Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Gay student forced to leave school

Gay student forced to leave school (Page 2)
Thread Tools
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 02:11 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Gay Agenda Tactic #1

When in a discussion with a pro-family advocate, accuse them of being gay. Comes straight out of the handbook. Easily ignored after being called a bigot for the 100th time.
I don't follow you. Where was someone accused of being gay?

You reap what you sow.
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 02:14 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
It's a private school. A religious one at that.

What next, force a Christian school to accept Muslims/Jews or the other way around?

It's a private group. They can decide what members to allow and which to exclude.
Unfortunately in the United States they apparently can, yes.

I don't see what the harm would be for an institution like that to adopt a more open minded enrollment policy to allow Jews or Muslims and non-religious people among faculty and students just as the "madrassas" would -in my opinion- benefit greatly from accepting people of other faiths and those without faiths in their "education" facilities. I would personally welcome a change like that.

I would welcome a law that outlaws discrimination on sexual orientation that doesn't exempt religious organizations from adhering to such a law.

I would welcome a law that would make illegal the "codes of morality" like those of this school which expelled a by all appearances qualified student and prevented him from graduating on the basis of his sexual orientation and private activities.
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 02:19 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Yes, no different than if he had a password/login protected website promoting Satan or promoting drinking and driving or using drugs.

I'll bet if the guy was promoting excessive use of drugs or alcohol none of you would bat an eye. But, the horror! He discusses homosexuality and suddenly it's protected behavior and should be tolerated by a private school?
The horror about discussing homosexuality is not mine. The examples you give are hardly analogous though, as far as I'm concerned.

What if he was discussing heterosexual themes along the same lines as he is discussing homosexual themes now at that website? Would he have been -and should he have been- expelled in your opinion?
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 02:23 PM
 
Originally posted by lurkalot:
I would welcome a law that would make illegal the "codes of morality" like those of this school which expelled a by all appearances qualified student and prevented him from graduating on the basis of his sexual orientation and private activities.
And what about the opinions of the parents of students attending there? The majority. Don't they have the right to send their children to schools that reflect their moral and religious beliefs?

You reap what you sow.
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 02:32 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
If he agreed to certain terms of attending that school, yes. Especially after asking how many people attended his school. If you're going to be anonymous, be anonymous. But if you are going to engage in activity that goes against an institution who's terms you agreed to, don't advertise what you are doing of don't do it. Simple.
I still don't know what those terms are supposed to have been and I would also still like to find out if a similar website with similar or comparable content would have landed another -heterosexual- student in the same spot or if it was the sexual orientation of this particular student and the homosexual subject of his website that singled him out. The article suggests to me that his homosexuality made it "immoral behavior" to maintain the website. In my opinion that should not be allowed as a reason to expell a student even from a privately run school but apparently that is not only legal but condoned and supported by some people. What he did should not be a reason for an 18 year old to hide or -as a result of becoming more open about it-to be expelled from school. Anyway you answered the question. This is your opinion. I just had to say I disagree.
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 02:40 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
And what about the opinions of the parents of students attending there? The majority. Don't they have the right to send their children to schools that reflect their moral and religious beliefs?
Not if these moral and religious beliefs lead to rules discriminating on sexual orientation, no, not in my opinion. They and their kids have been going to school with homosexuals amongst them for centuries. In my opinion it is about time they came to grips with that reality.
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 02:58 PM
 
And in my opinion if parents want to pay $11,000 for their kids to attend a school that supports their ideals that's their right. Are you against the openly gay school in New York city? Perhaps it should be shut down and those gay students forced to accept that some people are heterosexual and will be with society forever and always.

You reap what you sow.
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 03:07 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:And in my opinion if parents want to pay $11,000 for their kids to attend a school that supports their ideals that's their right. Are you against the openly gay school in New York city? Perhaps it should be shut down and those gay students forced to accept that some people are heterosexual and will be with society forever and always.
If that school in New York bars heterosexuals from becoming staff or students I don't agree with that schools admission policies either.

Edit:
Do you mean the "Harvey Milk School" in New York?
I can't say I know much about it but from a brief Google and a glance at their faq...
Q:_Can heterosexual students attend The Harvey Milk High School?
A:_Yes. The Harvey Milk High School does not discriminate against or exclude heterosexual students from attending. The Harvey Milk High School exists to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for all young people in need.
( Last edited by lurkalot; Dec 22, 2004 at 03:22 PM. )
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 03:43 PM
 
Originally posted by lurkalot:
If that school in New York bars heterosexuals from becoming staff or students I don't agree with that schools admission policies either.

Edit:
Do you mean the "Harvey Milk School" in New York?
I can't say I know much about it but from a brief Google and a glance at their faq...
Q:_Can heterosexual students attend The Harvey Milk High School?
A:_Yes. The Harvey Milk High School does not discriminate against or exclude heterosexual students from attending. The Harvey Milk High School exists to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for all young people in need.
I stand corrected. However the fact that this is a RELIGIOUS school AND by definition holds certain beliefs AND parents enroll their kids knowing this, I think he deserved to be sent somewhere else. I was raised to believe that you play BY the rules. You can't and don't change them if they don't suite you. He knew the rules of attending that school and decided not to abide by them. Tough luck.

You reap what you sow.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 03:53 PM
 
Think about it. A closeted gay kid in a conservative Christian school that makes each student sign a morality contract. I would think that the mere presence of this kid would create a negative environement for learning...not only for the kid in question, but for every student as well.

There is no legal question here. The school has every right to dismiss this student. It may bother some people, but this school is protected by the law as well.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 05:32 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
Your comment on fear seemed headed in that direction. You're right, it doesn't harm me. But one has to ask why in a country of the people, by the people and for the people, does a subset of the population feel the need to shove this down the throat of the majority? They aren't oppressed and often have very good jobs and living conditions. It seems like the homosexual population and it's supporters are attempting to steer policy in this country at the behest of the majority. I truly resent this artificial image of the downtrodden, persecuted homosexual. It's false.

You may not realize it, but forcing people to accept homosexuality as normal via media saturation, legislation and whining IS shoving it down my throat. Oh I could board myself up in my house and live out the rest of my days as a hermit, but what kind of life is that? How about this. Gays do what they want behind closed doors, and I'll do what I want behind closed doors and no one has to accept anything the other does.
When the civil rights movement was going on do you think that that was a situation of "subset of the population" shoving their believes down the throats of the majority of Americans? I guess you do considering the quote above. "legislation and whining IS shoving it down my throat.". In cases of civil rights the majority shouldn't rule.

As for your assessment of homosexual persecution being false do you have anything to back this up or is this just your opinion as a heterosexual with no connection to the gay community?
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 05:40 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
When the civil rights movement was going on do you think that that was a situation of "subset of the population" shoving their believes down the throats of the majority of Americans? I guess you do considering the quote above. "legislation and whining IS shoving it down my throat.". In cases of civil rights the majority shouldn't rule.

As for your assessment of homosexual persecution being false do you have anything to back this up or is this just your opinion as a heterosexual with no connection to the gay community?
what does the civil rights movement have to do with same sex marriage? There is a huge difference between being black and TRUE discrimination versus choosing a lifestyle and claiming racism because mainstream America believes Marriage is an important institution that need not be perverted by a small faction of people who think sleeping with someone of the same sex affords special rights.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 06:05 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
what does the civil rights movement have to do with same sex marriage? There is a huge difference between being black and TRUE discrimination versus choosing a lifestyle and claiming racism because mainstream America believes Marriage is an important institution that need not be perverted by a small faction of people who think sleeping with someone of the same sex affords special rights.
1) People "choose" to be gay as much as people "choose" to be black, white, man or woman.
2) They are not asking for special rights, they are asking to have the same rights that are afforded to everyone else in the country.
3) The civil rights movement was about one segment of society lobbying to have the equal rights of everyone else in society so I think that it is quite similar.
4) How is marrige being perverted by gays being afforded the same legal rights as heteorsexual couples?
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 06:13 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
1) People "choose" to be gay as much as people "choose" to be black, white, man or woman.

I see that junk science and the manipulation of the gay left has infected your thought process. There is absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. And I guarantee you, it is nothing like me black, white, man or women...it is a choice to act upon sexual urges and live a specific lifestyle.

2) They are not asking for special rights, they are asking to have the same rights that are afforded to everyone else in the country.
They have the right to marry. They want to redefine marriage...that equates to special rights.

3) The civil rights movement was about one segment of society lobbying to have the equal rights of everyone else in society so I think that it is quite similar.
Quite similar if you are racist. Don't compare the plight of a black man in the 60's to the virtual cake walk a gay man has because he chooses a certain lifestyle. Blacks were discriminated against because the color of their skins...not because of their actions.

4) How is marrige being perverted by gays being afforded the same legal rights as heteorsexual couples?
They have the same legal rights. Onem, they have the right to marry anyperson of the opposite sex...because that is the LEGAL definition of marriage. They have the right to choose not to marry. Just because someone makes a conscience choice to sleep with someone of the same sex doesn't mean we should change an institution, tax system and way of life to cater to an extremely small percentage of individuals who are hell bent on the idea of forcing their value system and alternative lifestyle on American children and families.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 06:22 PM
 
Originally posted by lurkalot:
What if he was discussing heterosexual themes along the same lines as he is discussing homosexual themes now at that website? Would he have been -and should he have been- expelled in your opinion?
I wasn't aware that heterosexuality was considered a sin by this religious group.

If he was espousing beliefs that contradict the teachings of the religious group in question, for example one such as polygamy, then he should be expelled if polygamy was considered to be immoral and sinful behavior by the group.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 06:25 PM
 
Originally posted by lurkalot:
I would welcome a law that outlaws discrimination on sexual orientation that doesn't exempt religious organizations from adhering to such a law.
Lucky for us, there is a such concept as freedom of association. Ironically, you are espousing the very ideals that you seem to be opposed to. You can't tolerate opposing views on a subject such as homosexuality, therefore, you feel that the law must force even people who consider homosexuality to be a sin against their constitutionally protected beliefs to have to accept it.

The irony is piling higher and deeper.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 06:58 PM
 
moved post to the thread about homos and civilization, it seems better suited to that thread
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 07:20 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Lucky for us, there is a such concept as freedom of association. Ironically, you are espousing the very ideals that you seem to be opposed to. You can't tolerate opposing views on a subject such as homosexuality, therefore, you feel that the law must force even people who consider homosexuality to be a sin against their constitutionally protected beliefs to have to accept it.

The irony is piling higher and deeper.
Well said!

You reap what you sow.
     
Sir_Wrinkles
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Fairfax, New Jersey
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 07:48 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
1) People "choose" to be gay as much as people "choose" to be black, white, man or woman.
2) They are not asking for special rights, they are asking to have the same rights that are afforded to everyone else in the country.
4) How is marrige being perverted by gays being afforded the same legal rights as heteorsexual couples?
1) If people don't choose to be gay, then it's genetic.
Alcoholism, Alzhiemers, and Diabetes are too. Doesn't that mean it should be considered
an evolutionary abnormality/disorder, and be treated as such. I personally think that society is in a state of denial on this one.

2) He signed an agreement, he broke the agreement, and did not even have the intelligence to conceal his identity knowing full well what could happen to him.
Though it would help if we could see the website he created to make our own judgement on wether or not the school, in our opinions "over reacted"

4) At this point I'm not concerned one way or the other about gay marriage, provided that it does not cost me any money.
I believe they deserve the same LEGAL rights as you and I. However I'm 100% against it, if I start losing insurance benefits because my company now has to provide coverage for another group of people, or the cost of the products go up as a reflection of it.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 07:54 PM
 
Originally posted by Sir_Wrinkles:
1) If people don't choose to be gay, then it's genetic.
Alcoholism, Alzhiemers, and Diabetes are too. Doesn't that mean it should be considered
an evolutionary abnormality/disorder, and be treated as such. I personally think that society is in a state of denial on this one.

2) He signed an agreement, he broke the agreement, and did not even have the intelligence to conceal his identity knowing full well what could happen to him.
Though it would help if we could see the website he created to make our own judgement on wether or not the school, in our opinions "over reacted"

4) At this point I'm not concerned one way or the other about gay marriage, provided that it does not cost me any money.
I believe they deserve the same LEGAL rights as you and I. However I'm 100% against it, if I start losing insurance benefits because my company now has to provide coverage for another group of people, or the cost of the products go up as a reflection of it.
So you thing being gay is a disease?
     
Sir_Wrinkles
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Fairfax, New Jersey
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 08:09 PM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
So you thing being gay is a disease?
You said it wasn't a choice, and if it's not a choice then the only thing it can be is genetic. And since it serves has no conceivable benefit evolutionarily speaking, what else could it be? Though when people use the term "disease" they automatically assume that if you think homosexuality is a disease/disorder, then homosexuals are too.
     
shmerek
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2004, 08:15 PM
 
Originally posted by Sir_Wrinkles:
You said it wasn't a choice, and if it's not a choice then the only thing it can be is genetic. And since it serves has no conceivable benefit evolutionarily speaking, what else could it be? Though when people use the term "disease" they automatically assume that if you think homosexuality is a disease/disorder, then homosexuals are too.
Just to be clear are you saying that anything that doesn't serve evolution is a diease/disorder?

If you think that homosexuality is a disease than how can you not thing that homosexuals are diseased? Do you think they should be "cured"?
     
Sir_Wrinkles
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Fairfax, New Jersey
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 01:01 AM
 
Originally posted by shmerek:
Just to be clear are you saying that anything that doesn't serve evolution is a diease/disorder?

If you think that homosexuality is a disease than how can you not thing that homosexuals are diseased? Do you think they should be "cured"?
Anything that hinders the survival or continuation of the species has no purpose.

I believe that homosexuality is similar to depression, or other psychological disorders.
Do you believe those people are "diseased?"

The gay community would never allow any research to be done on homosexuality with the initial hypothesis that it is a disorder or condition. If it's a condition there's a chance a cure or treatment would be deveolped. If there is a cure, then homosexuality becomes a choice, and they can no longer say "Poor me, I can't help the way I am"

There are many people out there who don't want to be gay. Be it religious reasons or others, don't you think they could benefit from that kind of research?
( Last edited by Sir_Wrinkles; Dec 23, 2004 at 01:30 AM. )
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 02:27 AM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
I stand corrected. However the fact that this is a RELIGIOUS school AND by definition holds certain beliefs AND parents enroll their kids knowing this, I think he deserved to be sent somewhere else. I was raised to believe that you play BY the rules. You can't and don't change them if they don't suite you. He knew the rules of attending that school and decided not to abide by them. Tough luck.
He was at the kindergarten age when he was enrolled in that school. He is 18 now. His upbringing had taken place almost entirely at Trinity Christian yet he turned out to be gay. You want to excommunicate him for his sexual orientation based on a set of archaic "morality" rules? Force him to leave for discussing -eventually- with his peers the experiences of growing up within that school as a boy and later as a man discovering that he is homosexual?

Do you think other kids and students at the school discuss the discovery of sexuality while they go through puberty at the school? Among themselves and with the staff "guiding" them to adulthood? I think it is fair to assume they do. Would these heterosexual students be expelled if they used the internet as a medium to discuss sexuality in the way this man discussed his sexuality?

Who would change rules and any society at large if those participating in it are not allowed to question and if necessary alter the rules or break them in civil disobedience? How would women have won the right to vote and to join certain "clubs" from which they were barred before? Wait patiently and silently for the men to allow them these things?

Did this student break the rules by growing up gay - in spite of his upbringing? Did he break the rules by acknowledging that he did grow up into a Christian gay man? Did he break the rules by talking about his experiences with others over the internet? Does he break the rules by seeking ways to still graduate from the school where he received almost all of his education?
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 02:30 AM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Think about it. A closeted gay kid in a conservative Christian school that makes each student sign a morality contract. I would think that the mere presence of this kid would create a negative environement for learning...not only for the kid in question, but for every student as well.

There is no legal question here. The school has every right to dismiss this student. It may bother some people, but this school is protected by the law as well.
Indeed, think about it for a while.
A kid with his entire upbringing in a Christian family and at a conservative religious school turns out to be gay.
I would think his mere presence there would be a positive eye opener.

That the school is protected by law is one of the things that bother me.

ps. Why do you define or restrict the civil rights movement to racial issues in your messages? Civil rights are and always have been about a lot more than just race.
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 02:35 AM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
I wasn't aware that heterosexuality was considered a sin by this religious group.

If he was espousing beliefs that contradict the teachings of the religious group in question, for example one such as polygamy, then he should be expelled if polygamy was considered to be immoral and sinful behavior by the group.
Ok, so I guess that means, No, you don't think a student operating a similar website with heterosexual content comparable to what can be found at the website of this expelled student would have resulted in the expulsion of the heterosexual student nor do you think the expulsion of such a heterosexual student would be required.

Does what I just wrote in this message accurately reflect your opinion?
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 02:41 AM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Lucky for us, there is a such concept as freedom of association. Ironically, you are espousing the very ideals that you seem to be opposed to. You can't tolerate opposing views on a subject such as homosexuality, therefore, you feel that the law must force even people who consider homosexuality to be a sin against their constitutionally protected beliefs to have to accept it.

The irony is piling higher and deeper.
I think you misunderstand my ideals. What gave you the idea that I ultimately support religious freedom -or any personal freedom for that matter- to such a degree that the ludicrous concept of sin as a bases for discriminatory acts against people with a different sexual orientation should be protected?
I would curb religious freedom in that respect. To the point of amending a constitution by inserting a clause similar to the one that can be found in the European Constitution or the South African Constitution to make explicitly clear what should be implicitly clear already.

If you feel this abrogates the "right" to certain religious practices and freedom of association, as you interpret them, you are correct. It does and is intended to do so. Religious freedom is not limitless. I support greater limits. Such as -in the case of this school expulsion- by limiting the school's ability to expel this student and by enacting legislature that would curb sectarian admission policies and would outlaw making school admission conditional on signing certain "morality" codes.

Since you appear to want to illustrate your point with unrelated examples.
Religious freedom is already restricted by prohibiting human sacrifices.
I did not support the ruling in the U.S. boy scout case.

If you get the impression that I -unlike the expelled student- would welcome the absence of religion from this planet and that I would welcome the total disappearance of sectarian religious schools -like the one he attended until recently- you would once again be correct in your assumptions. If you think that is ironic or even contradictory to my ideals, so be it.
( Last edited by lurkalot; Dec 23, 2004 at 03:02 AM. )
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 02:55 AM
 
Originally posted by Sir_Wrinkles:
1) If people don't choose to be gay, then it's genetic.
Alcoholism, Alzhiemers, and Diabetes are too. Doesn't that mean it should be considered
an evolutionary abnormality/disorder, and be treated as such. I personally think that society is in a state of denial on this one.

2) He signed an agreement, he broke the agreement, and did not even have the intelligence to conceal his identity knowing full well what could happen to him.
Though it would help if we could see the website he created to make our own judgement on wether or not the school, in our opinions "over reacted"
1. No it doesn't mean that.
2. To conceal would have been lying. I assume that lying would also have violated the morality code. Quite a moral dilemma for a christian kid growing up in an environment like that. "Concealing" probably would not have resulted in his expulsion for lying. Is that the moral lesson he learned from the episode?

You can have a look at his website and decide for yourself if there was an overreaction. http://www.my-boi.com
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 12:40 PM
 
Originally posted by lurkalot:
He was at the kindergarten age when he was enrolled in that school. He is 18 now. His upbringing had taken place almost entirely at Trinity Christian yet he turned out to be gay. You want to excommunicate him for his sexual orientation based on a set of archaic "morality" rules? Force him to leave for discussing -eventually- with his peers the experiences of growing up within that school as a boy and later as a man discovering that he is homosexual?

Do you think other kids and students at the school discuss the discovery of sexuality while they go through puberty at the school? Among themselves and with the staff "guiding" them to adulthood? I think it is fair to assume they do. Would these heterosexual students be expelled if they used the internet as a medium to discuss sexuality in the way this man discussed his sexuality?

Who would change rules and any society at large if those participating in it are not allowed to question and if necessary alter the rules or break them in civil disobedience? How would women have won the right to vote and to join certain "clubs" from which they were barred before? Wait patiently and silently for the men to allow them these things?

Did this student break the rules by growing up gay - in spite of his upbringing? Did he break the rules by acknowledging that he did grow up into a Christian gay man? Did he break the rules by talking about his experiences with others over the internet? Does he break the rules by seeking ways to still graduate from the school where he received almost all of his education?
The fact that he came up in a religious school is only part of the story. What about his home life? I mean, he was able to run a pro-homosexual website without his parent's knowledge? What else was he exposed to growing up that was outside of his parent's knowledge? We just don't have that information. It's like they say. You can be FROM the ghetto, but not OF the ghetto.

You reap what you sow.
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 12:52 PM
 
Originally posted by lurkalot:

I would curb religious freedom in that respect. To the point of amending a constitution by inserting a clause similar to the one that can be found in the European Constitution or the South African Constitution to make explicitly clear what should be implicitly clear already.
Now that's ironic. You really aren't about freedom, your about control. What you are essentially saying is that 4%-5% of the population can't have heterosexual norms shoved down their throats. In fact you're saying that the majority must have homosexuality forced on them. I agree that people should not harm others, but no one has the right to tell another person what they must tolerate and not tolerate. That includes through legislation. Hey, if some bumpkin want's to hate black people that's his right. I'll defend it to the death. But If he wants to HARM black people he deserves to be prosecuted.

You reap what you sow.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 12:55 PM
 
Was the school within it's right? I think so. I can't imagine that the student would have been very comfortable there in any case ... any school willing to expel a student based upon his sexuality must be overflowing with hate towards that sexuality.

Now, if only the pedofiliac priests would get expelled as well ...
(I'm aware that this is a different branch of Christianity but that it is still Christian)
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 01:11 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
The fact that he came up in a religious school is only part of the story. What about his home life? I mean, he was able to run a pro-homosexual website without his parent's knowledge? What else was he exposed to growing up that was outside of his parent's knowledge? We just don't have that information. It's like they say. You can be FROM the ghetto, but not OF the ghetto.
This really has nothing to do with the gay issue as such, but more about parenting and raising kids in general. It seems like some parents have a very difficult time letting go of their children and letting them grow up. It's one thing to be highly protective of elementary and middle school kids, but by the time they are in high school and are approaching adulthood, surely it is time to start unwrapping the cotton wool gradually.

I think the alternative can backfire quite badly. I've had friends both in the Army and in college who were raised in very restrictive religious households. Once they got out of that home environment, they reacted the way a jack in the box does when the lid opens. Boooooiiinnngggg! Promiscuous sex, binge drinking alcohol, you name it.
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 01:27 PM
 
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This really has nothing to do with the gay issue as such, but more about parenting and raising kids in general. It seems like some parents have a very difficult time letting go of their children and letting them grow up. It's one thing to be highly protective of elementary and middle school kids, but by the time they are in high school and are approaching adulthood, surely it is time to start unwrapping the cotton wool gradually.

I think the alternative can backfire quite badly. I've had friends both in the Army and in college who were raised in very restrictive religious households. Once they got out of that home environment, they reacted the way a jack in the box does when the lid opens. Boooooiiinnngggg! Promiscuous sex, binge drinking alcohol, you name it.
I would agree to some extent. I've seen people that were extremely restricted grow to be out of control. I've also seen people with no guidance or little parenting become a wreck. What I'm asking is how did a young boy become a man with a double life without his parents knowing? Parent's may not be able to control their kids 24/7, but at the very least they should be aware of what's going on in their kids life.

You reap what you sow.
     
deomacius
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 01:32 PM
 
Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Was the school within it's right? I think so. I can't imagine that the student would have been very comfortable there in any case ... any school willing to expel a student based upon his sexuality must be overflowing with hate towards that sexuality.

Now, if only the pedofiliac priests would get expelled as well ...
(I'm aware that this is a different branch of Christianity but that it is still Christian)
We are in complete agreement on this. I tend to tow a hard line on some matters anyway. There should absolutely be an equal application of the law. I DO NOT think the rules should be changed to permit a homosexual student into this blatantly religious school. I think people should be expelled if they can't abide by the terms they agreed to. Gay or straight. In fact, we don't know that they don't now. We only hear about another poor martyr because it's a hot topic.

You reap what you sow.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 01:48 PM
 
Originally posted by deomacius:
I would agree to some extent. I've seen people that were extremely restricted grow to be out of control. I've also seen people with no guidance or little parenting become a wreck. What I'm asking is how did a young boy become a man with a double life without his parents knowing? Parent's may not be able to control their kids 24/7, but at the very least they should be aware of what's going on in their kids life.
I think most kids have a "double life" to some extent. Your inner thoughts don't belong to your parents. To be blunt, I don't think that many kids, straight or gay, share their masturbatory fantasies with their parents. Why should they?

Even leaving that aside, the problem is, if a kid is gay, and if his parents and everyone around him signals disapproval of that, he's even less likely to talk about it to his parents. He's not going to tell Mom and Dad he has a crush on the football jock so that they can freak out and rush him to reparatory therapy. Adolescents are overwhelmed about sex and relationships enough as it is. It's a lot harder when you feel you have to keep it a secret. The more a parent signals it is huge deal, the more likely it is the child will shut that parent out.

The fact is that coming out is more or less traumatic for everyone. All parents, no matter how tolerant and open, have some feelings of disappointment when they find out their kid is gay. It's perfectly natural, and equally natural that the kid should not want to be rushed into sharing it when they aren't ready to do so. That means he's almost certainly going to want to seek information out. How else can he figure out what is going on, and whether he really is what he thinks he is (and might be very scared to admit he is)? That may hurt parents' sense of control and ownership over their kids, but at the end of the day, it is inevitable if he senses he can't turn to them.

That is an illustration of what I meant about removing the cotton wool gradually. You can't treat a 15, 16, 17, 18 year old the way you do a 5, 6, 7, 8 year old, but neither should an 8 year old be treated as liberally as an 18 year old. It has to be a transition, and part of that is recognizing that as kids get older, they have every right to a private life.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Dec 23, 2004 at 03:04 PM. )
     
UNTeMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 09:58 PM
 
Originally posted by Sir_Wrinkles:
You said it wasn't a choice, and if it's not a choice then the only thing it can be is genetic. And since it serves has no conceivable benefit evolutionarily speaking, what else could it be? Though when people use the term "disease" they automatically assume that if you think homosexuality is a disease/disorder, then homosexuals are too.
Evolutionarily speaking, my appendix, tailbone, hair on my fingers and toes, crying, etc. are all diseases then.

The fact is, that logic is flawed because you're mis-defining disease. A disease must cause harm. Homosexuality is simply a state of being that causes no harm to anyone. What's the problem and why are people so afraid of it?
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2004, 11:03 PM
 
A lot of people are afraid of things they don't understand, and, rather than learn, they react with fear and baseless accusations.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
budster101
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 12:19 AM
 
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Evolutionarily speaking, my appendix, tailbone, hair on my fingers and toes, crying, etc. are all diseases then.

The fact is, that logic is flawed because you're mis-defining disease. A disease must cause harm. Homosexuality is simply a state of being that causes no harm to anyone. What's the problem and why are people so afraid of it?
I don't want to go down this road but I will. A person can be diseased and not harm anyone by himself, or he can just be a host and harm others, or he can have the disease and infect others. As for evolution, are you stating that evolutionarily speaking, gays are going off on their own branch?

Homosexuality is a 'state of being'? Do you think the drive and need to procreate and have children is a state of being? That is how I define heterosexuality. You cannot do this when gay, so tell me, does that begin to resemble a sort-of disease? I'm only stating this for arguments sake.

This whole discussion on fear and evolution and disease is just bullocks. People are people, good and bad. Gay and straight, single and married, white and black, and you get the idea without me becoming wordy and nauseating to read.

I have nothing against gay people. I think the fellow broke the rules and has to be subject to the agreement he signed, plain and simple. Would I go to a school that I knew would frown on my sexuality? No. Can you visualize a school with all gay people and one heterosexual? I'd be the best dressed heterosexual in town, but please, I know a few gay men, and can they be catty! I don't think I could handle it, and I wouldn't sign anything they put in front of me.
     
UNTeMac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denton, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 04:53 AM
 
Originally posted by budster101:
I don't want to go down this road but I will. A person can be diseased and not harm anyone by himself, or he can just be a host and harm others, or he can have the disease and infect others.
How does homosexuality do any of those things? When I said harm, I was talking about harm to anyone, including him or herself.

As for evolution, are you stating that evolutionarily speaking, gays are going off on their own branch?
Look at the post I was responding to.

As for the rest of what you said, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Homosexuality is simply something a person is or isn't. Someone's seuxality is part their identity, not behavior. I could no more willfully engage in homosexual sex than the next heterosexual person. Think of it the same way for homosexual people.
"This show is filmed before a live studio audience as soon as someone removes that dead guy!" - Stephen Colbert
     
budster101
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 11:18 AM
 
You edited my post in your response and deleted whole paragraphs to change the meaning to what you think I actually believe.

This is my post in it's entirety.

"I don't want to go down this road but I will. A person can be diseased and not harm anyone by himself, or he can just be a host and harm others, or he can have the disease and infect others. As for evolution, are you stating that evolutionarily speaking, gays are going off on their own branch?

Homosexuality is a 'state of being'? Do you think the drive and need to procreate and have children is a state of being? That is how I define heterosexuality. You cannot do this when gay, so tell me, does that begin to resemble a sort-of disease? I'm only stating this for arguments sake.

This whole discussion on fear and evolution and disease is just bullocks. People are people, good and bad. Gay and straight, single and married, white and black, and you get the idea without me becoming wordy and nauseating to read.

I have nothing against gay people. I think the fellow broke the rules and has to be subject to the agreement he signed, plain and simple. Would I go to a school that I knew would frown on my sexuality? No. Can you visualize a school with all gay people and one heterosexual? I'd be the best dressed heterosexual in town, but please, I know a few gay men, and can they be catty! I don't think I could handle it, and I wouldn't sign anything they put in front of me."
Originally posted by UNTiMac:
How does homosexuality do any of those things? When I said harm, I was talking about harm to anyone, including him or herself.

Look at the post I was responding to.

As for the rest of what you said, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Homosexuality is simply something a person is or isn't. Someone's seuxality is part their identity, not behavior. I could no more willfully engage in homosexual sex than the next heterosexual person. Think of it the same way for homosexual people.
I did look at the post you were responding to. I'll pose another scenario. Do you think an alternate evolutionary path should be allowed for the sake of humanity? When a divergent form of life is introduced into the world according to Darwin, it will be tested and if it is strong enough it will overcome and live on. The survival of the strongest will be the motto of this paragraph. We as a whole can call it a diseased divergent form because it has no purpose but to produce those of a sex that have a special knack for fashion and interior design. I disagree with this whole notion of course.

Michael Angelo was gay, Leonardo Da Vinci was, well who the heck knows, he never slept, and was always doing something artistic, and I'm sure there have been a number of gay men and women who have contributed to our great society as a whole who can be named.

My final word on the topic of this thread on the other hand are that the young fellow broke the rules of the institution of which he joined, and was as such invited to leave. Do you think anyone worth his salt would stay one second, knowing he was not welcome? Go on and find a place that inspires you and then be the person you wish to be. I don't think for a moment that God would frown on him, as long as he did not frown upon himself.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 12:22 PM
 
Originally posted by lurkalot:
I think you misunderstand my ideals....the ludicrous concept of sin as a bases for discriminatory acts against people with a different sexual orientation should be protected?
Yes, it should be protected. People in the majority have the right to reject behavior engaged in by a small minority.

I would curb religious freedom in that respect.
How bizarre and how arrogant.

To the point of amending a constitution by inserting a clause similar to the one that can be found in the European Constitution or the South African Constitution to make explicitly clear what should be implicitly clear already.
In other words, the secular state has the right to tell every person what religious beliefs they may hold?

If you feel this abrogates the "right" to certain religious practices and freedom of association, as you interpret them, you are correct. It does and is intended to do so. Religious freedom is not limitless.
Chilling, and thank God people like you aren't in control.

I support greater limits. Such as -in the case of this school expulsion- by limiting the school's ability to expel this student and by enacting legislature that would curb sectarian admission policies and would outlaw making school admission conditional on signing certain "morality" codes.
The fact that you want to essentially outlaw free association and free conscience on the basis of something as perverted as someone's behavior is outrageous.

Religious freedom is already restricted by prohibiting human sacrifices.
Stunning, I wonder why that would be the case?

If you think that is ironic or even contradictory to my ideals, so be it.
Thank God your position is so outrageous and so bizarre that it stands no chance of every becoming mainstream in this country.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 12:25 PM
 
Originally posted by lurkalot:
Ok, so I guess that means, No, you don't think a student operating a similar website with heterosexual content comparable to what can be found at the website of this expelled student would have resulted in the expulsion of the heterosexual student nor do you think the expulsion of such a heterosexual student would be required.

Does what I just wrote in this message accurately reflect your opinion?
Heterosexuality isn't a sin. Homosexuality is. You obviously have a terrible time understanding that difference.

If the kid belonged to a religion where homosexuality was the "norm" and heterosexuality was a sin, and, he had a website promoting heterosexuality and was expelled for it then I would again support the expulsion.

You people are so focused on your homosexual agenda here that you fail to see the big picture: he broke the rules and got expelled for it.
     
strictlyplaid
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 12:30 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Enough said.
Not everything that is legal is ethical or good. Saying that "the school was within its legal rights" to throw this kid out is hardly enough said. Dred Scot's master was well within his legal rights to treat Dred like property in the 19th century, but thank God that the conversation didn't end there.

Oh, there I go again, comparing the hated "gay agenda" to Civil Rights!!!!!!!!!!!!

     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 12:35 PM
 
It's not about civil rights (which gays are not being denied: are gays being denied the right to vote, the right to own a house, the right to hold a job by the government? ).

If you don't like what the private school upholds then start your own and admit whomever you like.
     
strictlyplaid
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 12:49 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
It's not about civil rights (which gays are not being denied: are gays being denied the right to vote, the right to own a house, the right to hold a job by the government? ).

If you don't like what the private school upholds then start your own and admit whomever you like.
Get a clue: since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we restrict private corporations' ability to discriminate on the basis of race and sex all the time. Prior to the act, discriminating against black people was legal and justified on the same "we're private" basis. The comparison to civil rights is straightforward.
     
budster101
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 12:53 PM
 
Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
Get a clue: since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we restrict private corporations' ability to discriminate on the basis of race and sex all the time. Prior to the act, discriminating against black people was legal and justified on the same "we're private" basis. The comparison to civil rights is straightforward.
I don't think that applies to a religious organization. In the state where I live, employers can release you from employment at will. They do not need any reason whatsoever. Is that right? No. Is it the law? Yes.
     
strictlyplaid
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 12:57 PM
 
Originally posted by budster101:
I don't think that applies to a religious organization. In the state where I live, employers can release you from employment at will. They do not need any reason whatsoever. Is that right? No. Is it the law? Yes.
Not sure about the religious angle; I'm a dilletante in constitutional law, but nothing more. Simey may be able to comment more about that. I am pretty sure that any employer that fires you "at will" because you're black or a woman, if you can prove it, is subject to government action by the EEOC.
     
budster101
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 05:42 PM
 
Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
Not sure about the religious angle; I'm a dilletante in constitutional law, but nothing more. Simey may be able to comment more about that. I am pretty sure that any employer that fires you "at will" because you're black or a woman, if you can prove it, is subject to government action by the EEOC.
ahhh proof. I've been fired for being heterosexual. Ask me to proove it. Right. Can't.
Do I hold a grudge? Nah.
     
MATTRESS
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 10:00 PM
 
Originally posted by strictlyplaid:
Get a clue: since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we restrict private corporations' ability to discriminate on the basis of race and sex all the time. Prior to the act, discriminating against black people was legal and justified on the same "we're private" basis. The comparison to civil rights is straightforward.
This isn't a corporation.

And, you get a clue. The CRA of 1964 doesn't prohibit discrimination by all corporations...only some of them.
     
strictlyplaid
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2004, 10:42 PM
 
Originally posted by MATTRESS:
This isn't a corporation.

And, you get a clue. The CRA of 1964 doesn't prohibit discrimination by all corporations...only some of them.
Wow, thanks for that insight! You mean they're not a corporation?? I probably didn't know that!!!!!

Anyway, the Civil Rights Act of '64 covers any private organization that provides public accomodation. That clause has been broadly interpreted to include most private organizations. So sorry, hope Santa's bringing you a clue this year.

Look, let's end this now. Neither of us is profiting from the conversation.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:39 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,