and other people outside of the sexuality mainstream.
I'll venture to say when people see the religious groups do things like this (post pictures of kids at private events) most people will say "Wow the religious groups are some real dicks." from there you would argue they went to a private event and nobody was hurt. If any violence comes from this it'll be because WND posted pictures of people from the event.

But I don't feel like debating human nature.

Logically, that would make more sense, but people tend to be illogical about things they don't understand.

With the innate prejudice most people have of homosexuals and many sexual fetishes, throwing children into the picture basically becomes the breaking point for many people.

This event would have been less controversial if only kids 16 and up were allowed, but when 12 year olds start showing up, people are gonna freak out.

2009-06-14 12:25:06

#6

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5993

Turquoise wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Um.... I'll put it this way. I would actually assume that this would have the opposite effect on gay marriage.

Allowing children to go to something like this was extremely bad judgment, and with a media spread on this, there will most likely be a rise in hate toward homosexuals and other people outside of the sexuality mainstream.
I'll venture to say when people see the religious groups do things like this (post pictures of kids at private events) most people will say "Wow the religious groups are some real dicks." from there you would argue they went to a private event and nobody was hurt. If any violence comes from this it'll be because WND posted pictures of people from the event.

But I don't feel like debating human nature.
Logically, that would make more sense, but people tend to be illogical about things they don't understand.

With the innate prejudice most people have of homosexuals and many sexual fetishes, throwing children into the picture basically becomes the breaking point for many people.

This event would have been less controversial if only kids 16 and up were allowed, but when 12 year olds start showing up, people are gonna freak out.

Maybe, but again debating human nature and predicting responses is damn near impossible. But even so you do agree that what WND did was completely uncalled for, right?

2009-06-14 12:26:31

#7

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6813|North Carolina

Macbeth wrote:
Maybe, but again debating human nature and predicting responses is damn near impossible. But even so you do agree that what WND did was completely uncalled for, right?

Yes. I think WND is intentionally trying to create a situation of conflict. If you read between the lines, WND would seem to be run by people that would be happy to see homosexuals get abused.

2009-06-14 12:27:08

#8

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7169

who funded this prom? tax dollars? i.e. from the school fund

2009-06-14 12:31:22

#9

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5993

usmarine wrote:
who funded this prom? tax dollars? i.e. from the school fund

Eh didn't want to post the article for the reasons I mentioned but it wouldn't make a difference anyway.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vi … eId=100806

2009-06-14 12:34:09

#10

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7169

here is what I don't get I guess.

a) they seem to have no problem getting their pics taken

b) wanna bet how many of them have myspace/facebook with similar pics

------------------------------

i know they were doing this to be assholes dont get me wrong, but i dont see the big deal.

2009-06-14 12:39:45

#11

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5993

usmarine wrote:
here is what I don't get I guess.

a) they seem to have no problem getting their pics taken

b) wanna bet how many of them have myspace/facebook with similar pics

------------------------------

i know they were doing this to be assholes dont get me wrong, but i dont see the big deal.

A) Whenever I take pictures I don't plan for them to be posted on the internet for some anti-me agenda.
B) It's on their terms though, they're giving their consent and using their own images for their own purpose to only be seen by their selected friends and such, that is if they're still not closeted.

2009-06-14 12:41:08

#12

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7169

ya i understand....but you dont go out in public like that and expect not to have pics taken. i mean come on, every phone has a camera ffs.

2009-06-14 12:50:51

#13

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6813|North Carolina

usmarine wrote:
ya i understand....but you dont go out in public like that and expect not to have pics taken. i mean come on, every phone has a camera ffs.

I hear ya. Still, I think the difference is the tone shown in the article.

The one good thing about all this is that the readership of WND isn't particularly large and is generally reserved for people who already don't like gays anyway.

2009-06-14 12:55:03

#14

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6109|College Park, MD

"Note: This story contains material that readers might consider graphic and offensive. "

that was about as graphic as an episode of the backyardigans

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-06-14 13:33:25

#15

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7059|USA

Macbeth wrote:
Family advocates are outraged by a prom held at Boston City Hall that was open to children apparently as young as 12 featuring crossdressers, homosexual heavy petting, suspected drug use and a leather-clad doorman who teaches sexual bondage classes.

MassResistance, an organization that describes itself as a pro-family action center, sent a 20-year-old college student named Max to the prom to take pictures and learn more about what Massachusetts children were doing there.
What other people do with their lives is no business of mine as long as it doesn't affect me. But why would you send somebody there to take pictures of people who obviously went to an event to be with similar types of people then post them on the internet? One of the pictures they posted was of a 14 year old kid. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuals (I'm not a huge fan) going to one of their private events and taking pictures of them for the whole world to see is a real fucked up move.

gg WND, you are only going to help get homosexual marriage passed by doing shit like this.

Maybe it is none yor business, or mine, but a 12 and 14 year olds business when it included drug abuse? is the business of the parents and the police.

2009-06-14 13:36:43

#16

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7059|USA

Poseidon wrote:
Reasons like this are why I can't help but laugh when lowing (or anyone, he just happens to do it more than often) uses WND as a source and tries to pass it off as credible.

For once, before I die, try and knock the information rather than the source. I don't care who writes the articles, I care or not if it is true. I wish you felt the same way. Your arguments againsts posts would be much more interesting.

If a source is conservative or liberal does not matter, if what they say true is the is what matters.

2009-06-14 13:38:56

#17

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5993

lowing wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Family advocates are outraged by a prom held at Boston City Hall that was open to children apparently as young as 12 featuring crossdressers, homosexual heavy petting, suspected drug use and a leather-clad doorman who teaches sexual bondage classes.

MassResistance, an organization that describes itself as a pro-family action center, sent a 20-year-old college student named Max to the prom to take pictures and learn more about what Massachusetts children were doing there.
What other people do with their lives is no business of mine as long as it doesn't affect me. But why would you send somebody there to take pictures of people who obviously went to an event to be with similar types of people then post them on the internet? One of the pictures they posted was of a 14 year old kid. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuals (I'm not a huge fan) going to one of their private events and taking pictures of them for the whole world to see is a real fucked up move.

gg WND, you are only going to help get homosexual marriage passed by doing shit like this.
Maybe it is none yor business, or mine, but a 12 and 14 year olds business when it included drug abuse? is the business of the parents and the police.

Ok, contact the police rather then taking pictures for the internet.

2009-06-14 13:51:50

#18

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7059|USA

Macbeth wrote:
lowing wrote:
Macbeth wrote:

What other people do with their lives is no business of mine as long as it doesn't affect me. But why would you send somebody there to take pictures of people who obviously went to an event to be with similar types of people then post them on the internet? One of the pictures they posted was of a 14 year old kid. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuals (I'm not a huge fan) going to one of their private events and taking pictures of them for the whole world to see is a real fucked up move.

gg WND, you are only going to help get homosexual marriage passed by doing shit like this.
Maybe it is none yor business, or mine, but a 12 and 14 year olds business when it included drug abuse? is the business of the parents and the police.
Ok, contact the police rather then taking pictures for the internet.

or send the pics/video to the police or parents and not the net, yeah ya got me on that point.

2009-06-14 14:18:36

#19

TopHat01: Limitless; +117|6312|CA

Is "heavy petting" a crime?

Check out my YouTube channel

2009-06-14 14:55:24

#20

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6945|Long Island, New York

lowing wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
Reasons like this are why I can't help but laugh when lowing (or anyone, he just happens to do it more than often) uses WND as a source and tries to pass it off as credible.
For once, before I die, try and knock the information rather than the source. I don't care who writes the articles, I care or not if it is true. I wish you felt the same way. Your arguments againsts posts would be much more interesting.

If a source is conservative or liberal does not matter, if what they say true is the is what matters.

Of course you don't care who writes the articles.

Because every time they're heavily biased.

But of course you don't mind that.

2009-06-14 15:01:10

#21

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6853|The Land of Scott Walker

TopHat01 wrote:
Is "heavy petting" a crime?

Depends on one's definition and if anyone underage was involved ...

2009-06-14 15:25:02

#22

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6109|College Park, MD

what the fuck is "heavy petting"?

2009-06-14 18:07:33

#23

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7008|132 and Bush

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
what the fuck is "heavy petting"?

the activity of kissing and touching someone sexually

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-06-14 18:15:27

#24

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|7057

Is that illegal? If they're both minors I mean.

2009-06-14 18:33:00

#25

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6813|North Carolina

ghettoperson wrote:
Is that illegal? If they're both minors I mean.

Sex laws dictate that sex or sexual contact with a minor (even involving just another minor) is illegal. However, it's almost never enforced.

In general, the law is there to prevent adults from having sex with minors.

Of course, the age of consent varies from state to state, so it can get quite complicated.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-06-14 18:33:42)

BF2S Forums WND are a bunch of assholes ; Kids attend "prom from hell"

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

usmarine wrote:

usmarine wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

lowing wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

TopHat01 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Board footer