NationStates Jolt Archive

Dude, dont lie, how would it look, if I came out with a pro Nazi screen name? Disgusting. The Soviet Union and the Third Reich are equally as disgusting, people to need to understand that. I dont understand why people dont think that its offensive to have Soviet stuff, but it is to have Nazi stuff...It doestn make sense to me.
The Atlantian myths have lead numerous people to ruin their lives, some ot the point of death, trying to find a rumor. Stop being a hypocrite.

DRINKING is not a sin, but getting DRUNK is.
And thus, the Republic of Ireland was plunged into the center of the earth...Just kidding! :D

I dont understand why people dont think that its offensive to have Soviet stuff, but it is to have Nazi stuff...It doestn make sense to me.
Because the CCCP and the word "Soviet" are far removed from each other.

*Sorry, I just felt someone had to tell him.

Dude, dont lie, how would it look, if I came out with a pro Nazi screen name? Disgusting. The Soviet Union and the Third Reich are equally as disgusting, people to need to understand that. I dont understand why people dont think that its offensive to have Soviet stuff, but it is to have Nazi stuff...It doestn make sense to me.

Let me think... it would look.... FINE. Lets give you a news update.

THE COLD WAR IS OVER! OVER! OVER! ITS IN THE PAST!

Go Hitler.

Oh dear Goodness am I going to get shot for that? I didn't mean it... but its still wrong so I need to get critizised and discriminated against!

...LOL. God you people make me laugh. I'm not even going to go through the whole thing where I have to defend my beliefs because a psychotic, paranoid Georgian decided he wanted to kill people in the name of "communism." It would be wasted on a drooling mouthbreather like yourself.

Consider your ass blocked. Ahh, the sweet sound of "You can't read this post because you've added 'The Atlantian Islands' to your Dumbshit Fucktards Block List."

oOoOooO very manly, running and hiding. I hate Soviet sympethizers just as much as I hate Nazi Sympithizers

Just what I said...I didnt understand what you said. What millions under the old testament are you talking about?

Have you ever even read it?

I did see it. I was just kidding. If you want someone to see something put it in BLACK don't expect everyone to highlight your every word, you don't talk that well.
Hehe, it's just a little joke, c'mon. We should all lighten up, for sure.

Because the CCCP and the word "Soviet" are far removed from each other.

*Sorry, I just felt someone had to tell him.

No they are not.

oOoOooO very manly, running and hiding. I hate Soviet sympethizers just as much as I hate Nazi Sympithizers

Oh lol. He never said he sympathized with them. Its just a F'ing screen name.

The Atlantian myths have lead numerous people to ruin their lives, some ot the point of death, trying to find a rumor. Stop being a hypocrite.
Thats why I made up my screen name! ;)

Alantian u say this but can we look at a few things:

ok nazis hated gays.....so do you!

nazis were intolertent......so are you!

omg wow i think weve found your people

so·vi·et ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sv-t, -t, sv-, sv-t)
n.
One of the popularly elected legislative assemblies that existed at local, regional, and national levels in the former Soviet Union.
Soviet A native or inhabitant of the former Soviet Union.

So he said the Soviet Americas. Big deal. Maybe he meant all the Russian People in the America's.

Dude, go get a horse, live in the mountains, and dont bother anyone.

If humans don't decide what is right and wrong, then who does? Why do you think everyone always disagrees about right and wrong? Think about it. :headbang:

On the original topic of the post:

This is why I advocate state education only. Don't believe in independent, much less religious schools. They discriminate and hate, and teach their students to do the same. Nobody has the right to do that.

Oh yeah I'm sure he meant Russian peoples of America. He had it for the Soviet Union. Admit it, if anyone had a Nazi America screen name...or anything like that, it would look terrible. And another thing, to the idiot who said that because i hate gays, I'm a Nazi....the majority of the country doesnt like gays, does that mean that the majority of America are Nazis...Catholics are supposed to not like gays, neither are Jews, are we all Nazis. The pope, does not liek gays, is he a Nazi. Your a moron.

http://www.totallywaycool.com/kojimyuu/atlantianblock.JPG

It's mostly effective.

Ahh...bliss...

No they are not.
Listen to me:
If you sat down in front of your PC, and wrote a coherent argument why you think that having the word "Soviet" (meaning "commune" ie a group of workers collectively making decisions) implies advocating a violent and oppressive authoritarian dictatorship, then I would be glad.

This way, it only screams your utter ignorance of the issues at stake, and all I can do is direct you to have a look at these articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_councils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_economics
etc etc

For the record, my school is Catholic and is quite Liberal. There is no discrimination against anyone being taught, even in Religious Studies. And it is not a private school, it is funded by the provincial government. Not all Catholics are extreme right and not all Catholic schools teach the students to hate.

Oh yeah I'm sure he meant Russian peoples of America. He had it for the Soviet Union. Admit it, if anyone had a Nazi America screen name...or anything like that, it would look terrible. And another thing, to the idiot who said that because i hate gays, I'm a Nazi....the majority of the country doesnt like gays, does that mean that the majority of America are Nazis...Catholics are supposed to not like gays, neither are Jews, are we all Nazis. The pope, does not liek gays, is he a Nazi. Your a moron.

You really don't know what you are talking about.. I hate to break this to you: but the majority of people in this country now accept gay people for who they are. Attitudes are changing whether you like it or not.

Oh yeah I'm sure he meant Russian peoples of America. He had it for the Soviet Union. Admit it, if anyone had a Nazi America screen name...or anything like that, it would look terrible. And another thing, to the idiot who said that because i hate gays, I'm a Nazi....the majority of the country doesnt like gays, does that mean that the majority of America are Nazis...Catholics are supposed to not like gays, neither are Jews, are we all Nazis. The pope, does not liek gays, is he a Nazi. Your a moron.

Oh so now we can read minds? Now we know everything within his mind that made him choose that screenname? Gasp. However do you do it. And actually, it wouldn't look terrible, because its in the past. I myself have Jewish blood in me, a bit, but it doesn't bother me, why? Because its in the past! You can't stop people from having screen names like that, and if you let it bother you you certainly aren't hurting them, you aren't hurting anyone but yourself. And if you start insulting people, expect to be insulted back. Idiot.

Oh yeah I'm sure he meant Russian peoples of America. He had it for the Soviet Union. Admit it, if anyone had a Nazi America screen name...or anything like that, it would look terrible. And another thing, to the idiot who said that because i hate gays, I'm a Nazi....the majority of the country doesnt like gays, does that mean that the majority of America are Nazis...Catholics are supposed to not like gays, neither are Jews, are we all Nazis. The pope, does not liek gays, is he a Nazi. Your a moron.

ok let me reitterate this for you-
you are up here preaching about a screenname when basicaly you are more nazi or w/e in more important ways, i may be a moron but you are just plain uneducated

ps. ummm more than half the country? and you know this because....? well i never got polled-not all republicans feel that way either so dont try that one.

bma

Listen to me:
If you sat down in front of your PC, and wrote a coherent argument why you think that having the word "Soviet" (meaning "commune" ie a group of workers collectively making decisions) implies advocating a violent and oppressive authoritarian dictatorship, then I would be glad.

This way, it only screams your utter ignorance of the issues at stake, and all I can do is direct you to have a look at these articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_councils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_economics
etc etc

I beleive all types of Communism, including Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism...whatever are wrong, not just the dicators....The same way that I, along with most people beleive that Fascism is wrong, not just Nazism, Musulinism (lol spelling?).

Ehehe...Um say...
I have to go...Light my face on fire. Should be fun...And just as my parting words: I don't have any problem with gays at all. I just think this private institution should have the right to refuse service. That's all. I am sure the parents will find a comparable or better school for their daughter, and I wish them and all the posters of this thread the best. Uh...Adios?

STOP QUOTING HIM!!! He's still killing my brain cells indirectly!

Alantian u say this but can we look at a few things:

ok nazis hated gays.....so do you!

nazis were intolertent......so are you!

omg wow i think weve found your people

Hitler loved animals. Does that make animal lovers Hitler lovers? Please, dont make bullshit arguments back at bullshit arguments. It's just twice as stupid. And I would assume you're intolerant of homophobes? I guess that makes you a Nazi too? Hell, everyone can be a Nazi if we used comparisons like that.

ok let me reitterate this for you-
you are up here preaching about a screenname when basicaly you are more nazi or w/e in more important ways, i may be a moron but you are just plain uneducated

ps. ummm more than half the country? and you know this because....? well i never got polled-not all republicans feel that way either so dont try that one.

bma

Most Republicans do feel this way. Also, how the hell am I nazi?

I beleive all types of Communism, including Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism...whatever are wrong, not just the dicators....The same way that I, along with most people beleive that Fascism is wrong, not just Nazism, Musulinism (lol spelling?).

Oh here we do again. Along with most people. YOU DON'T KNOW WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! Please. Part of living in America is... oh dear! FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEFS. Maybe you should move to a all God fearing, perfect, non gay, non freedom country where the goverment does your thinking for you.

Hitler loved animals. Does that make animal lovers Hitler lovers? Please, dont make bullshit arguments back at bullshit arguments. It's just twice as stupid. And I would assume you're intolerant of homophobes? I guess that makes you a Nazi too? Hell, everyone can be a Nazi if we used comparisons like that.

Exactly.

STOP QUOTING HIM!!! He's still killing my brain cells indirectly!

Dont do the post on the thread? Or do the read on the thread? I mean, what do you expect from a thread dealing with gays getting discriminated against? Seriously, you should be prepared for this type of behavior from both sides by now. The typical homophobe, the Nazi-Hitler references, and the circular stupidity intersparsed with my sagacious knowledge.

I beleive all types of Communism, including Marxism, Stalinism, Maoism...whatever are wrong, not just the dicators
You can't "believe" anything about these things if you don't know what they are.
Seriously dude, read up, then come back.

...Musulinism (lol spelling?).
It's not nearly as funny as you think it is...

=============
I'll be off then.

Most Republicans do feel this way. Also, how the hell am I nazi?


Since you've clearly decided to ignore what I said about the OT, I should point out that not only did God murder EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING on the planet with the exception of fish and a bunch of animals, but also the Jews ran around killing and raping everyone they met for the better part of 1000 years.

Most Republicans do feel this way. Also, how the hell am I nazi?

Oh you're just KILLING ME with this. (Sorry Soviet. **Huggles** Just don't look.) Once again.... YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE REBULICANS. I happen to be one. Go take a poll of every republican in this country and I'll be more inclined to beleive you.

Hitler loved animals. Does that make animal lovers Hitler lovers? Please, dont make bullshit arguments back at bullshit arguments. It's just twice as stupid. And I would assume you're intolerant of homophobes? I guess that makes you a Nazi too? Hell, everyone can be a Nazi if we used comparisons like that.

at least you gave a reasonably retort

very respectful

and yes i was a bit quick on that and it wasnt as thought throught as i would hav liked it to be

Dont do the post on the thread? Or do the read on the thread? I mean, what do you expect from a thread dealing with gays getting discriminated against? Seriously, you should be prepared for this type of behavior from both sides by now. The typical homophobe, the Nazi-Hitler references, and the circular stupidity intersparsed with my sagacious knowledge.
You're right. Back to World of Warcraft. Level 12 Tauren Shaman!

Oh, and Atlantian: My initial request still stands. After all, it's the people's will.

You can't "believe" anything about these things if you don't know what they are.
Seriously dude, read up, then come back.


It's not nearly as funny as you think it is...

=============
I'll be off then.

I have read up on them...I have read Mein Kampf, and The Communist Manifesto.

What do you mean its not as funny as I think it is...I just laughed because I spelled it so bad.

I see. Where's the proof of that claim? Do you have some sort of blueprint, or are you lying again?

To make it easy for you:
In what way do a homosexual couple differ from a heterosexual, infertile couple?

- Other than the fact Homosexual couples are usually fertile, and thus perfectly capable, from nature's hand, of having children.
Not with each other.
Alright then. Since I asked you about the difference, because you claim there is one, I can only assume your response here, means you believe that infertile, heterosexual couples are somehow capable of having children with eachother?

Sadly, I'm not at all surprised. Though I do recommend, that if you don't actually to go through with your suicide plans, at least don't ever seek any additional information of how mammals reproduce. I would hate for you to pollute our genepool any further.

Thank you.

Ehehe...Um say...
I have to go...Light my face on fire. Should be fun...And just as my parting words: I don't have any problem with gays at all. I just think this private institution should have the right to refuse service. That's all. I am sure the parents will find a comparable or better school for their daughter, and I wish them and all the posters of this thread the best. Uh...Adios?

WE ARE NOT ARGUING WHETHER IT SHOULD OR NOT, WE ARE ARGUING WHETHER IT WAS WRONG OR RIGHT.

so·vi·et ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sv-t, -t, sv-, sv-t)
n.
One of the popularly elected legislative assemblies that existed at local, regional, and national levels in the former Soviet Union.
Soviet A native or inhabitant of the former Soviet Union.

So he said the Soviet Americas. Big deal. Maybe he meant all the Russian People in the America's.

Also it means council. Like workers council.
Rather like taliban just means student initially, wedlock means a pledging activity and all other words with new or corrupted meanings can be interpreted as bad.

Since you've clearly decided to ignore what I said about the OT, I should point out that not only did God murder EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING on the planet with the exception of fish and a bunch of animals, but also the Jews ran around killing and raping everyone they met for the better part of 1000 years.

So did the Catholics, Muslims, Vikings, Japs, Chinese, Spainish...I could go on.

WE ARE NOT ARGUING WHETHER IT SHOULD OR NOT, WE ARE ARGUING WHETHER IT WAS WRONG OR RIGHT.

Which is what I've been trying to say from the beginning, I just didn't think of putting it in caps. Bravo.

Most Republicans do feel this way. Also, how the hell am I nazi?

i am a republican and i dont know one republican who feels like you said we do
ok accually your right your honestly just ignorant-ok look you whouldnt have come on here in the first place blaming gays for you having to move....that was stupid and im sure you know that

bma

Damn, first gay parents, then gay Preists, am I the only Catholic who realises we're too unpopular to start cutting off our arms?

So did the Catholics, Muslims, Vikings, Japs, Chinese, Spainish...I could go on.

The Vikings murdered every living thing on the planet? Woah, new one on me.

Oh here we do again. Along with most people. YOU DON'T KNOW WTF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! Please. Part of living in America is... oh dear! FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEFS. Maybe you should move to a all God fearing, perfect, non gay, non freedom country where the goverment does your thinking for you.

Thank you for saying that. Quick explanation: communism is a form of Utopia. It is theoretically perfect put incredibly unlikely to work. However small willing societies have done it very well. (Pilgrims, Mayflower Compact is obviously communist)

Which is what I've been trying to say from the beginning, I just didn't think of putting it in caps. Bravo.

I'm losing my patience too...

Alright, I gotta go to bed...taking the ACT tomorrow morning. After seeing everyones opinions in this thread I just have to say this, and you "guys" cant alk all the crap I want about me after I leave, I am SO glad I speak for the majority. And I'm going to fight for it to continue to be that way, with all my strength.

Thank you for saying that. Quick explanation: communism is a form of Utopia. It is theoretically perfect put incredibly unlikely to work. However small willing societies have done it very well. (Pilgrims, Mayflower Compact is obviously communist)

Communism makes one mistake. It assumes that everyone is equal. We are not equal. It has nothing to do with race, religion, culture, or sexuality. It has to do with individuals. Some individuals will always be smarter/stronger/meaner/nicer...whatever...no one, is equal.

I am SO glad I speak for the majority.
You don't, simple as that. I hope you fail your ACT.

WE ARE NOT ARGUING WHETHER IT SHOULD OR NOT, WE ARE ARGUING WHETHER IT WAS WRONG OR RIGHT.
Well that's just silly. I have a better arguement: How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie roll pop?
--or--
What marklar is there in marklaring the marklar of a marklar that has already been marklared, and furthermore, what is the marklar of the marklarth marklar to marklar the marklar?

I LOVE SOUTH PARK.

Alright, I gotta go to bed...taking the ACT tomorrow morning. After seeing everyones opinions in this thread I just have to say this, and you "guys" cant alk all the crap I want about me after I leave, I am SO glad I speak for the majority. And I'm going to fight for it to continue to be that way, with all my strength.

YAY! HES LEAVING! EVERYONE PARTAY! *throws confetti*

Communism makes one mistake. It assumes that everyone is equal. We are not equal. It has nothing to do with race, religion, culture, or sexuality. It has to do with individuals. Some individuals will always be smarter/stronger/meaner/nicer...whatever...no one, is equal.

Oh I LOVE how you were leaving and didn't care about all the crap, but had to come back to make one last shot.

Alright, I gotta go to bed...taking the ACT tomorrow morning. After seeing everyones opinions in this thread I just have to say this, and you "guys" cant alk all the crap I want about me after I leave, I am SO glad I speak for the majority. And I'm going to fight for it to continue to be that way, with all my strength.

I'm afraid to tell you that you no longer speak for the minority. Things have totally shifted (paradigm shift) now since the 1970s.

Can we go backing the Beatles theme that was like ten pages ago?

Oh I LOVE how you were leaving and didn't care about all the crap, but had to come back to make one last shot.
Yeah I did the same thing. Forums are just too addictive!

Alright, I gotta go to bed...taking the ACT tomorrow morning. After seeing everyones opinions in this thread I just have to say this, and you "guys" cant alk all the crap I want about me after I leave, I am SO glad I speak for the majority. And I'm going to fight for it to continue to be that way, with all my strength.

you are not the majority, however maybe the majority of uneducated hypoctites- well man humanity should party now that your gone- off to haze a gay or burn a cross or something eh?

sorry that was our of line everyone

*sits in corner sulking*

So a 22 year relationship with three children (ages spaced by 10+ years, at that) merits expulsion from a school because the parents are gay, but students whose parents are drunks, drug addicts, wife beaters, deadbeats, or anything else are A-Ok because they're straight? :rolleyes:
Your first mistake is in attempting to apply logic to the pseudo-spiritual principles espoused by those who twist religiion to match their own prejudices. :(

Can we go backing the Beatles theme that was like ten pages ago?
Yes, we may. I can say this because I am the eggman. How about yourself?

Yes, we may. I can say this because I am the eggman. How about yourself?

But I don't listen to the beatles. o.o

Alright then. Since I asked you about the difference, because you claim there is one, I can only assume your response here, means you believe that infertile, heterosexual couples are somehow capable of having children with eachother?

Sadly, I'm not at all surprised. Though I do recommend, that if you don't actually to go through with your suicide plans, at least don't ever seek any additional information of how mammals reproduce. I would hate for you to pollute our genepool any further.

Thank you.


Here's a difference: Heterosexual couples follow normal instict whether they are fertile or not. Homosexual couples do not follow normal instinct.

Most Republicans do feel this way. Also, how the hell am I nazi?

"Feel this way" as in think schools should refuse gays, or "Feel this way" as in "I don't have anything against them, mind you, they just make me uncomfortable"? Even the "Defense of Marriage" people didn't make the "all gays are sinners" argument, they tried to justify their attacks indirectly.

As to the Hitler stuff, we can all agree you are not a Nazi. We can also all agree Soviet Americans (btw, sorry for quoting this guy) is not a Stalinist. However, while he is merely making a reference (and btw there are countries with the word Nazi in their name, most of the time people don't get offended because guess what, they're parodies! Just because I'm Vegas-Rex doesn't mean I'm a supporter of Las Vegas, does it?) you are falling into the same trap that the German people did. Once you declare a people as fundamentally bad whether or not you act on that belief you legitimize violence, oppression, and eventual dictatorship and genocide. Whether or not you personally want to cause harm you are taking the same first steps that ended up costing 6 million of our people (more of mine, actually, since I'm also part gypsy).

But I don't listen to the beatles. o.o
Generally speaking, if you say a random word, there is a good chance its in the song "I Am The Walrus".

But I don't listen to the beatles. o.o


AHHHH!!!!! BLASPHEMY!!!!!! *rends clothing*

Generally speaking, if you say a random word, there is a good chance its in the song "I Am The Walrus".

Livercheese.

I'm Maxwell. Simple as that. >:-)

Fass:
He must be unaware of our government if he hates socialism that much and still want to visit.

I would recommend April in Stockholm, there is nothing more depressing than that month in Sweden. And some sightseeing to the communes... *tihi*

AHHHH!!!!! BLASPHEMY!!!!!! *rends clothing*
*Tears a piece of paper* Kyaaaa! Yeeees...

AHHHH!!!!! BLASPHEMY!!!!!! *rends clothing*

Its not my fault! :( My parents are psychotic they don't let me listen to anything!

Communism makes one mistake. It assumes that everyone is equal. We are not equal. It has nothing to do with race, religion, culture, or sexuality. It has to do with individuals. Some individuals will always be smarter/stronger/meaner/nicer...whatever...no one, is equal.

Very true

Yes, we may. I can say this because I am the eggman. How about yourself?
I'm just a paperback writer.

Its not my fault! :( My parents are psychotic they don't let me listen to anything!My dear, I have had three concussions and been stabbed in the head... That didn't have anything to do with The Beatles, I just wanted to throw it out there.

so·vi·et ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sv-t, -t, sv-, sv-t)
n.
One of the popularly elected legislative assemblies that existed at local, regional, and national levels in the former Soviet Union.
Soviet A native or inhabitant of the former Soviet Union.

So he said the Soviet Americas. Big deal. Maybe he meant all the Russian People in the America's.
"Popularly elected???" Surely you jest! You guys slay me. First you say that the US needs more than two parties in order to offer people "choice." Then you say that the one party system in the USSR resulted in "popularly elected" officials?!?!?! Get real!

But I don't listen to the beatles. o.o

tsch. You lack culture.

Here's a difference: Heterosexual couples follow normal instict whether they are fertile or not. Homosexual couples do not follow normal instinct.

So if I like chocolate, I can be discriminated against because I'm gaining sexual pleasure from something apes didn't gain it from?

If by normal you mean biological, most (not saying all) homosexuals are operating based on their own biological instinct.

If by normal you mean the majority, would that mean that a school can refuse my aunt's children because the majority of black haired women can't have blond babies?

"Popularly elected???" Surely you jest! You guys slay me. First you say that the US needs more than two parties in order to offer people "choice." Then you say that the one party system in the USSR resulted in "popularly elected" officials?!?!?! Get real!

Hey don't you get all up on my butt, first off its a reference from Dictionary.com and second my fiance wouldn't like it.

I'm just a paperback writer.
Have you seen that fool on the hill? That man with a foolish grin, keeping perfectly still.

"Popularly elected???" Surely you jest! You guys slay me. First you say that the US needs more than two parties in order to offer people "choice." Then you say that the one party system in the USSR resulted in "popularly elected" officials?!?!?! Get real!
That was likely the dictionary.com definition. Yell at them, not Nightsisters.

Also, the word guacamole does not appear in I Am the Walrus.

That was likely the dictionary.com definition. Yell at them, not Nightsisters.

Also, the word guacamole does not appear in I Am the Walrus.

Thank you Golden Wing. You have sense and as such recieve this gold star sticker.

Because we have religious freedom in this country a Church has the right to establish a school and require that those people participating in the school are religiously like minded.

The orginal post stated that at least one parent had to agree and comply with this rule ( they probably signed some sort of Statement of Faith)

Which brings me to my point - They gay couple knowingly misrepresented themselves to the school by signing this document.

its a private school, and they can do what they want. The parents had were smart enuf not to start a war, shows that theyr responsible enuf to let there kids in :rolleyes: but once agian, private school: not public rules.

Also, the word guacamole does not appear in I Am the Walrus.
Or does it?! *woosh*

Have you seen that fool on the hill? That man with a foolish grin, keeping perfectly still.

I told you about strawberry fields. You know, the place where nothing is real.

So if I like chocolate, I can be discriminated against because I'm gaining sexual pleasure from something apes didn't gain it from?

If by normal you mean biological, most (not saying all) homosexuals are operating based on their own biological instinct.

If by normal you mean the majority, would that mean that a school can refuse my aunt's children because the majority of black haired women can't have blond babies?

By normal I mean "animal like". Homosexuality appeared with decadence so we didn't need good instincts anymore. The principle of instinct is survival of the species and homosexuals don't do too much for that do they? And you're going to have to reexplain your third point, it seems irrelevant, sorry.

Hey don't you get all up on my butt, first off its a reference from Dictionary.com and second my fiance wouldn't like it.
LOL! Um ... how big is your fiance? Heh!

Because we have religious freedom in this country a Church has the right to establish a school and require that those people participating in the school are religiously like minded.

The orginal post stated that at least one parent had to agree and comply with this rule ( they probably signed some sort of Statement of Faith)

Which brings me to my point - They gay couple knowingly misrepresented themselves to the school by signing this document.
Which brings me to my original point, why should the student be punsihed for something she (assumedly) didn't do? Assuming she has undergone Confirmation, the Church should treat her like an adult. Each person makes their own choices therefore one person should not be punished for something that someone else did.

LOL! Um ... how big is your fiance? Heh!

Bigger than you.

I told you about strawberry fields. You know, the place where nothing is real.
Off topic: We so need a Beatles quote RP.

On topic: I wonder who will care for me when I'm 64.

All I know is that Maxwell's Silver Hammer (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/beatles/14578.html) is the coolest Beatles song ever.

Off topic: We so need a Beatles quote RP.

On topic: I wonder who will care for me when I'm 64.

Off topic: I love how this counts as on topic now.

On topic: Has anyone seen my mojo filter?

Off topic: We so need a Beatles quote RP.

On topic: I wonder who will care for me when I'm 64.

I will! I will! *Waves hand* Though the last old person I took care of... heh... their wheelchair ended up going into a lake... it wasn't my fault, I saw something shiny!

By normal I mean "animal like". Homosexuality appeared with decadence so we didn't need good instincts anymore. The principle of instinct is survival of the species and homosexuals don't do too much for that do they? And you're going to have to reexplain your third point, it seems irrelevant, sorry.
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

I-have-a-problem-with-it. Lol I love it, a gay guy trying to step up. They/you shouldnt be allowed to have kids for two solid reasons.

1. They/you are not a REAL couple, you cannot make your own kids.

2. The kids, and I speak for about 99% of the kids of the world, would not want to have gay parents, if they had a choice. Who the hell, that is straight, would want to have gay parents. Its not even close to fair for the kids.


1. I was Catholic myself so don't start boy. You do not understand the denomination and I suggest that you just drop all your arguments before I tear in to you like a bag of potato chips using all the catholic beliefs.

2. The world is changing, a lot of people do not believe this ways anymore. First it was Women who where discriminated against then the African Americans and now it's the homosexual population. I say another twenty years and we'll drop all this anti-homosexual stuff from our law books.

3. Have you even even read the bible? I have the ability to quote a nice amount of it. I have yet to hear you quote more then a few lines.

4. I have never once heard you back up your beliefs with facts, all I have heard you do is say this and that with no clear evidence. Why do you think this way? Why is it that you do not like gay people?

5. Don't quote stats without bringing up sources. I want to see where this 99 percent comes from. I believe that you pulled this number out of your rear end,

Off topic: We so need a Beatles quote RP.

On topic: I wonder who will care for me when I'm 64.
Why would you think you need someone to care for you when you're 64 any more than they care for you right now? Hmmm? :p

1. I was Catholic myself so don't start boy. You do not understand the denomination and I suggest that you just drop all your arguments before I tear in to you like a bag of potato chips using all the catholic beliefs.

2. The world is changing, a lot of people do not believe this ways anymore. First it was Women who where discriminated against then the African Americans and now it's the homosexual population. I say another twenty years and we'll drop all this anti-homosexual stuff from our law books.

3. Have you even even read the bible? I have the ability to quote a nice amount of it. I have yet to hear you quote more then a few lines.

4. I have never once heard you back up your beliefs with facts, all I have heard you do is say this and that with no clear evidence. Why do you think this way? Why is it that you do not like gay people?

Because hes a stupid kid, drop it.

Bigger than you.
Fastinating. Are you speaking literally or allegorically? :D

Fastinating. Are you speaking literally or allegorically? :D

Both. Hes a bodygaurd. Lotsa guns... muahaha... And I myself happen to be a martial arts buff. And I have a wolf for a pet. I'm just downright dangerous.

I will! I will! *Waves hand* Though the last old person I took care of... heh... their wheelchair ended up going into a lake... it wasn't my fault, I saw something shiny!
Well...I have a devil's haircut in my mind?

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

I'm surprised at this, good find, but are the animals in these situations actually following their instincts?

so i quit reading after page 4...ya, sry...bout that.

did anyone findout what this girl was saying that got her repremanded and blacklisted?? did it sound something like? (crying hysterically) "you guys are wrong my PARENTS have been together twice long and ten times happier than any of your..." or was it something *crosses fingers* seedy???

and just a thought. the rule states that at least one parent must be square. So where is her biological father? i'm sure some bean counter can convince the thumpers he still counts. as long as he's still kosher and all.

Well...I have a devil's haircut in my mind?

Muhahaha. Rephrase that. Its late over here.

Off topic: I love how this counts as on topic now.

On topic: Has anyone seen my mojo filter?
Off topic: It is truely a wondeful world.

On topic: Yes I did and Maxwell's silver hammer made sure that they were dead before they got out the door.

It does seem like the punishment is on the child.

She may or may not have been confirmed but under the law she is a minor until she is 18.

Her parents were required to sign a statement of faith of some sort with the understanding that their beliefs and teachings in the home were in alignment with the schools teachings and policies they had to know that "being found out" would cause expulsion.

I think this must have been very hard on their kids, knowing there were certain truths that they couldn't share with school chums.

Off topic:Well...I have a devil's haircut in my mind?
That's not the Beatles...

On topic: Doesn't Here Comes The Sun unconditionally bring a smile to your face?

Muhahaha. Rephrase that. Its late over here.
Beck quote!

Off topic:
That's not the Beatles...

On topic: Doesn't Here Comes The Sun unconditionally bring a smile to your face?
I know it isn't but I had to say it. I am weak before the coolitude (yeah I made that up) of Beck!

We should all go find another topic to bash. Even though I should get to bed. My wolf/horse is yawning behind me, but he can sleep on the floor for awhile. ^^

I consolidated my wolfhorse into a high fructose IRA...Or something like that...>.> :fluffle:

It does seem like the punishment is on the child.

She may or may not have been confirmed but under the law she is a minor until she is 18.

Her parents were required to sign a statement of faith of some sort with the understanding that their beliefs and teachings in the home were in alignment with the schools teachings and policies they had to know that "being found out" would cause expulsion.

I think this must have been very hard on their kids, knowing there were certain truths that they couldn't share with school chums.
My statement has nothing to do with American law. I''m commenting on the fact that, if she's confirmed, she should be treated as an adult who can make her own choices. She should not be punished for her parents' actions because by punishing her the "Catholic" school is ignoring their own beliefs.

Off topic: One of my D&D characters is named Maxwell. And yes, he has a silver warhammer.
NSFW>>Maxwell's Silver Hammer music video (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/239712)<<NSFW

I'm surprised at this, good find, but are the animals in these situations actually following their instincts?
No, the GBLT army made them fuck just to mess around with your arguments.

:sniper:

My statement has nothing to do with American law. I''m commenting on the fact that, if she's confirmed, she should be treated as an adult who can make her own choices. She should not be punished for her parents' actions because by punishing her the "Catholic" school is ignoring their own beliefs.

Off topic: One of my D&D characters is named Maxwell. And yes, he has a silver warhammer.
NSFW>>Maxwell's Silver Hammer music video (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/239712)<<NSFW
I think you may be my hero.

Don't know if this has been said, but the private school has a right to admit and expel people as they please; it is a private institution.

Don't know if this has been said, but the private school has a right to admit and expel people as they please; it is a private institution.
Legally, yes. Morally, no.

So a 22 year relationship with three children (ages spaced by 10+ years, at that) merits expulsion from a school because the parents are gay, but students whose parents are drunks, drug addicts, wife beaters, deadbeats, or anything else are A-Ok because they're straight? :rolleyes:

no, if you read the article you would notice the rule was "school policy requires that at least one parent may not engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style", so in that case if both parents of any other child in the school are any of the following you listed they too would also be expelled.
i dont agree with this, but read the entire article before you go off on a rant.

Goldenwing I am not arguing the point that confirmation should make her accountable for herself. Though the orginal post does not tell us if she is confirmed or not.

We do know that her parents are legally and finacially responsible to the school ( because she is 14) - the school rules apparently required at least one parent to comply privately with the school's beliefs if their child was to be allowed to attend the school.

The orginal post states that even from the first (whatever the girl may or may not have said at school or a school function) that the problem was that the family did not actually share the beliefs of the school.

no, if you read the article you would notice the rule was , so in that case if both parents of any other child in the school are any of the following you listed they too would also be expelled.
i dont agree with this, but read the entire article before you go off on a rant.

He's not ranting. We are discussing whether the school was right or wrong in its decision.

Well, if the spirm donar isn't living an alternative lifestyle, then I think that counts as one parrent who doesn't engage in"unchristian activities"

:fluffle:

Well, if the spirm donar isn't living an alternative lifestyle, then I think that counts as one parrent who doesn't engage in"unchristian activities"

:fluffle:

as said before private schools can expell and admit who they want, they could prevent anyone they want from entering their school. and in some nations so could their "public" schools.

And thus, the cycle begins anew. :D

as said before private schools can expell and admit who they want, they could prevent anyone they want from entering their school.
That's not what we arguing here. We are talking about whether the school was right or wrong. I don't know how much more clear I have to make this. The decision was wrong and there is no basis for it.

Well, if the spirm donar isn't living an alternative lifestyle, then I think that counts as one parrent who doesn't engage in"unchristian activities"

:fluffle:


The sperm donor doesn't count. Only the legal guardians. That usually means the people your living with but not always.

In a christian school that I'm familiar with the way they got around the gay couple issue was by giving guardianship to the grandmother who did share the church and school beliefs.

That's not what we arguing here. We are talking about whether the school was right or wrong. I don't know how much more clear I have to make this. The decision was wrong and there is no basis for it.

wrong to whos standards?
yours?
maybe your standards are wrong, there really is no such thing as wrong when talking about social issues. what there is, is issues you dont agree with, but there is no wrong.

Well, if the spirm donar isn't living an alternative lifestyle, then I think that counts as one parrent who doesn't engage in"unchristian activities"

:fluffle:
Aha! I didn't think of that. The wording never mentions whether it has to be her biological parents or not.

APM, her parents put her in that school to begin with for a reason, either because they are Christians and/or because that school offers a higher levle of education. Assuming it's the later, she shouldn't be punished and penalized because of something she did not do. I'm not saying she should be held accountable for her own actions(although she should), I'm saying that she should not be held accountable for the actions of her parents.

There are numerous schools, private and public, where parents do not agree with the views of the school and its teachers. That doesn't mean that thousands of students should be expelled each year because of it.

Also, I don't think the article mentions the school as being private. Catholic or not, if it's being funded by the state then they should haev no right to expell a student simply because her parents are gay. It would be like my school expelling me because my parents were/are hippies.

Oh good god here we go again just because people can't let things go. :headbang:

Oh good god here we go again just because people can't let things go. :headbang:
It's called "debate". It normally follows political and religious discussions. ;)

wrong to whos standards?
yours?
maybe your standards are wrong, there really is no such thing as wrong when talking about social issues. what there is, is issues you dont agree with, but there is no wrong.

Oh please. It is wrong based on common sense and common decency. The bible (new statement) says next to nothing about homosexuality. This was wrong, and you can't say it isn't because you're wrong.

Oh good god here we go again just because people can't let things go. :headbang:

is there a bad God? or any other God?

That's not what we arguing here. We are talking about whether the school was right or wrong. I don't know how much more clear I have to make this. The decision was wrong and there is no basis for it.

The school has a right to make decisions and enforce them. The rule was clear and required compliance on the part of the family. Therefore I think the school was right to make this decision.

And I find myself at odds with my own attitude on this - A little background. I homeschool my 4 kids 12 years ago I was one of several founding mothers of a christian homeschooling group.

6 years ago I was kicked out of said group because we the family refused to sign the new statement of faith which had to be signed without exception. It excluded anyone that wasn't a christian.

So basically I'm telling you I don't agree with the schools policies. But I agree that they have the right to have them and enforce them.

is there a bad God? or any other God?

... Its. An. EXPRESSION.

Oh please. It is wrong based on common sense and common decency. The bible (new statement) says next to nothing about homosexuality. This was wrong, and you can't say it isn't because you're wrong.

this sense you speak of, who is it common to, what people, what race, what species, and when. the new testament is not the only book, they is an old testement, which has laws that still apply.(you brought up the bible so im using it, dont get in on a debate with me that we shouldnt be hiding behind the bible now)

The school has a right to make decisions and enforce them. The rule was clear and required compliance on the part of the family. Therefore I think the school was right to make this decision.

Again, these schools do in fact receive state funding therefore it is not allowed to discriminate. The rule was not clear, and is based on errors.

So basically I'm telling you I don't agree with the schools policies. But I agree that they have the right to have them and enforce them.

Oh no, I don't agree with their policies. But I'm not arguing whether they could do it or not, I'm arguing that it is wrong and ridiculous that they did.

this sense you speak of, who is it common to, what people, what race, what species, and when. the new testament is not the only book, they is an old testement, which has laws that still apply.(you brought up the bible so im using it, dont get in on a debate with me that we shouldnt be hiding behind the bible now)

The old testament is contradicted by the new testament. Don't tell me what to say. I can get into any debate I want to. I made this thread to debunk christian fundamentalism.

The old testament is contradicted by the new testament. Don't tell me what to say. I can get into any debate I want to. I made this thread to debunk christian fundamentalism.
the old testamnet does not contradict the new, or the other way around, what happened is the world changed, people changed, needs changed, for the most part, and so the rules had to change, the ten commandments couldnt of read "do this untill the year 15 AD and then you are no longer allowed to do it anymore" saying the new testament contradicts the old testament is like saying america today contradicts america in the early 1800's

the old testamnet does not contradict the new, or the other way around, what happened is the world changed, people changed, needs changed, for the most part, and so the rules had to change, the ten commandments couldnt of read saying the new testament contradicts the old testament is like saying america today contradicts america in the early 1800's

You still don't back yourself up. The new testament did in fact change, and contradicted the older testament. And the America of today does contradict the America of the early 1800s. We don't allow slavery. YOUR ARGUMENT JUST GOT OWNED. :p

the old testamnet does not contradict the new, or the other way around
I forget the exact passage but the New Testament tells us to basically disregard most if not all of the Old Testament. Which is why I eat pork, hate people who keep slaves and have no problem with gays, as long as they keep the intimate stuff private.

You still don't back yourself up. The new testament did in fact change, and contradicted the older testament. And the America of today does contradict the America of the early 1800s. We don't allow slavery. YOUR ARGUMENT JUST GOT OWNED. :p

That was excellent. Props to you.

You still don't back yourself up. The new testament did in fact change, and contradicted the older testament. And the America of today does contradict the America of the early 1800s. We don't allow slavery. YOUR ARGUMENT JUST GOT OWNED. :p

if you take my words into context you would realise exactly what was meant. people changed, the world changed, so are you going to keep the laws the same?, NO your not, in america, ill use your example of slavery, the people changed, (slaves fought back, got educated, etc...), the world changed (more and more people in other parts other then the south were opposed to slavery), so do you still let slavery live on?

saying the new testament contradicts the old testament is like saying america today contradicts america in the early 1800's

Thank your for making our point.

I forget the exact passage but the New Testament tells us to basically disregard most if not all of the Old Testament. Which is why I eat pork, hate people who keep slaves and have no problem with gays, as long as they keep the intimate stuff private.

they dont contradict, what happens is laws change, they dont contradict because in the old testemnet there was a reason for not allowing people to do certain things and in the new testemnet there was a reason to allow them to do so.

if you take my words into context you would realise exactly what was meant. people changed, the world changed, so are you going to keep the laws the same?, NO your not, in america, ill use your example of slavery, the people changed, (slaves fought back, got educated, etc...), the world changed (more and more people in other parts other then the south were opposed to slavery), so do you still let slavery live on?
Fine then. The chosen people became a Holy nation and kingdom by the time Jesus came around. The population was large enough that they didn't have to worry about some people not having children. Do you still outlaw homosexuality?

Again, these schools do in fact receive state funding therefore it is not allowed to discriminate. The rule was not clear, and is based on errors.

Oh no, I don't agree with their policies. But I'm not arguing whether they could do it or not, I'm arguing that it is wrong and ridiculous that they did.

No if it is a private school it is not receiving state funding. If it is "evangelical" it may not even be accredited by the state(meanng that the state doesn't have the right to even cross the threshhold without a warrant.) ONce you get funding from th estat you give up your rights to ask parents to comply with statements of faith. If it is catholic it is probably accredited but not funded.

To me it seems just as wrong and ridiculous that these parents would have signed on at this school or wanted there children to be constantly bombard with this beliefs so different than their own.

I suppose the real reason that I support the school is that if their right to have and enforce their beliefs ( privately ie. you certainly don't have to go to the school) Then somewhere down the road my rights are likely to be taken away based on a public outcry ( ie homeschooling is to weird you don't have that right)

if you take my words into context you would realise exactly what was meant. people changed, the world changed, so are you going to keep the laws the same?, NO your not, in america, ill use your example of slavery, the people changed, (slaves fought back, got educated, etc...), the world changed (more and more people in other parts other then the south were opposed to slavery), so do you still let slavery live on?

What else has changed in America? The civil rights act.. gay rights advancement in the past thirty years.. so yes America of 2005 contradicts America of 1900 or 1800.

I never said to let slavery on. You need to read my posts.

Fine then. The chosen people became a Holy nation and kingdom by the time Jesus came around. The population was large enough that they didn't have to worry about some people not having children. Do you still outlaw homosexuality?

homosexuality wanst outlawed in the new testamnet, but at the same time it wasnt okayed, there were a few people that spoke out against it, but those people were humans, like me and you, that had their own feelings and thoughts.

No if it is a private school it is not receiving state funding. If it is "evangelical" it may not even be accredited by the state(meanng that the state doesn't have the right to even cross the threshhold without a warrant.) ONce you get funding from th estat you give up your rights to ask parents to comply with statements of faith. If it is catholic it is probably accredited but not funded.

Not entirely. The Bush adminstration has been trying to push faith based intiativese for years.

To me it seems just as wrong and ridiculous that these parents would have signed on at this school or wanted there children to be constantly bombard with this beliefs so different than their own.

You don't know them.

Again I highlight there can be gay christians.

Then somewhere down the road my rights are likely to be taken away based on a public outcry ( ie homeschooling is to weird you don't have that right)

Nobody is saying that or wanting to remove your rights, like what happened to this girl who was expelled.

I forget the exact passage but the New Testament tells us to basically disregard most if not all of the Old Testament. Which is why I eat pork, hate people who keep slaves and have no problem with gays, as long as they keep the intimate stuff private.


Jesus also said that he came to fulfill the law.

This poster, All Powerful Mom, has clearly not provided any evidence to back up her statements.

I'm glad that they are doing the "Christian" thing by casting away the "sinners."

So a 22 year relationship with three children (ages spaced by 10+ years, at that) merits expulsion from a school because the parents are gay, but students whose parents are drunks, drug addicts, wife beaters, deadbeats, or anything else are A-Ok because they're straight? :rolleyes:

No, they are A-OK...because THEIR sins are not VISIBLE. THEIR sins can be swept under the rug, ignored, and hidden. Hypocrites, all of 'em!

What else has changed in America? The civil rights act.. gay rights advancement in the past thirty years.. so yes America of 2005 contradicts America of 1900 or 1800.

I never said to let slavery on. You need to read my posts.

i never said you said slavery should live on, read my post. i used your example of america no longer having slavery. and no america does not contradict itself at least in that way. long while back then there was reason to allow(or look the other way) with slavery, it built the economy, it got america going, but after awhile all it was doing after that was profiting farmers plantation owners and such, so they changed it, there was a reason for the change, they didnt say slavery ok then just changed its mind, same as the bible, the rules they set were for reason, and then changed for a reason.

i never said you said slavery should live on, read my post. i used your example of america no longer having slavery. and no america does not contradict itself at least in that way. long while back then there was reason to allow(or look the other way) with slavery, it built the economy, it got america going, but after awhile all it was doing after that was profiting farmers plantation owners and such, so they changed it, there was a reason for the change, they didnt say slavery ok then just changed its mind, same as the bible, the rules they set were for reason, and then changed for a reason.

Not really. What built the economy was industrialization and that employed most of the US populace. And yes America does contradict itself.

Not really. What built the economy was industrialization and that employed most of the US populace. And yes America does contradict itself.


contradict: to imply the opposite or a denial of
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=contradict
america does not, what does is politicains and people living within america, but overall america doesnt.

industrialization alone did not build the USA, thats just what your history book says to simplify matter, but farming played a huge role, without farming in early america, america wouldnt be the same as it is today

Not entirely. The Bush adminstration has been trying to push faith based intiativese for years.



You don't know them.

Again I highlight there can be gay christians.



Nobody is saying that or wanting to remove your rights, like what happened to this girl who was expelled.

No I don't know them what I do know is that they did not share the ideas of the religious school that their children attended - they did sign something that said that they agreed to comply and yet didn't that kind of seems like lieing to me ( ie bearing false witness)

The reason they are not pressing charges and going to the press instead is because somewhere they have inked their names in and don't have a legal leg to stand on.

I have served on several action committies and I can tell you there are plenty of people that want to take away the rights of homeschooler Less than 20 years ago homeschooling was considered illegal in most of the US

contradict: to imply the opposite or a denial of
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=contradict
america does not, what does is politicains and people living within america, but overall america doesnt.

Yes, but there are several degrees of how severe a contradiction can be. No matter how small or how great, it is still a contradiction. And slavery being outlawed is a huge contradiction. Also women did not have any voting rights in the 19th century.

This poster, All Powerful Mom, has clearly not provided any evidence to back up her statements.

Like what?

The reason they are not pressing charges and going to the press instead is because somewhere they have inked their names in and don't have a legal leg to stand on.

They could go very well go to court, because it resulted in the loss of a school year that was nearly completed.

I have served on several action committies and I can tell you there are plenty of people that want to take away the rights of homeschooler Less than 20 years ago homeschooling was considered illegal in most of the US

I highly doubt it. There may be people who oppose it but they are not going to have your rights removed.

Yes, but there are several degrees of how severe a contradiction can be. No matter how small or how great, it is still a contradiction. And slavery being outlawed is a huge contradiction. Also women did not have any voting rights in the 19th century.

once agian, its not a contradiction, the rules at the time didnt say women had the right to vote and then kept them from voting. but the rules changed, didnt contradict, and now women can vote, and were allowed to vote.

once agian, its not a contradiction, the rules at the time didnt say women had the right to vote and then kept them from voting. but the rules changed, didnt contradict, and now women can vote, and were allowed to vote.

How clueless. Yes it is a contradiction as there are several different degrees of contradictions. Get that right! IF YOU ARE TAKING 2005 and comparing it to 1805, you clearly have contradictions.

I'm glad that they are doing the "Christian" thing by casting away the "sinners."
They forgot to symbolically stone them in a friendly game of dodgeball.

How clueless. Yes it is a contradiction as there are several different degrees of contradictions. Get that right! IF YOU ARE TAKING 2005 and comparing it to 1805, you clearly have contradictions.

you dont, if you take the rules of 1805 and compare it to what people do today, then yes you have contradiction, but if you look at the rules and the people of 1805 there is no contradiction and the rules and the people of 2005 no contradiction. but there are still law breakers, those contradict the law, but not america. anyways this is the last post for me tonight, may catch up in the morning.

They could go very well go to court, because it resulted in the loss of a school year that was nearly completed.



I highly doubt it. There may be people who oppose it but they are not going to have your rights removed.

There are regular court cases but there is also a law firm dedicated to homeschooling cases only. And we have fought very hard over the last 2 decades. And shut down most opposition. so in that case I agree with at the moment. But public opinion is a fickle mistress. Take the case we are talking about now a mere 2 decades ago the press wouldn't have touched a story like this.

you dont, if you take the rules of 1805 and compare it to what people do today, then yes you have contradiction, but if you look at the rules and the people of 1805 there is no contradiction and the rules and the people of 2005 no contradiction. but there are still law breakers, those contradict the law, but not america. anyways this is the last post for me tonight, may catch up in the morning.

I'm sorry but you don't know what you are saying. There are plenty of laws and such of 2005 that contradicts. You need to learn what a contradiction is and what levels there can be.

There are regular court cases but there is also a law firm dedicated to homeschooling cases only. And we have fought very hard over the last 2 decades. And shut down most opposition. so in that case I agree with at the moment. But public opinion is a fickle mistress. Take the case we are talking about now a mere 2 decades ago the press wouldn't have touched a story like this.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?


I think that opinion changes in 20 more years I don't think the question of a child going to a religious school with gay parents will be an issue. I think public opinion will change that. In the same way that the civil rights movement changed public opinion on minorities. I think the public opinion is sway-able. My personal experience though happens to be in the homeschooling movement and since most of you are probably not very familiar with it then it is a poor example on my part.

Thanks much for a needed and lively debate. All of your arguements are worth a think. Nighty Night all.

Sucks for her. I guess one of the moms should've dressed in drag though and worn a fake mustache while noticeably faking a male accent.

Male's have accents?

:sniper: gays are gay she got what she needs for her gay ass perantsm unless there hot parents :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

...unless they're hot...
ROFL

gays are gay she got what she needs for her gay ass perantsm unless there hot parents

I can only assume she got spelling, unlike you.

I can't be bothered going back and finding the posts, but several people have said that as the school is providing a paid service, it therefore has the right to discriminate in who it provides service to.

I thought that no business was allowed to refuse service to anyone, regardless of race, gender or sexual preference?

Wow this thread is still going?

Why?

Ok it's BS that they done that.

But it is a private religious school and Christianities attitudes towards gays is well know so why is this a shock?

Here's a difference: Heterosexual couples follow normal instict whether they are fertile or not. Homosexual couples do not follow normal instinct.
Sorry, I left the thread around the same time as the drowned guy did, so if you've answered this already, so be it.

I like your use of the word "normal". Just what exactly is normal, when it comes to sexual preferences? is it normal to enjoy anal sex? What about oral sex? Or is the missionary the only "normal" sexual behaviour out there? Are homosexual versions of such behaviour of such kind abnormal compared to the same heterosexual behaviour? If so, howcome?

Also, you seem to promote the idea that couples - at least heterosexual ones - only have sex - or perhaps form relationships - to have offspring. Are you quite serious about that, or was it a joke?

Also, I simply adore how it falls to the haunted minority to be nice & understanding about all this utter fucked up shite. At the risk of being banned: I would rip you fucking wankers limb from limb if given half the chance. What right do you preussian loving nazi swine think you have to pollute our genepool and screw with our childrens, our futures heads?

If there is a god, I pray it will give me the opportunity to help your passing be excrusiatingly slow & painful. Fucking halfwit twats

Wow this thread is still going?

Why?

Ok it's BS that they done that.

But it is a private religious school and Christianities attitudes towards gays is well know so why is this a shock? The student is not gay. They wouldn't even be letting a gay person in. They are eejitz0rz.

Okay, I'm a bit late in this thread, so this has most likely already been said...

As others have mentioned, private schools have the right to set their own policies. This school's policy doesn't want parents that are in relationships they consider to be 'sinful'. According to them they also turn away straight couples that aren't married.

I don't condone it, but it's their policy and parents sending their kids there have to follow it. Why did these parents send their child to the Christian school to begin with? If I were them I would prefer a school that wasn't comprised of religious bigots.

Ridiculous? Without a doubt. But it's a private school, and they have the right to do that.

Although, I gotta say, I find it kinda interesting. You can't discriminate against someone because he's not a caucasian or you get an uproar. You can't discriminate against someone because he's dumb. But it's all fine to discriminate against someone for his sexual preferences... or, rather, the preferences of their parents...

Welcome to the land of the free.

According to the bible, getting a hair cut and eating shell fish are sins.

Vetalia said it well. Right on the dot...
getting a hair cut is not a sin and Kosher meals were only under the Old Testiment. The hair cut issue was only for Sampson and was linked back into an agreement between Sampson and family and God.

Those families that do have an alcholic parent would probably also have a nonalcholic parent and the schools rules said at least one parent living within the moral code. This goes for the others as well! Not that I am defending them in anyway. I have spent too much time counselling women in these types of situations (and men too) to ever have anything even close to respect for them.

Paul's letters to the Corinthians actually sort of condemn it.

If I recall correctly, Paul said that Jesus and God had never given him any instructions, but he believed it was best to be chaste and follow God; and that if one could not do that, it was better to get married than to burn.

That said, you would think the school would WANT her there so as to make sure she is getting education in the "moral upbringing" they apparently believe she is not getting at home...

...and it would argue that her parents are attempting to raise her as "a good Christian' which is, after all, the oath one makes when one's child is baptized.

The school and its headmaster are in the wrong by trying to deprive the child of the religious upbringing her parents are trying to provide.

You know, I read somewhere, can't remember where it was though, about this study they did, where they took straight, non-homphobic men, and straight, homphobic men, and had both groups watch gay porn, and monitored specific physical reactions that indicated arousal. Guess which group showed more signs of arousal? That's right, the homophobes. And no, I didn't just make that up

Oh, there've also been studies, as of late, that show that homosexuality is more likely genetic than a "lifestyle choice", so therefore, this "Gays go to hell" logic makes no sense. God, according to Christian religion, created all people. Therefore, he created people specifically planning for them to go to hell from the time they were born? Oh yeah, God's real loving... :rolleyes: See, this is why I'm agnostic, although, honestly, the more I hear from the right-wing Christian fundies (or "Fristians" as I call them), the closer I get to Atheism, just so I don't have to be associated with them at all.

And TAI, it's not just "Majority rules, but we respect the minority". It's majority rules, minority rights are protected. We're not doing a very good job of that now, however.

Ahem. Actually, Levitucus says not to lie in bed with a man as you would lie with a woman, but this is addressed to men. As for lesbians, the official Jewish conclusion is that homosexual relations between women violate the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" and are also a form of sodomy.
But these lesbians had children...

The only thing God has ever condemned is straight men performing homosexual acts. A gay man wouldn't lay with a woman that way anyway, so he's in the clear,
I so love you for that.

1. They/you are not a REAL couple, you cannot make your own kids.

2. The kids, and I speak for about 99% of the kids of the world, would not want to have gay parents, if they had a choice. Who the hell, that is straight, would want to have gay parents. Its not even close to fair for the kids


They are businesses, yes. But education is not a commodity. Refusing to educate someone is not simply a matter of not providing a service - it's a calculated attempt to diminish someone's chances in this case.
No, see, a Private School can refuse to educate someone. Hence the 'private'.

Out of all the possible private schools to send their child to they send her to one where her classmates will hate her just because of who her parents are!
Don't be silly - I'm at a Christian school and it isn't like that at all.

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
I just have to pimp this: http://www.livejournal.com/community/fanficrants/1231191.html?thread=36437847#t36437847

b) Germanic Traits? WTF is a Germanic Trait?
You know, familial traits. Like the Celtic spot-tan.

David slept with another mans wife.
I'd say that David was the biggest sinner in the bible - and God still loved him. And he was [i]so bisexual...

Since you've clearly decided to ignore what I said about the OT, I should point out that not only did God murder EVERY SINGLE LIVING THING on the planet with the exception of fish and a bunch of animals, but also the Jews ran around killing and raping everyone they met for the better part of 1000 years.
Well said. *rolleyes*

Also, the word guacamole does not appear in I Am the Walrus.
*is pretty sure that that isn't an English word*

Don't know if this has been said, but the private school has a right to admit and expel people as they please; it is a private institution.
And As far as I'm aware, that's the whole point.

Its a Catholic school, people pay to go there, so it's a service business. A service business has the right to deny service on whatever grounds they wish. End of story.

PS. Do I think it's fair? No. But school, and life in general, are rarely fair.
Horse-shit. It's as fair or as unfair as people allow it to be. I think people ought to expect better, without having to demand it.

"The kids, and I speak for about 99% of the kids of the world, would not want to have gay parents, if they had a choice. Who the hell, that is straight, would want to have gay parents. Its not even close to fair for the kids"

The kids, and I speak for about 99% of the kids of the world, would not want to have fat/black/poor/Muslim parents, if they had a choice. Who the hell, that is not fat/black/poor/Muslim, would want to have fat/black/poor/Muslim parents. Its not even close to fair for the kids.

Ow noes! Won't someone think of the children! :rolleyes:

No, see, a Private School can refuse to educate someone. Hence the 'private'.
What does that have to do with my point? I know what the law is (in the US) currently - that hardly means it's anywhere near justified.

You know, familial traits. Like the Celtic spot-tan.
Are you aware that you try to tell a German what Germainc Traits are by using a Celtic Example...?

Two words: private school. Who cares? You can always go to another school. Of course that school's stupid for expelling a girl because of her parents' sexual orientation, but it's sort of your right as a private entity or individual to be stupid. The school could have kicked the girl out because she has bushy eyebrows. I wouldn't care how ridiculous or arbitrary or prejudiced the reason.

I wouldn't care how ridiculous or arbitrary or prejudiced the reason.
And strictly speaking, you should. Many here apparently do.
This obsession with "private" things and the influence of the state over them is, I think, an American thing.
Just because someone comes onto your property without you asking them doesn't give you the right to kill him. I mean who could possibly think of that to be justified?

And strictly speaking, you should. Many here apparently do.
This obsession with "private" things and the influence of the state over them is, I think, an American thing.
Just because someone comes onto your property without you asking them doesn't give you the right to kill him. I mean who could possibly think of that to be justified?

False analogy and strawman. How is school expulsion even comparable to killing an individual?

A better analogy: can an individual remain on your property without your consent? The student in question isn't ethically entitled to go to a private school. If you join a religion or you join a club or you walk onto somebody else's property, you abide by the rules or you're out. I don't have the right to demand you educate me. If you don't want to educate me for any reason, you shouldn't be obligated. I don't think that's a nonsensical position.

False analogy and strawman. How is school expulsion even comparable to killing an individual?
It was an example of the previously mentioned "American" way of thinking rather than an actual analogy.

A better analogy: can an individual remain on your property without your consent?
No. Does it justify punishing them? Especially with death?

The student in question isn't ethically entitled to go to a private school.
She had been previously accepted. She was ethically entitled to continue the education that she had been accepted for.

I don't have the right to demand you educate me.
I have the right to demand anything, whether you accept my demand is a different matter. :p

If you don't want to educate me for any reason, you shouldn't be obligated. I don't think that's a nonsensical position.
And in my view your whims are not enough.
If I have bad grades, I wouldn't go to Harvard and demand they take me. If I did, and they refused me, then that's okay. Grades are a sufficient reason, for not only could I hurt the education of others, but I wouldn't be able to get the education that I want anyways.
There are rules (both ethical and legal) for what constitutes discrimination. A private company putting up a bench "only for whites", or a bus firm only allowing Blacks to sit in the back are not okay. Why should this be?

Just because you own something, you aren't entitled to do anything you want with it.

It was an example of the previously mentioned "American" way of thinking rather than an actual analogy.


No. Does it justify punishing them? Especially with death?


She had been previously accepted. She was ethically entitled to continue the education that she had been accepted for.


I have the right to demand anything, whether you accept my demand is a different matter. :p


And in my view your whims are not enough.
If I have bad grades, I wouldn't go to Harvard and demand they take me. If I did, and they refused me, then that's okay. Grades are a sufficient reason, for not only could I hurt the education of others, but I wouldn't be able to get the education that I want anyways.
There are rules (both ethical and legal) for what constitutes discrimination. A private company putting up a bench "only for whites", or a bus firm only allowing Blacks to sit in the back are not okay. Why should this be?

Just because you own something, you aren't entitled to do anything you want with it.

1. You committed the fallacies of false analogy and strawman when you compared the situation in the article and my argument to killing a person who trespasses on your property. They're not remotely similar. Also, stop bringing up my American obsession with "privacy" or I'll bring up your European obsession with statism.

2. You have a right to do whatever you want with your property as long as you don't infringe upon the natural rights of others. No violation of natural rights occurred in the article. In fact, forcing a private individual to enroll a student against his or her will constitutes a rights violation.

3. I agree that schools should ideally operate meritocratically. That's the only way that makes sense to me. Then again, I don't much care what makes sense to me. If an individual wants to start a school and only admit black people, there's no reason why that shouldn't be permitted. Yeah, it's backward, stupid, pointless, seemingly arbitrary, and maybe even unfair, but it'd only be unethical if I had a right to attend in the school in the first place. I don't. I don't have a right to anybody else's labor or property or time.

4. Yes, she had been previously accepted. I agree that her dismissal is stupid. That doesn't mean she ever had a "right" to go there, though. Her acceptance at the school was contingent on a number of factors, factors with which you would probably agree and disagree. Factors like, for example, grades and the sexual orientation of the student's parents. I own my property, so I get to decide who's allowed to use my property. I can ask you to leave my property for any reason I want because it's my property. This is no way justifies killing--something you keep bringing up without actually explaining.

We are not arguing whether the school was able to do what it did. We are arguing whether it was wrong or right. It was dead wrong and it should of not kicked her out a week before she was to complete another year. The sexual orientation of a person should not determine whether they are rejected from education. You, orangians, do not understand that businesses and private institutions cannot unfairly treat customers or potential patrons. That's highlighted by the US constitution. There is no justification to this expulsion.

We are not arguing whether the school was able to do what it did. We are arguing whether it was wrong or right. It was dead wrong and it should of not kicked her out a week before she was to complete another year. The sexual orientation of a person should not determine whether they are rejected from education. You, orangians, do not understand that businesses and private institutions cannot unfairly treat customers or potential patrons. That's highlighted by the US constitution. There is no justification to this expulsion.

You know, I've read the Constitution a lot and I can't ever remember a section that says that businesses and private institutions cannot discriminate. Maybe you mean the US law code. If you still think I'm wrong, please cite the correct part of the US Constitution.

I am arguing whether it's right or wrong. Ethically speaking, it should be permitted. I've explained why numerous times.

So, before you tell me what I do or do not understand, you might want to check your facts and read what I actually have to say.

You committed the fallacies of false analogy and strawman when you compared the situation in the article and my argument to killing a person who trespasses on your property. They're not remotely similar.
They're not? In both cases the same justification is used to do something that is ethically wrong. Agreed, the severity of one is much more than the other, but the underlying thinking is very much identical.

Also, stop bringing up my American obsession with "privacy" or I'll bring up your European obsession with statism.
You're free to do so as soon as you see me say something "statist" - whatever you mean by that.

You have a right to do whatever you want with your property as long as you don't infringe upon the natural rights of others. No violation of natural rights occurred in the article. In fact, forcing a private individual to enroll a student against his or her will constitutes a rights violation.
"Natural Rights" as in John Locke's Natural Rights? The ones that seem to be redefined every so often? The ones defined by a slave trader?
But here is a bit of statism for you: Discrimination is wrong. Being discriminated against (in whatever manner) constitutes a violation of rights. The law should be framed that way, and whether you're public or private, whether you're a business or a school, the state has to cut your rights to protect someone else's.

Yes, she had been previously accepted. I agree that her dismissal is stupid. That doesn't mean she ever had a "right" to go there, though.
Why not? Why doesn't a person have the right to study wherever he/she wants, provided that person has both the skill and the necessary remuneration to do so?
Is this not a parallel to the racial discrimination of earlier days?

I own my property, so I get to decide who's allowed to use my property. I can ask you to leave my property for any reason I want because it's my property. This is no way justifies killing--something you keep bringing up without actually explaining.
Is it or is it not legal in the US for me to kill you if you enter my property without my permission?
Is that law justified?
If it isn't, then why is it justified to deny this girl her education with no valid reason, simply because it happens to be your school?

You know, I've read the Constitution a lot and I can't ever remember a section that says that businesses and private institutions cannot discriminate. Maybe you mean the US law code. If you still think I'm wrong, please cite the correct part of the US Constitution.

Read it and tell me where private business can discriminate. There have been different amendments added.. that specifically prohibit discrimination against American citizens.

I am arguing whether it's right or wrong. Ethically speaking, it should be permitted. I've explained why numerous times.

Your explanations are not valid. They still do not justify why it is right. It should not permitted. Ethics? You mean the things one who holds such bigoted views as yourself promotes?

im not entirely sure about the US constitution, but i know in canada this would not have been allowed. envision giant court case broadcasted on every CBC station nation wide, and for once i would be on the same side as the CBC journalists. why? because expelling some one because their parents are gay is the same as expelling some one because their parents are black. i've read alot of posts about private business right to discriminate, does that include the right to discriminate on the basis of race as well?
<o)

First, contrary to what a few have posted, homosexuality is condemned in the New Testament:
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves, 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. 1:26 For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. 1:27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. emphasis added

Second, it's a private, religious school and they have decided, as it is their right to do, that they don't want this girl in their school - and apparantly made this decision based on their rules regarding the "morality" of the parents.

Third, it's a damn shame some people have to be so bigoted or fearful that they exclude those that could be worthwhile members of their organization if they'd only give them a chance.

In conclusion - They had every right to do it and their moral code teaches them that the parents are immoral and it's a shame this girl has to suffer for the sins of her parents.

The convience store can kick you out for not wearing shoes or a shirt and they are not even "private" but they do have it posted by walking in you agree to these terms.

In the same way the girls parents agreed to posted terms. But the clerk on duty this shift was enforcing them.

1. They're not? In both cases the same justification is used to do something that is ethically wrong. Agreed, the severity of one is much more than the other, but the underlying thinking is very much identical.


2. You're free to do so as soon as you see me say something "statist" - whatever you mean by that.


3. "Natural Rights" as in John Locke's Natural Rights? The ones that seem to be redefined every so often? The ones defined by a slave trader?
But here is a bit of statism for you: Discrimination is wrong. Being discriminated against (in whatever manner) constitutes a violation of rights. The law should be framed that way, and whether you're public or private, whether you're a business or a school, the state has to cut your rights to protect someone else's.


4. Why not? Why doesn't a person have the right to study wherever he/she wants, provided that person has both the skill and the necessary remuneration to do so?
Is this not a parallel to the racial discrimination of earlier days?


5. Is it or is it not legal in the US for me to kill you if you enter my property without my permission?
Is that law justified?
If it isn't, then why is it justified to deny this girl her education with no valid reason, simply because it happens to be your school?

1. Fallacy of false analogy: violating a person's right to life and removing a person from your property aren't comparable situations. Fallacy of strawman: you attempted to weaken my argument by assuming in your original post that I consider killing trespassers and removing trespassers from your property as equivalent. Also, since you haven't defined ethics, you'll have to explain your understanding of ethics and why this expulsion was unethical.

2. Your very argument in this thread is statist.

3. Yeah, Locke's natural rights. Or Hobbes' natural rights, if you prefer. (I don't prefer.) Sure, natural rights have been defined and redefined. How does that affect what I'm saying, though? The fact that he dealt with slaves in no way refutes his brilliant work in the Second Treatise. That'd be ad hominem. Do you want to go for a fourth fallacy? Again, you make a lot of assumptions. You say discrimination is wrong and you say the state must protect that whether or not it's in the public realm. Without some cohesive explanation of ethics, I can't possibly know whether your position makes sense. I can follow your arguments to their natural conclusions, if I try. If discrimination is wrong and the state must uphold that, then do you think discriminatory speech shouldn't be permitted? Should the state make sure that you never think one discriminatory thought? Are you not allowed to deny the entrance of people into your home, even if the reason you're denying their entrance is because of a prejudiced belief? By the way, if you answer yes to any of these questions, I'd classify you as statist.

4. You don't have the right to anybody's time, effort or property. I have no ethical right to force you to educate me, even if I am qualified as hell. You own your body, you own your mind, and you own the extension of both (your property). Therefore, if I force you to educate me, no matter how intelligent or hard working I am, I am infringing upon your rights.

5. No, there's no legal right in the US to kill a person who trespasses on your property. You can only kill someone legally in self defense. This situation would only be comparable to the scenario in the article if the school not only expelled the girl, but killed her. You can't violate a person's natural rights. Let's start from that premise. Since the girl had no right to attend that school--she was merely permitted to go to that school by the owner of the property--it isn't unethical or a rights violation to expel her. Unless you infringe upon my right to life, I can't infringe upon yours. I can remove you from my property, though. I should add that in the USA, you don't have the right to free speech on private property. The same should apply to this situation. You don't have the right to force a private school to accept you. That violates an individual's property and privacy rights.

Unless you're actually going to respond to my points and assert your positive definition of ethics, I'm done debating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orangians
You know, I've read the Constitution a lot and I can't ever remember a section that says that businesses and private institutions cannot discriminate. Maybe you mean the US law code. If you still think I'm wrong, please cite the correct part of the US Constitution.



Read it and tell me where private business can discriminate. There have been different amendments added.. that specifically prohibit discrimination against American citizens.


Quote:
I am arguing whether it's right or wrong. Ethically speaking, it should be permitted. I've explained why numerous times.



Your explanations are not valid. They still do not justify why it is right. It should not permitted. Ethics? You mean the things one who holds such bigoted views as yourself promotes?

I don't have to read the Constitution and tell you where it says private businesses can discriminate. You're the person who asserted that the Constitution prohibits it. That means the burden of proof lies with you, not me. You need to cite evidence to back up your claim. I do not. I challenge you to read the whole US Constitution or at least the amendments and find the passage that specifically outlaws discrimination in the private sphere.

I do not "promote" bigoted views. I believe in a world where people should be allowed to express their views through speech or action without infringing on the natural rights of others. I can't count how many times I qualified my arguments with "I think the school's expulsion of the girl was stupid."

Here we go. I own myself. I own extensions of myself, including my thoughts, my time, my effort, and my labor. I own my property as it is an extension of my time, my effort, and my labor. I decide what I can do with my labor as long as I do not infringe upon the natural rights of others. (Natural rights of others: every individual owns him- or herself.) If I force the owner of the school to accept a student against his personal views, even if his views are stupid or bigoted or arbitrary, I violate his natural rights. The expulsion would only qualify as a rights violation if the student had had a right to be there in the first place. Since no person can own another person or extensions of a person (life, property), the student does have an ethical right to force the school and the owner to educate her.

I don't know how else to be clearer about this.

The convience store can kick you out for not wearing shoes or a shirt and they are not even "private" but they do have it posted by walking in you agree to these terms.

In the same way the girls parents agreed to posted terms. But the clerk on duty this shift was enforcing them.

Fallacy of False comparsion.

"I can't count how many times I qualified my arguments with "I think the school's expulsion of the girl was stupid." "

I didn't say it was stupid. I merely said it was not justified.

Ever heard of the equal protection act, smart one? I guess not.

"The expulsion would only qualify as a rights violation if the student had had a right to be there in the first place. Since no person can own another person or extensions of a person (life, property), the student does have an ethical right to force the school and the owner to educate her."

The student had rights to be there because she was accepted there and had a right to education.

Fallacy of False comparsion.

"I can't count how many times I qualified my arguments with "I think the school's expulsion of the girl was stupid." "

1. I didn't say it was stupid. I merely said it was not justified.

2. Ever heard of the equal protection act, smart one? I guess not.

"The expulsion would only qualify as a rights violation if the student had had a right to be there in the first place. Since no person can own another person or extensions of a person (life, property), the student does have an ethical right to force the school and the owner to educate her."

3. The student had rights to be there because she was accepted there and had a right to education.

1. No, I said it was stupid. You missed the point. You said I promote bigoted views; I qualified almost all of my arguments in this thread with "I think what the school did was stupid." How do I "promote bigoted views" if I think what the school did was stupid? Standing up for free speech and property rights aren't defenses of bigoted views.

2. Uh, do you mean the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, dumb one? The Equal Protection clause says that a state cannot deny individuals within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. If you're talking about all the legislation that prohibits discrimination in job hiring and such, you're actually referring to US law code. (WHAT I SAID ORIGINALLY.) In other words, stuff Congress passed, not stuff in the US Constitution. For god's sakes, why are you so arrogant about this subject when you're clearly ignorant of both the US Constitution and US law?

3. You have the right to be educated, but you don't have the right to force another individual to educate you. Also, if I let you into my house once, does that mean you have the right to come and go as you please? Are you a vampire? Come on, seriously, so what if the school admitted her once? Does that matter? The school can change its mind at ANY TIME, just like you. That's such a horrible argument.

For god's sakes, why are you so arrogant about this subject when you're clearly ignorant of both the US Constitution and US law?

No I'm not. You are the one who is clearly ignorant and arrogant about this. Good night. And how the fuck dare you say that? I actually study this for a living. Politics and government is all that I do in university. So excuse me.. you are no supreme source to any of this.

No I'm not. You are the one who is clearly ignorant and arrogant about this. Good night. And how the fuck dare you say that? I actually study this for a living. Politics and government is all that I do in university. So excuse me.. you are no supreme source to any of this.

Maybe you should change majors, man. I graduated from college with a bachelor's degree in history and a minor in political science and yet I had to correct you. I don't mind that you're wrong about the US Constitution and law code; I do mind that you started insulting me because I reasonably challenged you to cite the exact passage of the US Constitution that states private individuals and businesses can't discriminate. You couldn't point that out, of course, because it doesn't exist. You confused Equal Protection clause with Equal Protection Act, I think, or maybe you just confused US law with the actual US Constitution. Either way, you know you're wrong. So, get down from your high horse and admit that you were incorrect about what you said. If you want to sign off this message board rather than confront the real issue, that's fine, but it was perfectly appropriate of me to grow irritated when you started questioning *my* intelligence, especially since I WAS RIGHT.

Oh God, Viva La Drama!

Of course, according to California legal precedent, it appears that the school can do pretty much whatever it wants.

You cannot correct me on anything. You know what? You are the one who should burn your degree. I'm sorry to say that. You are the one who insulted me. And you are the one who is wrong. I don't ever confuse anything when it comes to this. I'm a very clear and concise person. Either way, you're wrong and now acting ridiculous. You cannot win this.

I already did win. I asked you to cite the exact passage in the Constitution that confirmed your assertion. You were unable to do so. You said something about the existence of lots of amendments that prohibit discrimination. I asked you again to quote the section. You said:

Ever heard of the equal protection act, smart one? I guess not.

That'd be the first insult between you and me and you said it. Also, I assumed you meant the Equal Protection CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment. Of course, I can't know for sure because you didn't say it was in the 14th Amendment. For all I know, you could mean a piece of legislation CONGRESS passed. I had to explain to you what the EPC actually states and the difference between the US Constitution and US code. I grant that US law code prevents discrimination in the private sphere, but that's not what this debate is about. All you have to do is retract your claim that the Constitution prohibits discrimination in private business.

You, orangians, do not understand that businesses and private institutions cannot unfairly treat customers or potential patrons. That's highlighted by the US constitution.

You don't ever confuse anything when it comes to this? Wow, the arrogance. As long as you're human and fallible, I'd like to bet against you on that. I make mistakes all the time, even in my specialty, which is history. I'm not afraid to admit that I'm imperfect. Hell, saying that takes a lot of the pressure off me.

Regardless, I'm not wrong. I've explained quite thoroughly why you're wrong, though. You don't even have a bachelor's degree yet, I assume. You're not expert in US politics. Neither am I. You'll probably know more about the subject when you graduate college than I do right now. That doesn't mean you are right about this, though, does it? Stop being so ridiculously arrogant. I get it - you're humiliated that you said something stupid and incorrect, especially since it's supposed to be your field. Get over yourself already. I don't even care that you were wrong. I only care that you questioned my intelligence. I'd really prefer to get back to the debate about whether the school was justified to expel the student.

I already did win. I asked you to cite the exact passage in the Constitution that confirmed your assertion. You were unable to do so. You said something about the existence of lots of amendments that prohibit discrimination. I asked you again to quote the section. You said:



Seeing that you caught my message before I thought it was hopeless talking to you. I think you are a very narrow-minded dense individual. I'll continue to get my As in university. Good night.

Seeing that you caught my message before I thought it was hopeless talking to you. I think you are a very narrow-minded dense individual. I'll continue to get my As in university. Good night.

Oh my god, you are most immature person I've EVER MET. What the hell? I'm narrow minded. You proclaim yourself master of politics, completely infallible to errors in knowledge or judgment, and I'm narrow minded? Are you serious? And really, you'll continue to get your As? I'm glad. I'm more concerned that you actually learn something while in college. I don't give a damn about your GPA if you're as dumb as a brick.

Listen, I have two recommendations for you, really a must for any university education. 1. Take introduction to philosophy, preferably a logic class. 2. Take a political philosophy class, preferably of the early modern period.

See, I'm talking circles around you. I don't even CARE about the stupid US Constitution versus US law code issue that we were debating. I'm more interested in my philosophy of ethics that you can't seem to understand or just want to ignore. Maybe if you take a political philosophy class and read up on natural rights theory or libertarianism, you'll be able to actually address my points. I'm not saying I'm right or smarter or better or wiser, I'm just saying you clearly have no freaking clue what I'm talking about in this thread. That's why you have to skirt around the issue with "I'm so smart" and "I make As" and "You're dense and narrow minded" and "You're wrong, but I can't actually refute any of your points or explain why."

Logic will teach you how to debate and political philosophy will teach you the history of and popular arguments in philosophy. Maybe then you'll be able to approach me on an intelligent and respectful level.

Good night.

I have one minor suggestion for you, stop telling people they are wrong when it is clearly left for interpretation. I already done a logic class... and received an A. Thanks. I'm also already in upper division (poli sci 372, poli sci 350).

I'm the one actually learning in university. Apparently you didn't. You also have no right calling me as dumb as a brick. Look in the mirror.

One more thing. I'm looking at your political compass results. We're not that different. We both seem to fall in the area of libertarian. Why do we disagree on this so strongly?

One more thing. I'm looking at your political compass results. We're not that different. We both seem to fall in the area of libertarian. Why do we disagree on this so strongly?

It is an attitude thing. I do not get along with some people of my same political standing at all. Some of my friends are the opposite of me (social democrats).

I have one minor suggestion for you, stop telling people they are wrong when it is clearly left for interpretation. I already done a logic class... and received an A. Thanks. I'm also already in upper division (poli sci 372, poli sci 350).

Your suggestions suck.

Yeahhhh, take logic again.

Natural rights theory can be interpreted differently. No dispute there. Your claim that the Constitution prohibits discrimination in private business is flat-out WRONG. You see that? WRONG. There's absolutely no QUESTION that you were wrong. I freaking dare you to check over the Constitution and prove me wrong. Again, SO ARROGANT. You don't even have a degree in this and yet you ridiculously claim infallibility in this subject. For the love of god, you were wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You're not getting out of this. WRONG. If you don't believe me, ask your professors.

Also, I said take a political philosophy class. You didn't indicate whether you've taken one. You should. And like I said, take logic over or something.

Yeahhhh, take logic again.

Natural rights theory can be interpreted differently. No dispute there. Your claim that the Constitution prohibits discrimination in private business is flat-out WRONG. You see that? WRONG. There's absolutely no QUESTION that you were wrong. I freaking dare you to check over the Constitution and prove me wrong. Again, SO ARROGANT. You don't even have a degree in this and yet you ridiculously claim infallibility in this subject. For the love of god, you were wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You're not getting out of this. WRONG. If you don't believe me, ask your professors.

Take logic again? bugger off. I took it once and I won't take it again.

You have a attitude problem. Nothing I said was wrong. You are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong . There is no fucking question? I am not wrong. I'm sorry..

You like that? YOu like being a little jerk? I don't even have a degree? I will very soon. And I claim infallibility over someone who doesn't seem to have the ideas down right.


Go to college again. You have no argument. And you are redundant.

Also, I said take a political philosophy class. You didn't indicate whether you've taken one. You should. And like I said, take logic over or something.

Done so. Stop being ridiculous.

We are not arguing whether the school was able to do what it did. We are arguing whether it was wrong or right. It was dead wrong and it should of not kicked her out a week before she was to complete another year. The sexual orientation of a person should not determine whether they are rejected from education. You, orangians, do not understand that businesses and private institutions cannot unfairly treat customers or potential patrons. That's highlighted by the US constitution. There is no justification to this expulsion.

1. You were unable to cite the passage of the US Constitution as evidenced here:

Read it and tell me where private business can discriminate. There have been different amendments added.. that specifically prohibit discrimination against American citizens.

2. You desperately tried to back up your assertion here:

Ever heard of the equal protection act, smart one? I guess not.

3. I responded with this:

2. Uh, do you mean the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, dumb one? The Equal Protection clause says that a state cannot deny individuals within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. If you're talking about all the legislation that prohibits discrimination in job hiring and such, you're actually referring to US law code. (WHAT I SAID ORIGINALLY.) In other words, stuff Congress passed, not stuff in the US Constitution. For god's sakes, why are you so arrogant about this subject when you're clearly ignorant of both the US Constitution and US law?

So, you've failed to cite the passage to back up your original claim, which I will post again in case you forgot:

You, orangians, do not understand that businesses and private institutions cannot unfairly treat customers or potential patrons. That's highlighted by the US constitution.

So, tell me how you're not wrong again.

There's only one part of the US Constitution that's commonly referred to using the words "equal protection" and that's the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, which doesn't prove your original claim. Here it is again:

You, orangians, do not understand that businesses and private institutions cannot unfairly treat customers or potential patrons. That's highlighted by the US constitution.

You're wrong. US law code prohibits discrimination in the private sphere, NOT the US Constitution. Either back up your claim NOW or admit defeat.

It's a private school, so it's very possible that it doesn't have students with any of the other types of families you've named either.

ooh i love this stereotyping- because people have the money to send their kids to a private school they don't have any problems like alcoholism?

1. You were unable to cite the passage of the US as evidenced here:



2. You desperately tried to back up your assertion here:



3. I responded with this:



So, you've failed to cite the passage to back up your original claim, which I will post again in case you forgot:



So, tell me how you're not wrong again.

There's only one part of the US Constitution that's commonly referred to using the words "equal protection" and that's the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, which doesn't prove your original claim. Here it is again:



You're wrong. US law code prohibits discrimination in the private sphere, NOT the US Constitution. Either back up your claim NOW or admit defeat.

You see how this guy has no evidence and is always nagging me for some? Sounds like another Ted Kennedy. i don't ever admit defeat. You didn't even major in political science. You minored in it. So how could your education possibly stack up to mine, when I already took classes that are required for the major, and not the minor?

Ugh.. I think I should of gone to Rage tonight.. I haven't been there in eight months.. but dang.. getting pissed at people on the internet.. I don't have the time for this.

As an observer, I gotta say that Orangians is right here. He asked for evidence to back up Mes' claims, and Mes has been unable to provide this evidence, instead reverting to pointless ad hominem attacks and ranting. Also, someone who actually says:

i don't ever admit defeat.

has already lost the debate. If one never admits defeat it means the entire debate is pointless to begin with.

You see how this guy has no evidence and is always nagging me for some? Sounds like another Ted Kennedy. i don't ever admit defeat. You didn't even major in political science. You minored in it. So how could your education possibly stack up to mine, when I already took classes that are required for the major, and not the minor?

1. I'm a girl. 2. Of course you have to present evidence. You asserted a claim. In case you forgot--AGAIN--here it is:

You, orangians, do not understand that businesses and private institutions cannot unfairly treat customers or potential patrons. That's highlighted by the US constitution.

I don't have to provide any evidence because you made the original assertion:

You, orangians, do not understand that businesses and private institutions cannot unfairly treat customers or potential patrons. That's highlighted by the US constitution.

I challenged you to cite the exact passage of the US Constitution. You haven't yet. Even though I don't have to prove you're wrong because you made the original assertion--so it's your responsibility to back up the claim--I will.

Explanation of the 14th Amendment. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html)

14th Amendment. (http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/amend14.htm)

US Constitution. (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html)

Amendments. (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html)

There's all my evidence that you're wrong. Now it's YOUR turn to prove that you were right.

I never said I was better in US politics. I only said that you were WRONG about THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. What the hell is the matter with you? This isn't a battle of education, although I'm willing to bet I'd win. This is a very narrow argument about your claim:

You, orangians, do not understand that businesses and private institutions cannot unfairly treat customers or potential patrons. That's highlighted by the US constitution.

Prove it or stop arguing.

1. I'm a girl. 2. Of course you have to present evidence. You asserted a claim. In case you forgot--AGAIN--here it is:

Nope. You made the assertions.

Nope. I am certifying that I won this debate. I'm wondering.. I know I would win against this girl in political debates for she lacks logic and the process of interpretation.

Nope. You made the assertions.

Nope. I am certifying that I won this debate.

Certifying? Are you two years old? Certifying? How does one certify in an informal setting that you've won this debate? Are you nuts?

I didn't make the assertion. Your original assertion which I attacked:

You, orangians, do not understand that businesses and private institutions cannot unfairly treat customers or potential patrons. That's highlighted by the US constitution.

Also, I've provided ample evidence that you're wrong, even though I wasn't logically obligated to because you made the original assertion. So, put up or shut up, buddy. You're just sad right now.

*Edit: You would win in a political debate with me? If so, then let's back to the real issue as soon as you admit you were wrong.

1. They/you are not a REAL couple, you cannot make your own kids.

2. The kids, and I speak for about 99% of the kids of the world, would not want to have gay parents, if they had a choice. Who the hell, that is straight, would want to have gay parents. Its not even close to fair for the kids.
........................................................................................

Are you saying that sterile couples should not be allowed to have kids? they cant "make thier own" either. And I do not understand why anyone would object to having gay parents. Would you object to being raised by people of a different race? :mad:

Certifying? Are you two years old? Certifying? How does one certify in an informal setting that you've won this debate? Are you nuts?

I won this because you couldn't debate properly. You still don't understand what interpretation means.

YOU SHUT UP. SHUT UP!

I really knew I should of gone to that hangout place tonight.. I don't know why I turned down my friends..

*Edit: You would win in a political debate with me? If so, then let's back to the real issue as soon as you admit you were wrong.

I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. You clearly won this debate, but he is physically incapable of admitting error.

I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. You clearly won this debate, but he is physically incapable of admitting error.

She did not clearly win anything. In fact I did, because I brought up interpretation. Both the US law and constitution are up to interpretation. She did not win anything.

I won this because you couldn't debate properly. You still don't understand what interpretation means.

YOU SHUT UP. SHUT UP!

Hahah. Oh my god. I asked you to provide evidence that the US Constitution prohibits discrimination in private business. You haven't been able to yet. HOW IS THAT A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION? There's no interpretation involved, man. NONE. It's cut and dry. You made a claim, I asked you to support your claim, you haven't been able to support your claim, I provided evidence that your claim was wrong even though I wasn't logically obligated to do so. What in that sequence of events leads you to believe that this is a matter of interpretation? Explain yourself.

She did not clearly win anything. In fact I did, because I brought up interpretation. Both the US law and constitution are up to interpretation. She did not win anything.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?! You're obviously just squirming to get out of admitting defeat. That and shouting and name calling like a four-year-old. If anyone won here, it was her.

Hahah. Oh my god. I asked you to provide evidence that the US Constitution prohibits discrimination in private business. You haven't been able to yet. HOW IS THAT A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION? There's no interpretation involved, man. NONE. It's cut and dry. You made a claim, I asked you to support your claim, you haven't been able to support your claim, I provided evidence that your claim was wrong even though I wasn't logically obligated to do so. What in that sequence of events leads you to believe that this is a matter of interpretation? Explain yourself.

You are so ridiculously dense. I'm sorry but you have provided no evidence. Your little paragraph is totally redundant. I'm not going to back myself up because I don't feel like it, for someone as immature as yourself. I don't feel like spending any of my time on you. My claim is not wrong.

She did not clearly win anything. In fact I did, because I brought up interpretation. Both the US law and constitution are up to interpretation. She did not win anything.

Duh. US law and the US Constitution are up to interpretation. I asked you to cite the passage in the US Constitution that can be interpreted to mean that the Constitution prohibits discrimination in private business. The issue isn't the interpretation of law; the issue is that you claimed that the Constitution prohibits discrimination in private business. I don't care what your interpretation is, I just want the passage that states that your interpretation is correct.

As an observer, I gotta say that Orangians is right here. He asked for evidence to back up Mes' claims, and Mes has been unable to provide this evidence, instead reverting to pointless ad hominem attacks and ranting. Also, someone who actually says:


Quote:
i don't ever admit defeat.



has already lost the debate. If one never admits defeat it means the entire debate is pointless to begin with.

......................................................................................

Totally agree. time for someone to grow up and admit thet they arent an all knowing deity.

Wasn't it by interpretation of the US constitution Texan sodomy laws were stuck down. Wouldn't the same section extend to private enterprise?

Wasn't it by interpretation of the US constitution Texan sodomy laws were stuck down. Wouldn't the same section extend to private enterprise?

Perhaps, but in such a case we would need to see the section that's open for interpretation. No such information has been provided, so there's nothing to interpret. Besides, from a strictly legal point of view, such speculating would be rather pointless since no court has made such a ruling anyway.

EDIT: Also see Orangians' post below.

Wasn't it by interpretation of the US constitution Texan sodomy laws were stuck down. Wouldn't the same section extend to private enterprise?

Courts interpret laws, yes. That doesn't mean what the courts interpret is actually in the Constitution. You're not incorrect, but the person I am arguing with can't use your argument because he said that the Constitution prohibits discrimination in private business. There's no disagreement that the law prohibits discrimination in private business, but that's not in the Constitution, that's in US law code. I agreed with him on that about forty posts ago. :)

*yawn*

Tomorrow I'm going to XY Nitespot. Not going to mess around here again... I'm tired of fighting with people who don't even know me.

Perhaps, but in such a case we would need to see the section that's open for interpretation. No such information has been provided, so there's nothing to interpret. Besides, from a strictly legal point of view, such speculating would be rather pointless since no court has made such a ruling anyway.

Exactly right.

*yawn*

Tomorrow I'm going to XY Nitespot. Not going to mess around here again... I'm tired of fighting with people who don't even know me.

I'm tired of fighting with people who don't know anything. I guess we're even.

Would The Unruh Civil Rights Act cover a private, religious school as a place of public accomidation? If so, that school's in trouble.

I'm tired of fighting with people who don't know anything. I guess we're even.

I don't know anything? How the fuck do you figure that one? I guess that's why I'm university? Have you ever meet me in person?

tomorrow night: www.xynitespot.com

I'm definitely not hanging out here arguing with someone who I don't even know..

I don't know anything? How the fuck do you figure that one? I guess that's why I'm university? Have you ever meet me in person?

Okay, firstly, you place way too much importance on the fact that you're going to college. Emphasis on going. Trust me, I've known complete boneheads who also have college degrees. I don't much care that you're a sophomore or junior in college. Congratu-freaking-lations. If you're ignorant, you're ignorant. You can still be ignorant with an overpriced education.

I figure you don't know anything because for the hour or two that I've debated with you, you've shown me that.

Whoa, I suggest you both cool it a bit before the Mods are all over this...

Fine, fine, you're right. I shouldn't let this kid get to me. I clearly won, there's really no disputing that. He's not worth my time and he's most definitely not worth a warning or a ban. So, moderators, if you're reading this, I'm sorry that I lost my temper. I know I didn't say anything too horrible, but I still shouldn't have participated. I shall calmly and peacefully resume debating the merits of the original argument if anybody would like to continue.

Okay, but, seriously, what about Unruh? Or is it covered somewhere before this thread turned into a scene from "Dynasty"?

I'm saying that maybe you should come along if you lived in LA. You would learn to chill.

From what I've read, it seems as though the school violated Unruh.

Would The Unruh Civil Rights Act cover a private, religious school as a place of public accomidation? If so, that school's in trouble.
It should do/ Whether you're a privaate school or not surely your reasoning for not allowing a student in to your institution can't be the sexual orientation of the student's parents. By enforcing a hectrosexual criteria to admission you're indoctrinating your students. However I suppose the whole idea of a Christian School enforces indoctrination at some level.

Exellent, as it should be! Although, it's sad that these 3 children have to suffer all because of their immoral and irresponsable homosexual so called parents. Perversion leads to chaos, always has and always will.

Exellent, as it should be! Although, it's sad that these 3 children have to suffer all because of their immoral and irresponsable homosexual so called parents. Perversion leads to chaos, always has and always will.

God had very little to do with this decision. :rolleyes:

I can't see how homosexuality is immoral. It's been around for centuries, ncient Greeks and Romans used to practise it as a form of social interaction.

Exellent, as it should be! Although, it's sad that these 3 children have to suffer all because of their immoral and irresponsable homosexual so called parents. Perversion leads to chaos, always has and always will.

Oh please. Immoral and irresponsible? Wrong. To suffer? how are they suffering? This lesbian couple has been together for 22 years. You are the type who would say: Give the children to an abusive heterosexual couple that has fights and is always drunk.. but hey they are straigt.

Get real.

Oh please. Immoral and irresponsible? Wrong. To suffer? how are they suffering? This lesbian couple has been together for 22 years. You are the type who would say: Give the children to an abusive heterosexual couple that has fights and is always drunk.. but hey they are straigt.

Get real.
Okay wasn't going to go into this argument, but Mesatecala has a point. Are abusive hectrosexual relatinships better than established homosexual relationships? I don't think so

Okay wasn't going to go into this argument, but Mesatecala has a point. Are abusive hectrosexual relatinships better than established homosexual relationships? I don't think so

i know seriously..

The lesbian couple has been together for 22 years..

From what I've read, it seems as though the school violated Unruh.

That is something that is open to interpretation, I think. From what I've found on Google, Unruh never mentions sexual orientation or civil status. However, it does allow for conditions similar to the ones mentioned (sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition). I guess it would be up to a court...

That is something that is open to interpretation, I think. From what I've found on Google, Unruh never mentions sexual orientation or civil status. However, it does allow for conditions similar to the ones mentioned (sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition). I guess it would be up to a court...

True, but under Unruh it was decided that a restaurant, for example, could not refuse service to a same-sex couple. You're right, though, that it is probably open for debate. Should be interesting to watch.

Unruh:

5. What private businesses (http://www.pai-ca.org/pubs/533401.htm) do the state laws cover?

The Unruh Act applies to all business establishments of every kind whatsoever. California Civil Code § 51. This is a broader definition than the one under the ADA. Thus, potentially, there may be some entities that are covered by the Unruh Act but not by the ADA.

California Civil Code Section 54 covers medical facilities (hospitals, clinics, physicians’ offices); all common carriers (airplanes, trains, buses, etc.); telephone facilities; adoption agencies; private schools; lodging places (hotels, motels); places of public accommodation (amusement or resort); and other places to which the general public is invited.


CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 2005 (http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/californias.html)
Date: 8-22-05 Bill Number: AB 1400 Votes: For=22 Against=16
Vote to amend the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) and related provisions to clarify that discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status is illegal. The Unruh Act applies to all business establishments that provide services, goods or
accommodations to the public. Businesses subject to the Unruh Act include,
but are not limited to, shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and
restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels and motels, and
condominium homeowners associations.

Unruh:

Oh, well, debate over, then. :)

Also, here (http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Statutes/unruh.asp)


This law provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because of:
Age
Ancestry
Color
Disability
National Origin
Race
Religion
Sex
Sexual Orientation
However California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics. The Act meant to cover all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by a business establishment on the bases of personal characteristics similar to those listed above.