School Crowns Nation’s First Lesbian Homecoming Couple

by Jesse Galef -

Want a heartwarming story of progress? Patrick Henry High School in San Diego just made history by crowning the nation’s first lesbian homecoming couple. The students voted Rebeca Arellano (left, below) Homecoming King last Friday, and this week they named her girlfriend Haileigh Adams Homecoming Queen.

What a sign of the times. We already know that younger generations are more supportive of GLBT rights, but this goes above and beyond.

The two girls told ABC News that they’re thankful for the abundance of support they’ve received from family, friends, and students and staff at the school.

Arellano said one of her teachers told her, “Today school is a bit better because of you girls.”

Arellano’s Facebook wall is covered with congratulatory notes from her friends.

Check out the video as Haileigh was named Homecoming Queen to join her girlfriend — the crowd is chanting her name and cheering.  Be forewarned, it gets loud:

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

I admit, I choked up a bit reading about this story.

Sure, there were a few naysayers. But nothing the students couldn’t handle. Arellano, responding to some negative criticism, delivered some Truth (with a capital T) on her Facebook wall:

For all the girls who think tradition should be continued, go back to the kitchen, stop having sex before you’re married, get out of school and job system, don’t have an opinion, don’t own any property, give up the right to marry who you love, don’t vote, and allow your husband to do whatever he pleases to you. Think about the meaning of tradition when you use it in your argument against us.

Want hope for the country? This is what the younger generations are like.

(Image from the LA Times Courtesy of Rebeca Arellano)

About Jesse Galef

Jesse is a career atheist, and is currently Communications Director for the Secular Student Alliance. Before that, he worked for the Secular Coalition for America and the American Humanist Association. He also blogs about science, philosophy, and rationality at Measure of Doubt with his sister Julia.
(The views expressed are not representing the Secular Student Alliance or any other organization.)

  • Anonymous

    Why would anyone not support lesbians? I love lesbians. I spend hours on the internet observing them.

    • Anonymous

      …Or we could support lesbians because they’re people who often get mistreated and deserve the support, and not just because they’re in porn.

      • ara

        agreed.  Let’s not trivialize the issue of gay rights with “chick on chick action rocks!”

      • Sulris Campbell

        his off-color humor did not imply that we should not also support lesbians for those other reasons.  quite frankly your reading alot of stuff into his comment that just isnt there

    • Nena

      Yes, we should support lesbians because they provide masturbation fodder for men. 

      Jerk.

      And for the record – I am bisexual and I have no problem with men enjoying my bisexuality. But I don’t think it has any bearing on my worth as a human.

  • http://twitter.com/0xabad1dea Melissa E

    So amazing to hear a LGBT story about a high school that’s GOOD news.

    And RE: that Truth, you tell them, girl!

  • http://www.facebook.com/keithacollyer Keith Collyer

    Notice the Queen is wearing a cross pendant. That must annoy some people as well. You can imagine the response “She can’t wear that, she can’t be a Christian if she is a lesbian!”

    • Dave

      Sure she can, Leviticus 18 doesn’t say anything about two women :)

    • http://anonatheist.wordpress.com/ Mike Hunt

      I saw that and wonder why anyone would want to wear the religious symbolism of their oppressors.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kenneth-Dunlap/1418932885 Kenneth Dunlap

        I’d give a +10 if I could…

      • http://www.quietatheist.com/ Slugsie

        That is exactly what I thought when I saw the picture.

  • http://twitter.com/FelyxLeiter Felyx Leiter

    I’m smiling so hard after reading this, my face hurts.  Congratulations to the King and Queen (and kudos on that smackdown of “tradition”) and to all of Patrick Henry High.  Young people like you make me believe there’s hope for humanity yet.

    • Apologeticsdisciple

      How would “non-traditionalists”, if that’s what one wants to call it, respond to this: God created male and female to be together, not male with male, not female with female. He created them in His image…meaning, distinct but united…God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are distinct but united…male and female are distinct but united in marriage. They become “one”. Every homosexual relationship, which the biblical God did not design,  can not escape the “male” and “female” image even when it is  2 males or 2 females involved. It seems to have a “husband” role (or masculine role) and a “wife” role (or feminine role). Just to use the illustration given above, it is a “king” and a “queen”. Have you noticed that not even a homosexual relationship can escape the way God intended a holy love/sexual relationship, united in marriage, to be…a “male” and a “female”…why else does there seem to be a “masculine” role and a “feminine role” even in homosexual relationships if God did not create male to be with female?

      This post is designed to stimulate “friendly” dialogue and thought…not bashing arguments or name calling. I chose to respond to this site because of the website name, “friendly atheist”. I believe this dialogue, though we know their is going to be different worldviews, can still be friendly and not have to resort to name calling and the like. That kind of thing never helps either sides.

      • Rich Wilson

        God created

        There’s our first disagreement.

        Every homosexual relationship, which the biblical God did not design,  can not escape the “male” and “female” image

        Nope.  I know gay couples where both people work outside the home for financial compensation, and both people also take care of the home.  Neither has a ‘male’ or ‘female’ role.  They’re both men in the once case, and women in the other.

        I also know ‘straight’ couple where the woman is out earning money and the man is at home taking care of the kids.

        That we as a society apply ‘King’ and ‘Queen’ is meaningless.  The Russian language has three genders, male, female, and neuter.  You gave the example of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Does that we should have family units of three?  Or do the kids count as #3?  For infertile couples, can pets take the place of kids?

        Not meaning to be unfriendly- just trying to reply to your serious questions with some equally serious answers and questions of my own.

        • Apologeticsdisciple

          Thank you so much for your comments and your friendliness. I appreciate what you have to say. I look forward to thinking about your questions. I also appreciate that we can all dialogue in a mature way.

          • Alla & Greg M

            It seems strange to offer god argument on atheists’ website.

          • Starfish

            Let me assure you that in my happily queer marriage neither of us is the “man”. We’re both women.  That’s sort of the point.

            Gender roles, as I think you’re defining them, are socially constructed. There’s nothing inherently masculine about doing home repair or auto repair or earning the bulk of the family income. I’m not really certain what you’re considering a “masculine” role, but the things typically associated that way really aren’t inherently male. It’s just that our society has decided that they are.

      • Anonymous

        It seems to have a “husband” role (or masculine role) and a “wife” role (or feminine role)

        No, it doesn’t. Take this couple. Both look butch on the surface. There are also couples with two feminine women. Or two masculine men. How they look doesn’t tell you anything about the “roles” they take. When it comes to housework for example, they can’t necessarily fall back on gender stereotypes. If anything having to talk about the division of labor is a good thing and leads to a more egalitarian relationship.

        Not even all heterosexual relationships fit into your ridiculous, antiquated world view. There are couples where the woman works and the man stays at home to take care of the children. Or where both partners work

        • ara

          both look butch on the surface?  I’d say those are more likely both femme.  Or to get away from those monikers, they both look like “cute girls at prom”

          just because they both have short “boyish” hair cuts, they aren’t necessarily butch.  You might want to look over the history of butch-femme sexuality.

          • Anonymous

            That’s pretty much what I meant actually. I just didn’t elaborate on it.

            They may look a bit more masculine, especially with the hair, but that isn’t necessarily how they feel

      • James

        You talk from a premise that there is a thing called god. First of all, we don’t know that. So your arguments are moot because they are based on hearsay. 

        • TruthAndLogic

          Arguments that stem from God’s existence are not hearsay…God’s existence is evident from empirical and forensic data…arguments can be made from Cosmology, Teleology, Morality, Ontology, etc…I could go on and on about this…

          …and to claim that God does not exist would require some serious evidence, even if you say we “don’t know for sure,” you would still have to provide plausible evidence in order to live as though He does not exist…and that is a task that can not be done.

          Allow me to provide the following, which by no means is meant to be an attack on any group of people, it is simply a matter of logic and rationality…

          It comes down to this: Humans are here in one of two ways. Supernatural (God) or natural (Darwinian Evolution)…and even if I granted you that Darwinian evolution was true, which it is not, but just for the sake of argument if it was,  homosexuality would cease to exist because based on Darwinian evolution, only those who can reproduce their genetic offspring into the next generation, would continue to survive…

          So even if you have volitional reasons for denying God’s existence, you still have to explain how homosexuality would survive and pass there genes to the next generation, if left to their own devices…

          • ara

            not one of the types of argument for god that you listed stand up to even the most basic refutations…

            apologetics simply doesn’t work.  if you want to get into an epistemological argument regarding the value of faith based knowledge, that would at least be a little more interesting.

            regarding homosexuality’s failure to produce and “evolving away,” you’re ignoring how genetics actually works.  It’s not as simple as “x doesn’t allow for individuals of type x to produce, therefore individuals of type x will go extinct.”  The number of additional factors is huge.

            Finally, atheists aren’t the holders of any of the burden of proof for any deity’s existence.  You posit the existence of a thing, therefore you have to provide evidence for its existence… and, to go back to the beginning of my post, none of your listed types of arguments have any real merit in serious philosophy.

            • ara

              also, what’s with all the god botherers, Hemant?  Is this our reward for following you to patheos?

              • Rich Wilson

                Most of them don’t stay long.

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kenneth-Dunlap/1418932885 Kenneth Dunlap

                At least it makes things interesting … sometimes… in theory…

                • Anonymous

                  Just don’t reply in detail to him when it comes to evidence for god, evolution, etc. It’s  completely pointless.

                  Don’t let him take this thread off topic

              • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

                They would’ve been around, anyway. Not Patheos’ fault.

          • Rich Wilson

            The reason that you don’t think evolution is true is probably that you don’t understand it.  I’m sure you think you understand it, but you don’t.

            The argument that evolution means that homosexuality would cease to exist is based on incorrect assumptions about Darwinian evolution.  This is best addressed in “The Selfish Gene”.

            You’re also off the mark with God or Darwinian Evolution.  Lots of theists (most Catholics e.g.) think God created the first life, but then it evolved.

          • Bstrauss

            If you could please provide a link or the information to where Cosmology “proves” a deities existence, then that would be very helpful. 

            The other disciplines you have listed at along the lines of philosophy and you cannot compare philosophical “evidence” to biological evidence. One is more esoteric in nature and the other is empirical. 

            The idea that homosexuality would be “evolved” away is not what evolution actually teaches. Would a gay couple not be able to reproduce and therefore pass on their genes? Yes, they would not. But does that mean that a heterosexual couple couldn’t produce a homosexual child? Of course not. Homosexuality is genetic, as it has been proven multiple times, and is a mutation in that child’s genetic code. So just because a gay couple can’t have children, which they could if you think of all the ways it is possible with modern technologies, doesn’t mean that homosexuality is going to just “evolve” away. It’s a naturally occurring thing.

          • Trickster Goddess

            Humans are here in one of two ways. Supernatural (God) or natural
            (Darwinian Evolution)…and even if I granted you that Darwinian
            evolution was true, which it is not, but just for the sake of argument
            if it was,  homosexuality would cease to exist because based on
            Darwinian evolution, only those who can reproduce their genetic
            offspring into the next generation, would continue to survive…

            Dear TruthAndLogic,

            If we assume your statement is true and given that gay people exist, then it logically follows that God created gay people.

            • Amy Caswell

              ^^^This is the exact same thing I thought when I first read that. lulz

          • http://twitter.com/Grikmeer Rob Grikmeer

            Sibling share genes; gay people have a tendency to be devoted to their nieces and nephews, who carry some of their genes, including quite possibly one which can cause homosexuality. Evolved homosexuality route 1.

            Everyone on Earth has at least one X Chromosome. A gene on the X chromosome which causes women to be more ‘feminine’ can be passed on to her son and potentially tilt towards homosexuality. Evolved homosexuality route 2.

            When a pregnant woman carries a son in her womb her body occasionally reacts badly to the different chemistry of the male embryo and develops antibodies. More sons would result in greater numbers of antibodies that could cause some changes. Evolved homosexuality route 3.

            These are all hypotheses which are being studied. I am not going to say that any one of these is exclusive, they may all be a reason for homosexuality or none of them could be. But given that the evidence for evolution is much more prevalent than the evidence for any god from Zeus to Thor, from Jesus to Cthulhu, if these aren’t the answer then something else that scientists haven’t thought of is already out there, and it’s (almost certainly) not going to be God.

          • Anonymous

            Arguments that stem from God’s existence are not hearsay…God’s existence is evident from empirical and forensic data…arguments can be made from Cosmology, Teleology, Morality, Ontology, etc…I could go on and on about this…

            Please do.  Please produce your evidence that God exists.  I for one would love to have it presented and discussed.  While you’re at it can you also define what you mean when you say “God” because the term has several meanings and I want to be sure that we’re talking about the same thing.

            …and to claim that God does not exist would require some serious evidence, even if you say we “don’t know for sure,” you would still have to provide plausible evidence in order to live as though He does not exist…and that is a task that can not be done. 

            No we don’t.  Your claim is that “God exists”.  There is no counter claim, only scepticism.  You say: “God exists”.  We say: “prove it”.

            It comes down to this: Humans are here in one of two ways. Supernatural (God) or natural (Darwinian Evolution)

            You’re jumping ahead.  What is this “supernatural” that you speak of?  Where is the evidence for it?  Where can it be observed, measured, tested and verified?  Evolution is testable, observable, completely verifiable.  We understand, to the very best of our scientific knowledge, that evolution is true and that all species, including humans, evolved.  There is no eitheror here.  This is fact.

            even if I granted you that Darwinian evolution was true…homosexuality would cease to exist because based on Darwinian evolution, only those who can reproduce their genetic offspring into the next generation, would continue to survive…

            What do you do for a living?  Let’s assume that you’re a blacksmith because it is easy to use as an example.  Do you think that your children will be blacksmiths too?  Do you think that other behaviours will be repeated in your offspring?  Will your hypothetical love of classical music transfer to those you sire?  You’ve confused Lamarkism with evolution.  Try again.

            So even if you have volitional reasons for denying God’s existence, you still have to explain how homosexuality would survive and pass there genes to the next generation, if left to their own devices…

            Actually we don’t.  Some people are gay.  If this is because of an evolutionary reason and we wanted to look for it then we may be able to find an answer.  There may be environmental reasons for homosexuality.  There may be sociological reasons or psychological reasons.  It may be that everyone is a bit gay and some people are simply more gay than others.  We don’t have to explain anything.  You’re the one who is taking a fact (some people are gay) and trying to deny it.  Get over it.

          • Anonymouse

            LogicAndTruth, you only believe in your god because you were raised in a world where christianity exists. Had you been raised in a world completely devoid of religion and religious influences, would you believe it if someone walked up to you and told you that there was a magic being in the sky who hated shrimp, gays, and mixed fabrics? Would you stop eating shellfish? I don’t think you would. Just because we dont have ultraconclusive CSI-style evidence for the NONexistence of god, doesn’t mean we can assume the god DOES exist.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nick/9504120 Nick

        To start with, why don’t you explain why your religious worldview, which is by no means shared by other people, should be the basis for determining how society functions? If I told you that in my religion, everyone is required to crawl on their bellies at all times, because that’s how my god wants it, would you drop down and start crawling? Or would you reject my statement as having no basis in observable fact, and therefore not particularly worth accepting? Or, for a more realistic example, do you ever eat pork? Because apparently the Hebrew god really doesn’t like pigs, so you shouldn’t eat pork. Or work on the Sabbath. Or wear blended fabrics.

        Secondly, even if you believe god created mankind in a certain image, why does that necessarily define our roles? God created bacteria and viruses, did he not? Would you refuse lifesaving medical treatment simply because it’s god’s will that we have disease? Are eyeglasses a sin because god clearly wants some people to be nearsighted?

        • LogicAndTruth

          “To start with, why don’t you explain why your religious worldview, which
          is by no means shared by other people, should be the basis for
          determining how society functions?”

          The Christian worldview should be the basis for determining for how society functions because it is based on logic and rationality, and provides answers to what we see in reality. No other world view can do this. Darwinian evolution can not, because it can not provide evidence for the origin of life, has  no answer for the lack of fossils in transition, can not explain the Cambrian Explosion, irreducible complexity, nor can Darwinian evolution explain how ATP synthase and bacteria flagella are a molecular machines that resemble rotary motors, or how we have precisely all the elements and fine tuning in place for human existence, etc…Hinduism can not explain reality because it says life is an illusion (how would you know you are an illusion?) Buddhism says we must escape all desires, but one would have to have a desire to escape all desires, so Buddhism is self-refuting, atheism has no answer for morality, meaning, value, and purpose because it says we are here by pure randomness…you get my point…these are all irrational belief systems, which speaks to your “dropping down and crawling”…that is irrational and illogical, so it does not fit into the reality in which we know we exist, so we would  know better not to follow such a belief…

          and “eating pork, working on The Sabbath, and wearing blended fabrics” are Old Testament laws that we are no longer under, based on The New Covenant…you would know this if you actually understood the truth of The Bible instead of stating Straw Man Fallacies and attacking claims that Christians do not hold…

          And to reference your bacteria, virus, and nearsighted claims…I would ask what do you mean by that? Some bacteria are actually good for humans (bifidobacteria) and intended to be used as designed…viruses have DNA and RNA and were intended to be good as well…and only Christianity can explain how things went wrong…in fact, viruses are acelllular and MUST have a living host in which to survive…it’s like evil, evil can not exist without good, and it is only because of mankind, not God, that evil exists…so this goes for being nearsighted as well, the design of the eye was intended to be 20/20, but man created harmful genetic mutations to exist, thus we have need glasses…but this is simply an illustration for all of humanity…our eyes go bad and we need glasses…(Genesis 3)…(and if you think Genesis 3 is false, you would have to have another plausible explanation for sin and evil…you can not just deny The Scriptures without plausible explanations)…

          …just the same as needing glasses, man goes bad and needs a Savior…Thanks be to God who gives us The Victory in Christ Jesus…

          …and if one says that Jesus Christ did not exist, one would have to deny first, that He was never a historical figure…then they would have to prove that He did not die on a Roman Cross…then they would have to explain the Empty Tomb…then they would have to explain post Resurrection appearances to thousands…then they would have to provide a plausible explanation of The Church without Jesus of Nazareth…I could go on and on…

          …but to claim that Christianity is false, that God does not exist, or that Jesus is fiction, would require some serious empirical and forensic evidence…evidence that does not exist…

          …any intellectual, emotional, or volitional excuse for denying The Truth of The Holy Bible, God, and Jesus, can be overcome by The Christian Worldview…the rational and logical worldview…that is why society should function based on Christianity…

          • Anonymous

            Rational and logical? Hahahaha. That’s some serious Poe there

          • Rich Wilson

            You’re a Mormon, right?  The latest word from God?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nick/9504120 Nick

            To pick just one little piece of that whole adorable diatribe you posted, I would ask, are you aware that even Michael Behe admitted that there were good quality scientific publications explaining how the bacterial flagellum could have evolved from simpler precursors? I guess that complexity just ain’t as irreducible as it used to be, huh?

          • Bstrauss

            As a bio student I felt obligated to correct you on a few things. There is no “Darwinian” evolution. That’s what people who want to discredit evolution call it. Darwin’s theory is Natural Selection is one of the many ways in which evolution happens. This being the influence of an organisms surrounding on it’s survivability and ability to reproduce. I.e the finches on the Galapogos.

            Furthermore mankind did not solely cause the mutations of the eye. In fact the body mutates on it’s own. By the time a human is born they are actually 80% mutation. Mutation is another factor of evolution and happens naturally within an organism’s body

            You can’t say that a virus was “intended” to be good. It exists and only organisms with higher brain function understand concepts of morality. A virus is a prokaryote and therefore has no brain and therefore cannot have a concept of good or bad. Thus it can’t have an intended purpose beyond existing.

            Also the story of the Jesus was put together 300 years after his death. So how do we know it’s even true? Things get mistranslated misinterpreted.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-Masters-Hiatt/1089954620 Elizabeth Masters Hiatt

              Eeeeee! A virus is NOT a prokaryote. 

              • Bstrauss

                My bad, thank you for correcting me. I haven’t covered microbiology yet.

          • http://nathandst.blogspot.com NathanDST

            Ok, first, when and why did ellipses become so popular, along with not capitalizing the first word in sentences? Ugh. Very annoying. 

            However, since that doesn’t speak to the comments themselves, I’ll look past them. I’m only going to touch on some of this.

            The Christian worldview should be the basis for determining for how society functions because it is based on logic and rationality, and provides answers to what we see in reality. No other world view can do this.

             Our world view can provide answers to what we see in reality, and a large chunk of us strive to develop logic and rationality into a habit. 

             Darwinian evolution can not, because it can not provide evidence for the origin of life, has  no answer for the lack of fossils in transition, can not explain the Cambrian Explosion, irreducible complexity, nor can Darwinian evolution explain how ATP synthase and bacteria flagella are a molecular machines that resemble rotary motors, or how we have precisely all the elements and fine tuning in place for human existence, 

            You REALLY don’t understand evolution. I can link you to a great video that can help with the irreducible complexity, if you like, and others may be able to provide links to help with the other “issues” you mention. Otherwise, I recommend books by Dawkins, or the posts on evolution by PZ Myers at Pharyngula, or Jerry Coyne at whyevolutionistrue.com. Look them all over. You’ll learn much.

            the design of the eye was intended to be 20/20, but man created harmful genetic mutations to exist

             

            Really? How?

            then they would have to provide a plausible explanation of The Church without Jesus of Nazareth

            By all means, give us a plausible explanation for Islam without Mohammed, or Buddhism without the Buddha, or Hindu without Shiva and the other gods. Do you see the failure in your logic? Or how about: the people who made stories of Jesus up, and coopted other myths to graft onto the story of Jesus, were very persuasive people. Kind of like cult leaders. One thing led to another, and we get “The Church.”

            • Rich Wilson

              You’ll learn much.

              There you go, making assumptions without evidence.  Fine skeptic you are!

              • http://nathandst.blogspot.com NathanDST

                Crap, you’re right, my bad. How about “You’ll learn much — hopefully”?

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ Anonymous

            The Christian worldview should be the basis for determining for how
            society functions because it is based on logic and rationality

            *blinks*
            based on logic and rationality
            *shakes head*
            logic and rationality

            You keep using those words… they do not mean what you think they mean.

        • Apologeticsdisciple

          I thank you for your thoughts. I was hoping for my post to generate as much dialogue and stir up some thinking. I am interested to see what is on people’s minds…thanks to all for your discussion from my original reply. I look forward to reading all thoughts.

      • Scott R.

        Where in the bible is there any rules concerning two females from having a relationship? As far as the “roles” you talk about, my wife works and I take care of the house and run the kids to school, help with homework, cook most meals, etc.  There is no doubt that I’m the man in the relationship but that certain sexes perform certain roles is outdated and idiotic.

      • Renshia

        I think your right, I think it is time to find a new labels, so as to shrug off the last vestages our mentally created oppressor.

      • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ Anonymous

        *yawn*

        Same shit, different parrot.

      • Anonymous

        God created male and female to be together, not male with male, not female with female.

        Or the other Genesis myth is that he created man first and then woman.  Later on the myth continues with women magically appearing so that Cain could continue the human race.  The bible is packed full of examples of how “God” created man to be with multiple women, siblings, cousins, slaves, etc and how women were to be raped, sold into slavery, get their dad drunk and rape him and all kinds of other great old biblical morality.  When you argue tradition and scripture it is important not to cherry pick the things that only support your own view.  Don’t you think.

        He created them in His image

        Excellent so then this adorable young couple are God’s creatures and Christians can just stop giving them and people like them a hard time.  I’m glad you’ve resolved this conundrum for yourself.  Personally I think that it is the other way around and that Man created God in his own image.  That would certainly explain why he’s such a shit in the Old Testament and why Jesus is so schizophrenic in the New Testament.

        male and female are distinct but united in marriage. They become “one”.

        In what way are male and female distinct?  I mean men are generally a little taller and heavier and have a greater muscle density in the upper body and we have different reproductive organs but these are really not that great a different.  Is having a hairy chest sufficient reason to set people apart socially?  I don’t think so.

        Every homosexual relationship, which the biblical God did not design,  can not escape the “male” and “female” image even when it is  2 males or 2 females involved. It seems to have a “husband” role (or masculine role) and a “wife” role (or feminine role). Just to use the illustration given above, it is a “king” and a “queen”.

        Do you actually know any gay people?  It may be true that some conform to traditional gender roles but many also discard them as unnecessary.  Why even us straight folks don’t much care for the roles that society seeks to impose on us.  I hate ironing but I’d very happy to spend hours in the kitchen and my lovely unwife enjoys DIY much more than I do.  We share the household chores according to who prefers to do what, not on the arbitrary role that early Christian, male dominated society deemed appropriate.

        why else does there seem to be a “masculine” role and a “feminine role” even in homosexual relationships if God did not create male to be with female?

        Forget about your pre-conceived notions of God for a moment.  Why would couples conform to gender stereotypical roles?  Why would you have a home maker and a bread winner in a family?  Think about it and see if you can answer your own question.  One gay couple I know do conform to this stereotype.  Tracey works and brings home the bacon and Sarah stays home, looks after the children and keeps house.  Tracey is a well paid professional while Tracey doesn’t have such marketable skills but enjoys home life.  Another gay couple are working professionals who use their home as little more than somewhere to crash.

        This post is designed to stimulate “friendly” dialogue and thought…not bashing arguments or name calling. 

        No problem.  I hope that the responses that you’ve received have been in this spirit.  I will say though that atheism isn’t a worldview and heaven forfend but Christianity isn’t either.  Atheism is too specific (lack of belief in gods) to form a comprehensive philosophy of life and Christianity is too big and varied a topic to be consistent.  Humanist or materialism might fit from a generally atheistic standard but not every atheist identifies as these or even chooses to use such labels.  Protestant Fundamentalist, to choose one Christian label among thousands informs us of certain viewpoints but even within that there are considerable variation.  Talking of worldviews is somewhat problematic when neither party knows what the other world view is.

      • Alantas

        Does that mean that same-sex couples are okay in your God’s eyes, as long as they fall into your culture’s masculine–feminine dynamic?

      • http://twitter.com/FelyxLeiter Felyx Leiter

        My response as a “non-traditionalist” would be that the lack of actual empirical evidence of any god creating any beings in its image would render your argument moot.  I lend it no more credence than claiming someone deserves to be put to death for consuming shellfish or cutting one’s hair because a few selected texts written thousands of years ago say so.  If you want to comprehend the atheist point of view, you must understand that we do not automatically consider biblical text to be factual.  If you want to start a dialogue, arguing that people were created for a specific purpose by a being no one can prove exists isn’t a “given” you can start from.  We have to be able to meet on middle ground to begin–a place both of us accept to be true.

        The fact that two women are dubbed “king” and “queen” is a reflection of modern high school tradition (and the traditional gender norms that these two are trying to dispel), not proof gays and lesbians are somehow seeking out a “masculine/feminine” relationship.  That’s like saying Jackie Robinson playing major league baseball is proof that he subconsciously wanted to be white, because all other professional players of the time were.  Challenging the norm does not always mean someone is somehow trying to be more like their oppressors, or accept the oppression–it’s generally to show that things can be accomplished in spite of them.

        And don’t worry, I never resort to name-calling unless it’s appropriate. :)

      • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

        I have no reason to suppose any god exists, let alone your specific God.  The truth of a conclusion depends on the validity of the initial premise.  Until you can establish that initial premise that the biblical God exists anywhere outside your imagination (with the extraordinary evidence that such an outlandish claim requires), we have absolutely no reason to consider any of the conclusions you’ve drawn about his supposed marital likes and dislikes.

        • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

          Even if you could get this argument off the ground and demonstrate the biblical God’s existence, you’d still have a long way to go to convince me that I should follow the morality of a God who condoned rape (Judges 21:10-24; Numbers 31:7-18; Deuteronomy
          20:10-14; Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Judges 5:30; Zechariah
          14:1-2) and slavery (Exodus
          21:7-11; Leviticus 25:44-46; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:1-2;Luke 12:47-48). 

          This is the same deity who says that marriage is sometimes between a man and the virgin he raped.  (Whether or not the rapist has to pay a fine to his victim’s father depends on whether or not he raped the daughter of of an ally or the daughter of someone he killed in a war.)  Call me crazy, but I don’t want to look to a book that consistently treats women as sub-human when it comes to marriage and gender roles.

      • Donalbain

        I would respond by saying that frankly I don’t care what your Bibliical god designed or not. His opinion is of no more interest to me than the opinion of Batman or Harry Potter. I would further respond by pointing you that you are incorrect in your assumption about the dynamics of homosexual couples.

  • Anonymous

    She has an uncanny resemblance to Morena Baccarin

    • Amy Caswell

      I was thinking that same thing, but I couldn’t remember that name. Thanks.

    • Anonymous

      I was just going to say the chick from V, but yes.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JBAMPHNDKNSKDNVTY3VRYGWMYQ Jack

        I was going to say the whore from Firefly <333

        • ara

          aww… come on. whore? really?

          Companion.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JBAMPHNDKNSKDNVTY3VRYGWMYQ Jack

            Mal does not call her like that D:

      • Anonymous

        Check out Showtime’s “Homeland”. She is great there too

    • Paul

      I’ll be in my bunk.

  • Cobo Wowbo

    Major props to the students at Patrick Henry High School. Also, Arellano has earned my respect for her response to the criticisms.

  • Rob

    Awesome story!  I think this is very cool – and find it odd to discover that I had a stereotype looking at the picture.  I thought the taller one would have been the king.  What do I know?  :) 

  • Parse

    Congratulations to the King and Queen, and to the students of Patrick Henry High School.  
    Also, my sympathies to the poor schmuck that Ms. Arellano eviscerated with her response.  I wish them a speedy recovery, and a good mind-opening experience.  

  • Margy

    What a heartwarming story! I am so happy to see that gay people are gaining acceptance. I have gay relatives, co-workers, neighbors, and friends who mean the world to me, and this story gives me hope that they will have a bright future where they enjoy equality and respect.

  • Anonymous

    Just personal curiosity, is the cross around her neck mocking or serious?

    • http://www.suburbansweetheart.com/ Suburban Sweetheart

      You know, right, that plenty of LGBT people identify as religious? She may be a member of a progressive denomination. Not hugely surprising.

  • Rich Wilson

    I hate to be a cynic at a wonderful moment like this- but I wonder how much longer it will be before we have a pair of boys named.

    (and kinda ironic the school is ‘Patrick Henry’.  Wasn’t he kinda fundie before fundie was a word?)

    • Johann

      I take it you missed the video linked from that article under the title “Teens Hail Gay Prom King, Queen”.  A school in New York beat you to this. ;)

    • Anne Sauer

      “I hate to be a cynic at a wonderful moment like this- but I wonder how much longer it will be before we have a pair of boys named.”

      You make it sound like that would obviously be a bad thing.

      • ara

        I took this as a reference to the fact that, in many ways, lesbians are more socially accepted, rather than a condemnation of gay males.

        • Rich Wilson

          Ya, what ara said.  Thanks.

  • http://www.facebook.com/stephen.a.james Stephen James

    The comment about tradition and pushing it back and back in time to unacceptability is a perfect response.

  • anon atheist

    Although this story has
    been all over the blogsphere I don’t get. They elected a girl for a
    position that by definition can only be filled in by a boy to break a
    tradition? Woah really impressive. (Not that I would care about that tradition.)
    Or can only be couples
    become king and queen? Even more impressive. So they now let gay
    couples also discriminate against single people.

    Please tell me there the
    progress is because I just see silliness.

    • http://twitter.com/enuma enuma

      Google “Constance McMillen”.  That’s how this is progress.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_E5IVDLJRGQTAVFK4KHLDKDH55Y Daniel

      At least when I grew up, the homecoming court were voted on with a queen and a half dozen princesses (highest vote-getter was queen, then highest from each grade, and because we had a Native American reservation nearby, a Native Princess).  I don’t ever recall a homecoming court where the king/queen were not a couple, in large part as they are generally expected to lead the first dance.

      So yeah, keeping it that way automatically excludes anyone who is homosexual, and as you rightly point out, anyone single.  Though generally even single princesses would be able to find a date for the dance.

      But if a gay person won, they would nominally have to dance with someone of the other sex, or be told they couldn’t go at all (see McMillen).

      I don’t really see how this isn’t progress.  Unlike countless other schools, this one is telling its homosexual students that they are not excluded from elected position because of their sexual orientation.

      Now, if you want to talk about how ridiculous and sexist the whole “Homecoming Court” thing is, that’s a whole different argument. 

    • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

      Our school had no couple requirement.  Generally it was a couple that won, but not always the case.  My senior year our Homecoming Queen was a likable stoner/artsy-type and the Homecoming King was the overweight, snarky class-clown.  They weren’t a couple.  Didn’t even like each other.  Then again, we didn’t make a huge deal of homecoming with dances and all of that, so they only had to sit next to each other on the Halloween Parade float and for a lap around the track on the night they were crowned at the football game. 

      They weren’t nominated as a joke either, there was an unspoken feeling among our classmates to nominate those who never would have dreamed of running/getting elected.  Our Prom Queen had been in a wheelchair since we were kids and the Prom King was the supreme nerd.  We just liked bucking the system because it annoyed the uber conservative administrators.

  • Gerry

    Don’t understand why one has to be “king”. Shouldn’t/can’t they both be queens? That’s the only part I don’t get.

    • Anonymous

      They didn’t really run themselves. They were nominated by their school mates. So this wasn’t planned. Yeah, ideally, there’d be a “homecoming couple” or something, but logistically this was simply the easiest thing to do. They didn’t have to set up some entirely new thing. They were also voted on separately and not together – so making it gender neutral when not voting for couples isn’t even that easy

      Some people are reading way too much into this.

    • http://rrlane.blogspot.com rrlane

      I’m happy for them both, but I think it’s time to simply make the term “Homecoming Royals” and “Royalty.”  Get rid of the gender specific terms and it becomes mundane that much quicker.

    • ara

      I read somewhere else that the school apparently forced the titles king and queen, while the girls would have preferred to both be queens.

      It really seems like a non issue to me and the numerous cases of people being upset about it makes me worried this is going to turn into an issue dominated by MRAs as much as god-botherers.

  • http://religiouscomics.net/ Jeff P

    Congratulations to the student body for voting for them.

    Now we can wait for the all too predictable Christian pastors to warn of earthquakes, floods, and tornadoes in response to this occurrence.

    • Jake

      News just in, walking past a lesbian in the street gives you cancer because God is just that angry.

  • Nena

    I think they are an adorable couple and this is a sweet story.

    I have to say that it doesn’t surprise me as much as it once would, though. My daughter is in public high school here in Nashville, and she says that there is just not a problem with GLBT folks there at all. Same-sex couples walk the halls as freely and openly as the hetero couples. There is at least one MtF transgender student she knows of there, and my daughter says she has never complained of harassment or feeling shunned.

    And remember I said Nashville. This is a school in the South. It makes me quite happy.

  • Kholland24

    It’s nice that they happened to be a couple already, but what would happen if say the heterosexual male got elected King and say a gay male gets elected queen. This guy now thru no choice of his own has to be photographed as a gay couple and dance with him at homecoming. I think your asking a lot of kids who aren’t ready to deal with that.

    • Jake

      Isn’t it usually the case that couples to run together, though? That is,  a boyfriend and girlfriend to run for king and queen?

      • Paul

        At my high school, the King and Queen were elected separately.  When I was in college, any organization (loosely defined; some of the organizations were a bunch of people living on the same dorm floor) could run a pair or candidates for Homecoming “Queen and Beast”.  The pairs were not romantic couples per se, but whomever the organization in question was running as their “team”.   There were no same-sex pairings that I recall, though one group did run a team with someone’s enormous pet snake as the “Beast”.  That pair did not win, though they were rather popular.

    • Anonymous

      How is that different from having a boy and girl who don’t like each other personally having to be photographed dancing as a couple? If you’ve got a problem with the potential of having to be photographed as a couple or dancing with someone not of your choosing, don’t run for the position.

      • Kevin S.

        Or, for that matter, if the gay kid won as king and a straight girl won as queen?  In this case, the king is still uncomfortable as his partner, but because of hetero privilege, he would be largely seen as having to just deal with it while the straight kid would have people rallying to his side.

  • http://www.suburbansweetheart.com/ Suburban Sweetheart

    Such great news! It’s unfortunate, though, that traditional societal constructs mean a lesbian – who is NOT a man! – had to be elected Prom KING in order to be elected with her significant other.

  • JimG

    In the good news/bad news department, the L.A. Times is reporting that they’re already getting threats – but check out how the superintendent is standing up for them!

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/lesbian-homecoming-bullies.html?track=lat-pick

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Masha-Esther-Melnik/1054200003 Masha Esther Melnik

    That’s my high school! =) So awesome.

  • Alla & Greg M

    While I completely do not understand this King-Queen dynamic, we are proud that both our daughters graduated from this school.

  • http://nathandst.blogspot.com NathanDST

    Sweet, and cute couple they make. And yes, the one girl looks like that lady from V (it’s probably the haircut).

  • Anonymous

    I love Rebeca Arellano’s Truth statement.  I fully intend to steal it and use it often when hearing the typical arguments from tradition advocated by many Christians.

  • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

    Beautiful couple!! I’m so happy for them!

  • http://twitter.com/PensiveAfeto Not You

    I just want to point out that they are not the first lesbian couple nominated as homecoming “king” and “queen.” I’ve read other stories such as this.
    In any case, congrats I guess?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X