NationStates Jolt Archive

Then you have intimidation lawsuit against the school.
Why?

As school administrator I have total property rights ... the poster goes where in the school I say it does

As far as the firing I dont see where you are going with that
If the teacher breaks the rules what do you think the punishment should be? or are you saying it is intimidation for requiring an employee to follow the employers resonable rule set?

As far as I'm concerned, if I was a teacher there, I figure the building belongs to someone else. That includes my classroom. If they wanted me to hang Mapplethorpe art on the wall, I would do it, over the objections of any parent.

I don't have a problem with non-discrimination rules - but I hardly think that a rainbow poster makes a difference.

It's impossible to legislate conduct. You can't force students who hate a particular group to love them - no matter how many rules you put in place or how many posters you hang.

If anything, the hate will just go silent, and be there as an undercurrent. But it will still be there.

Now, if they said that teachers had to put a rainbow bumper sticker on their personal vehicle, I would quit.
I agree my arguement was based off the same thing ... As administrators that classroom belongs to me.

This is once I do agree with you :)

But that isn't why they are opposed to it.

They oppose the poster because they are opposed to homosexuality, which just goes back to why they have to have a poster in the first place

They are opposed to endorsing it, which is their right. I disagree with them, but we cannot force them to endorse it, which is how they see it. That's why the way to avoid the issue altogether is to make the posters more about tolerance and less about pride.

Why?

As school administrator I have total property rights ... the poster goes where in the school I say it does

As far as the firing I dont see where you are going with that
If the teacher breaks the rules what do you think the punishment should be? or are you saying it is intimidation for requiring an employee to follow the employers resonable rule set?

Actually, the administrator does not have total property rights and as a government building must obey governmental rules. This poster would likely meet an untimely end in any building where government employees were required to display it. Display it in common areas or put it up yourself, but requiring a teacher to put it up, to endorse it, is where they are going to run into problems.

They are opposed to endorsing it, which is their right. I disagree with them, but we cannot force them to endorse it, which is how they see it. That's why the way to avoid the issue altogether is to make the posters more about tolerance and less about pride.
You are asserting the posters are about pride, that doesn't make it so. It does not say "It is ok to be gay." It says "This is a safe place to be who you are." That is a general statement. It doesn't matter whether the teachers endorse homosexuality or not, it does not give them the right to oppose people being homosexual, I don't care how fucking indoctrinated they are. They do not oppose the posters for any other reason than they oppose homosexuality, which is the very reason the posters are there.

Actually, the administrator does not have total property rights and as a government building must obey governmental rules. This poster would likely meet an untimely end in any building where government employees were required to display it. Display it in common areas or put it up yourself, but requiring a teacher to put it up, to endorse it, is where they are going to run into problems.
They can require to be in the "teacher's" classroom as long as it is in every classroom, making it a mandated classroom object.

You are asserting the posters are about pride, that doesn't make it so. It does not say "It is ok to be gay." It says "This is a safe place to be who you are." That is a general statement. It doesn't matter whether the teachers endorse homosexuality or not, it does not give them the right to oppose people being homosexual, I don't care how fucking indoctrinated they are. They do not oppose the posters for any other reason than they oppose homosexuality, which is the very reason the posters are there.

It doesn't say they oppose people's right to be homosexuals and to be safe from harm. The article says that they have religious objections to hanging the poster. They said nothing about the policy of tolerance which they did not object to prior to the poster. The poster is noted to have many gay pride symbols on it, so you can rail about it not being about that, but the makers of the poster appear to have disagreed.

The high school's Gay-Straight Alliance designed the poster, which includes pink triangles and other symbols of gay pride.

Whoops!

They can require to be in the "teacher's" classroom as long as it is in every classroom, making it a mandated classroom object.

And they can hang it up. They didn't. They required the teacher to do it. And you would find this as a problem with any large group of governmental employees. They're employees, not slaves. No where in their job description does it say they are required to endorse every position of the administration.

It doesn't say they oppose people's right to be homosexuals and to be safe from harm. The article says that they have religious objections to hanging the poster.
Wrong, it says they have religious objections to homosexuality, not to the hanging of the poster.

Five teachers at San Leandro High School have refused to comply with a school district order to display a rainbow-flag poster in their classrooms that reads, "This is a safe place to be who you are," because they say homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, Principal Amy Furtado said.
I can see where the teachers are coming from, but it would have been a much better approach if they had said: "patronizing my students just because school board might happen to think they are useless, despined idiots is against my religious beliefs" or "furthering the drastic program of coerced uglification going on in our classrooms violates every principle I have."
Stupid crap like that only pleases bureaucrat and that whiney twit who everyone else likes to punch, and we have enough of it already.
On the other hand, there are certain battles that just aren't worth fighting. It is better to just put the poster up than get into a quarrel with your bosses.
To conclude: Everyone involved is an idiot and should die. Now.

Wrong, it says they have religious objections to homosexuality, not to the hanging of the poster.

And they are permitted to have religious objections to homosexuality. They don't have religious objections to the statewide policy of protecting homosexuality, so what do you think they find different with the poster? Perhaps because it steps past protection and into promotion? Hmmmm?

Besides, can you quote where the article says the teachers said anything about why they wouldn't hang the poster? There's the part where the principal says why they won't hang it, but the only quote from someone who said they would not hang the poster did not have a religious objection to the statewide policy, or even the message of the poster. They had an objection of the political efforts of the school board.

And they are permitted to have religious objections to homosexuality.

Yes, they are. But they are not permitted to bring those religious objections into their job. A teacher can't say, "You want me to do this, but I won't, because my religion says homosexuals are teh evil," any more than a teacher can say, "I don't believe in evolution, so I'm not going to teach it, even though it is in the curriculum," or "I think the Holocaust was made up, so I am going to skip that chapter in history class."

Now, if they had brought up any of the numerous secular objections that have been brought up here (that the poster is counter-productive, that it singles out a particular group, etc.), they would be fine.

They don't have religious objections to the statewide policy of protecting homosexuality, so what do you think they find different with the poster? Perhaps because it steps past protection and into promotion? Hmmmm?

The idea of "stepping into promotion" is your idea, not anything stated in the article, or by the designers of the poster.

Meanwhile, how do you know they don't have religious objections to the overall policy? Sure, they go to the classes that tell them how they are supposed to deal with LGBT students, but do we know for sure that they do it? They could be told, "Discipline your students if they call someone a derogatory term such as, 'fag'", and could simply ignore the directive.

And they are permitted to have religious objections to homosexuality. They don't have religious objections to the statewide policy of protecting homosexuality, so what do you think they find different with the poster? Perhaps because it steps past protection and into promotion? Hmmmm?

Besides, can you quote where the article says the teachers said anything about why they wouldn't hang the poster? There's the part where the principal says why they won't hang it, but the only quote from someone who said they would not hang the poster did not have a religious objection to the statewide policy, or even the message of the poster. They had an objection of the political efforts of the school board.

That was my understanding of this article. Weren't the teachers unavailable for comment? Isnt that what you call hearsay?

Besides, can you quote where the article says the teachers said anything about why they wouldn't hang the poster? There's the part where the principal says why they won't hang it, but the only quote from someone who said they would not hang the poster did not have a religious objection to the statewide policy, or even the message of the poster. They had an objection of the political efforts of the school board.

The very first sentence:

Five teachers at San Leandro High School have refused to comply with a school district order to display a rainbow-flag poster in their classrooms that reads, "This is a safe place to be who you are," because they say homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, Principal Amy Furtado said.

Meanwhile, there isn't a single quote by someone who wouldn't hang it, as the article clearly states that none of the teachers who refused to hang it could be reached. There is a guy who never received one, but he can't really refuse to do what he was never actually asked to.

Actually, the administrator does not have total property rights and as a government building must obey governmental rules. This poster would likely meet an untimely end in any building where government employees were required to display it. Display it in common areas or put it up yourself, but requiring a teacher to put it up, to endorse it, is where they are going to run into problems.
Well yeah but as long as it does not excede governmental rules. They have a right to display it anywhere in the building.

They do not own their class room, the government does. thoes in charge of the property weather that be administrators or the principal have the right to display what they wish where they wish as long as it does not break thoes rules

Personaly I am saying cut the teacher out of the loop. The only thing the teacher has to be worried about is breaking school or governmental discrimination rules

Now that's an interesting question---how does treating a homosexual person like a person instead of a circus freak violate someone's religious beliefs? No one is asking these teachers to suck a dick or go lesbo for Jesus--they're just saying that the teachers have to make sure the kids aren't screwed with in class. That, it seems to me, is an essential part of the job.
*Go to bed on page 2, wake up to page 18, this might take awhile*
The problem I have with mandating the posters then is that they do nothing for that. I could bow to the will of the state and put the damn thing up and STILL do nothing to address the underlying issue of acceptance and tolerance for my homosexual students. If anything, I'd feel that it actually singles them out in a way.

So what we're left with is a superfical compliance of the state's law saying that schools should work to remove intolerance in schools, and a hot potatoe that's just going to act as a target, which it already is.

You know, I think that they should teach a class on manners beginning in Kindergarten, and then every year until a student graduates. Its an important subject and I;ve always wondered if they began teaching children at an early age how to be polite, non judgemental, accepting of others regardless of their differences, etc. would it produce better behavior, more harmonious relationships, equality, less prejudice...all of the things that we as parents should be teaching our children in the first place. My son is 18 months old and he says "thank you" already everytime you hand him an object. I think that just as parents are charged with assiting in their children's education- maybe schools should take part in helping teach appropriate behavior.

Its like children are taught to be racist and intolerant of people who are different than them from the time they are born....thats just sad.
The problem with that is, WHAT manners do we teach? I know many parents would love (and are actually demanding that the schools teach manners now), but as soon as we get down to brass tacks over which ones should be taught, there's a huge argument.

That, and I'm busy. I don't have time to teach manners in my classes, I have enough fun trying to get my giggling students to stop saying they eat lice and start saying they eat rice. ;)

Besides, almost 75% of public school kids are Christian, while about 2% are gay, yet they are far more protected then the majority. Where is the logic in that? You can't protect everybody.
Dude, please stop attempting to troll, especially in threads I create.

The problem with that is, WHAT manners do we teach? I know many parents would love (and are actually demanding that the schools teach manners now), but as soon as we get down to brass tacks over which ones should be taught, there's a huge argument.

That, and I'm busy. I don't have time to teach manners in my classes, I have enough fun trying to get my giggling students to stop saying they eat lice and start saying they eat rice. ;)

What do you teach?

and the ACLU needs to be attacked, it needs to be shut down. i guess its only ok to attack organizations if its a conservative organization
*sighs* Go bug The Cat-Tribes ok? He'll probably be more than happy to give you the full run down on how incredibly wrong that statement is.

I don't usually watch ESPN. No, this post of yours was the first time I have heard of this idiocy, although I can't say I'm all that surprised. Beaver was notorious for having rabid Steeler and Pirates fans.


You lived in beaver???? Wierd..I spend every summer out there...At my Grandma's house...love that area...might move there when im done with school :)

What do you teach?
I teach English at a large junior high school in a small town in Japan.

Five teachers at San Leandro High School have refused to comply with a school district order to display a rainbow-flag poster in their classrooms that reads, "This is a safe place to be who you are," because they say homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, Principal Amy Furtado said.

Reading the OP does help.



They already have - we wouldn't be here discussing this story if their religious views had not "impinged on their jobs." Again, reading the OP does help.



Yes, and the perfect way of doing that is to refuse to put up a poster that makes it clear you won't tolerate harassment, name calling, or violence, and refer to a religious reason that by inference makes you unfit to be a teacher if your religion is so important to you that you uphold its homophobic tenets. :rolleyes:

If homosexuality is "against your religion" and that religion is important enough for you to refuse to do your job, then your capacity of not tolerating "harassment, name calling, or violence" against gay people is rightfully put into question. You don't get to claim that your religion doesn't "impinge on your job" when you've already proved that it does indeed impinge on your job.



The school district has been embroiled in controversy over homosexuality in the past.

In 1997, a parents group at the high school demanded that a gay teacher be fired after she came out to her class. In 2002, high school English teacher Karl Debro settled a lawsuit with the district for $1 million after he was disciplined for giving a lecture on racism and homophobia. A judge declared unconstitutional a district policy banning "controversial issues" from the classroom without a principal's approval.

Art teacher Tom Laughlin, who is gay and who oversaw the poster's design by students in the Gay-Straight Alliance, said he was surprised by the level of intolerance for homosexuality that he perceived when he started teaching at the high school five years ago. He said he recognized that it was critical when a student called him a "fag."

I will repeat it a third time, just so that it sticks: Reading the OP helps, as it renders your obtuse rhetorical questions quite dull and superfluous, indeed.


I read the original post, thank you very much for your condescending attitude. I don't approve of cutting; do you think that means I would not stop someone in my classroom from harassing someone who cuts? I don't like death metal. Do you think that means I would let someone else abuse them for their choice?

It is you, sir, who are obtuse, dull, and superfluous in your repeated "read the OP" calls.

You don't like religion; I get that. You are biased in favor of homosexuality; I get that too. Apparently it is you that cannot separate your hatred of a lifestyle different from your own to make a point other than, "They can't do their job because of their reluctance to hang a piece of paper in their room."

I teach English at a large junior high school in a small town in Japan.

Funny. I was going to guess either kindergarten or junior high.

-snip-

hehe:D ..you don't know how happy that makes me.

"Homophobe" is a loaded word. Simply because someone feels their religion forbids them to support homosexuality does not make them a "homophobe."

Thank you.

Funny. I was going to guess either kindergarten or junior high.
It's the insanity, isnt it? The craziness from dealing with little kids or junior high students always gives us away. ;)

*Go to bed on page 2, wake up to page 18, this might take awhile*
The problem I have with mandating the posters then is that they do nothing for that. I could bow to the will of the state and put the damn thing up and STILL do nothing to address the underlying issue of acceptance and tolerance for my homosexual students. If anything, I'd feel that it actually singles them out in a way.

So what we're left with is a superfical compliance of the state's law saying that schools should work to remove intolerance in schools, and a hot potatoe that's just going to act as a target, which it already is.

yes Yes YES!

This is why this whole poster issue bugs the hell out of me! The poster is superficial, and when required, symbolizes nothing. (This sentence deleted in compliance with Godwin's Law.)

As I said before, the posters symbolize a "safe place." If they are posted in places that aren't safe, they become meaningless. (When I was strugling with my homosexuality, a "safe place" college professor helped alot.)

As a side note, I am in an education program in college, and I wouldn't want an ugly ass rainbow poster in my classroom. It just wouldn't go with the theme that I'd want--rainbows just don't click with me.

Simply because someone feels their religion forbids them to support homosexuality does not make them a "homophobe."
Yes it does, because no religion that I'm aware of bans simply supporting homosexuality, in fact no religion that I'm aware of bans anything short of homosexual sex. If yours does, then I don't consider you a homophobe unless you are actually against gay rights, and not merely not for them(No, that is not a contradiction), but note that Christianity, Judaism, and to the best of my knowledge Islam only ban homosexual sex. Since those three make up the majority of the world, then any anti-gay-rights people in those three are still homophobes.

For a start I doubt the posters will be effective. However I don't think the teachers have a right to disobey school policy regarding what the walls of the classroom look like. (unless the school policy violates the law)
I'm a bit suspiscious of the teachers stated reason for refusing to display the poster. The poster reads "This is a safe place to be who you are". If they interpret their religon as prohibiting safe places for children, then they should not have become school teachers.

For a start I doubt the posters will be effective. However I don't think the teachers have a right to disobey school policy regarding what the walls of the classroom look like. (unless the school policy violates the law)
I'm a bit suspiscious of the teachers stated reason for refusing to display the poster. The poster reads "This is a safe place to be who you are". If they interpret their religon as prohibiting safe places for children, then they should not have become school teachers.

These posters are going to be worse than ineffective, they'll be counterproductive.

School policy should not dictate what the walls of a teacher's classroom look like, aside from forbidding dangerous objects and images that are not appropriate for minors and/or are offensive to the general public. Required images displayed on the walls violate common sense and the freedoms that our country was founded on. What if a teacher wanted nothing on the walls that would distract his students? A brightly colored poster would certainly be a distraction.

The poster does not just read: This is a safe place to be who you are. It is also riddled with Gay-pride imagry. The traditional meaning of the "safe place" rainbow also implies that the authority figure who hung it is open to talk about such issues. It is a misuse of the symbolism and a violation of the "safe place" philosophy when it is required to be hung.

The teachers are not interpeting thier religion as prohibiting safe places for children. (This childishness and near name calling is not only intolerent, but intellectually dishonest.) What the teachers are against is what they feel is essentially a gay-pride poster that is required to be hung in thier classrooms.

The way I see it, they are employees of the school and as long as they wish to be employed, they are obligated to comply with whatever policies the PTBs come up with. It's like working in a Taco Bell. If your boss wants everyone to wear a big, stupid button that says "Ask me about fajitas", then one should comply with that. You don't have to want people to ask you about fajitas and you can think it's really stupid too, but that doesn't get you out of wearing the thing.

The way I see it, they are employees of the school and as long as they wish to be employed, they are obligated to comply with whatever policies the PTBs come up with. It's like working in a Taco Bell. If your boss wants everyone to wear a big, stupid button that says "Ask me about fajitas", then one should comply with that. You don't have to want people to ask you about fajitas and you can think it's really stupid too, but that doesn't get you out of wearing the thing.

There is a big difference between a part-time job at Taco Bell and a career in education. For one, teachers are under a contract, and are not subject to the mere whims of the admistration and school board. What does the contract say about the display of required materials of controversial nature? Anyone that thinks the teachers should be disciplined/fired, please answer this.

The poster does not just read: This is a safe place to be who you are. It is also riddled with Gay-pride imagry. The traditional meaning of the "safe place" rainbow also implies that the authority figure who hung it is open to talk about such issues. It is a misuse of the symbolism and a violation of the "safe place" philosophy when it is required to be hung.


Ahh. I was not aware that the poster was an established symbol, I thought it was merely the words on a rainbow background, which would give an added emphasis on the particular form of intolerance that the district is having problems with.

In that case, it is inappropriate to water down the symbolism by hanging it in every classroom, as not only could it create awkwardness for both teachers and students if it is interpreted as such, but hanging it in every room will render it completely meaningless to all students in the school, leaving them unlikely to recognise the "safe place" implications in other contexts.

From a legal standpoint, SCOTUS has stated a number of times that a workplace is under the control of the employer, not the employee, this includes teachers (as there's been a few hair rasing cases about finding porn in a teacher's desk when looking for lesson plans).

So from the point of view of if they had a legal right to deny hanging the poster up (and I'm still not sure where all the flags came from), they did not. Teachers do not own the classroom, and school administration can dictate what can, cannot, and has to be displayed at all times.

From a moral point of view, I disagree with the teachers' actions in that we're supposed to be providing a safe place that is free from harm as much as we can while teaching, we should NEVER be judgemental (outside of the curricula, we do have to grade papers after all. ;) ), and never should our personal beliefs be allowed to dictate how we approch our students.

I have a couple of hellions in my school whom I would love to just kick out of the door and never see them again. They don't study, they disrupt the class, they are bullies, and so on and so forth. A few times I've almost wanted to just yank them out of their seats and ask them what the hell do they think they're doing and do they want to pump my gas for the rest of their lives. But doing so would be wrong, I may not like them too much, but I would never treat them any differently or disrespect them.

Though I will probably be grayhaired by the time they graduate from having to deal with them.
My problem is with the schoolboard requireing the program in the first place.

From a legal standpoint, SCOTUS has stated a number of times that a workplace is under the control of the employer, not the employee, this includes teachers...

So from the point of view of if they had a legal right to deny hanging the poster up (and I'm still not sure where all the flags came from), they did not. Teachers do not own the classroom, and school administration can dictate what can, cannot, and has to be displayed at all times.



If the teacher's contract allows them controll of what is displayed in their classroom, then SCOTUS' decision has no bearing in this case.

If the teacher's contract allows them controll of what is displayed in their classroom, then SCOTUS' decision has no bearing in this case.
I've never heard of teaching contracts stating that the teacher has full control over what is displayed in the classroom. In any case, I believe it does. The case invloved a sub who was called in at the last minute and was told that the lessons plans were in the regular teacher's desk. The sub, when looking for the plans, found a few pron mags in the teacher's desk and informed the administration. The teacher was subsequently fired and sued the school, the district, and a few others claiming his 4th amendment rights were violated (Searches and seasures) based upon the argument that his desk was given to him by contract and there for could be considered private property while he had it.

SCOTUS disagreed and noted that the property in question belongs to the school and the school has the right to control its property and no right to privacy was here.

Also, I believe there was a case about the displaying of a porn picture in a locker (not at a school) that SCOTUS said the same thing, homes and private property are seperate from work (Unless you own the buisness) and therefore, your employers can dictate what has to be displayed.

The very first sentence:

Really? The principal won't hang it? Since we didn't actually hear the reasoning of the actual people, we are only speculating. Do we know the Principal? Do we know that the principal would deliniate the difference between not hanging the poster because they view it requires them to endorse homosexuality rather than simply spread tolerance.

So let's go on what we know for sure. There is a statewide policy that the teachers did not protest. There is a poster that they did. The statewide policy forces them to protect the children from harassment so what is different? Easy answer, the poster does more than protect the children. Prove me wrong.

Meanwhile, there isn't a single quote by someone who wouldn't hang it, as the article clearly states that none of the teachers who refused to hang it could be reached. There is a guy who never received one, but he can't really refuse to do what he was never actually asked to.

He wasn't in the meeting, but he did work at the school and said he would not hang the poster.

I teach English at a large junior high school in a small town in Japan.

Now there's a place I want to visit :)

I read the original post, thank you very much for your condescending attitude. I don't approve of cutting; do you think that means I would not stop someone in my classroom from harassing someone who cuts? I don't like death metal. Do you think that means I would let someone else abuse them for their choice?

It is you, sir, who are obtuse, dull, and superfluous in your repeated "read the OP" calls.

You don't like religion; I get that. You are biased in favor of homosexuality; I get that too. Apparently it is you that cannot separate your hatred of a lifestyle different from your own to make a point other than, "They can't do their job because of their reluctance to hang a piece of paper in their room."

I have to agree with Katganistan here.

"Homophobe" is a loaded word. Simply because someone feels their religion forbids them to support homosexuality does not make them a "homophobe."

Thank you.

Well?

If a person who disagrees is still polite then maybe you are right.

People that earn such labels tend to not view themselves as one. For example, some of my redneck relatives do not think of themselves as racist and yet are rather free with the use of "spick" and "******."

The teachers are not interpeting thier religion as prohibiting safe places for children. (This childishness and near name calling is not only intolerent, but intellectually dishonest.) What the teachers are against is what they feel is essentially a gay-pride poster that is required to be hung in thier classrooms.

"Gay-pride" simply means, "Don't be ashamed of your sexuality." Thus, a teacher who is anti-gay-pride, is essentially saying, "Be ashamed of your sexuality, unless you are straight." Does that sound like a safe place to you?


Really? The principal won't hang it?

No, five teachers have refused to hang it. And since they won't talk to the press, the principal is the only informant we have as to what reasons they have given for that decision. Could he be lying? Possibly. I don't really find it likely with 5 teachers involved, however, as even just one talking to the press and contradicting him would make him look stupid.

Since we didn't actually hear the reasoning of the actual people, we are only speculating.

True. Of course, any news article we ever read causes us to speculate. And even if someone says, "This is my motivation," we don't know that for sure. We have to speculate.

So let's go on what we know for sure. There is a statewide policy that the teachers did not protest. There is a poster that they did. The statewide policy forces them to protect the children from harassment so what is different? Easy answer, the poster does more than protect the children. Prove me wrong.

I don't have to "prove you wrong." We know the teachers don't like it, and from all information we have, don't like it because "their religion says so." Teachers, however, do not have 1st amendment rights in this case. Just as a teacher cannot say, "I will not teach evolution because I am a Creationist," and still keep her job, she cannot say, "I will not display school-mandated material because my religion is anti-homosexual."


He wasn't in the meeting, but he did work at the school and said he would not hang the poster.

Yes, but that was information irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are discussing the five teachers who, from all information we have, have refused to hang the poster simply because their religion makes them anti-homosexual.

I prefer my local school policy. They protect everyone from harassment, not just homosexuals.

Fat kids, for example. Ever see a fat kid get teased when you were in school? Why no banners saying that fat kids are welcome?

I prefer a No Bullying, No Harassment policy for EVERYONE.



I prefer your local school policy as well.

If posters were put up promoting more tolerance and kindness toward fat kids, then the fat kids would catch even more hell, for being fat, from the other kids simply by being singled out and having more emphasis put on their fatness. Since they are so "different" that they need a poster. It's alienation IMO. No way I would've wanted to go to a school that had posters up singling out redheads in any way, it would've only made things worse, at least for a while.

Sure, I'll drive up to that way with my Braves hat on and my foam tomahawk!

Probably illicit more pity than rage. The Braves are like the Buffalo Bills of baseball.

"Gay-pride" simply means, "Don't be ashamed of your sexuality." Thus, a teacher who is anti-gay-pride, is essentially saying, "Be ashamed of your sexuality, unless you are straight." Does that sound like a safe place to you?





There is a difference between having "Gay-Pride" and not being ashamed of your sexuality. I am Gay. I am not ashamed of it. But being gay is not a source of pride for me.

Gay students need to know who their allies are, if you're into that sort of thing. Forcing everyone to pretend to be allies doesn't help anyone.

There is a difference between having "Gay-Pride" and not being ashamed of your sexuality. I am Gay. I am not ashamed of it. But being gay is not a source of pride for me.

When the term "gay pride" is used, what is meant is, "Don't be ashamed," not "Be proud of it!" The term is a bit of a misnomer, but its intent is to oppose those who think a LGBT person should be ashamed.

If blue-eyed people were traditionally shit upon and discriminated against, we might have a "Blue-eye Pride." It wouldn't mean, "Be proud of your blue eyes," that doesn't even make sense. It would mean, "Don't be ashamed of your blue eyes."

Gay students need to know who their allies are, if you're into that sort of thing. Forcing everyone to pretend to be allies doesn't help anyone.

I agree here. I was just pointing out that any teacher who doesn't support gay pride - the actual purpose of it, not the idiotic twist that those who hate homosexuals try to put on it - is not in favor of a "safe place" for homosexuals, not mentally at least.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]When the term "gay pride" is used, what is meant is, "Don't be ashamed," not "Be proud of it!" The term is a bit of a misnomer, but its intent is to oppose those who think a LGBT person should be ashamed.

[QUOTE]

This has not been my expirence.

Hell! I got teased unmercifully when I was little because I was so skinny and my ears stuck out! Perhaps I should be grateful though, it's how I learned to fight. :D

I was also teased because I lived with my grandparents and not my mother and father. Anything "different" about a child will become the excuse for teasing and bullying. Sad, but true.

Good point. I wouldn't take back any of the times I got picked on for being different, it did indeed make me stronger.

And I'm not comparing what I got with what gay kids get(or anyone else that's "different", for that matter). I know for them it is on a another level and much worse. I just think singling them out in front of the other kids will only add to the problems.

The school should do what it would do if it required all its teachers to let people know that if they're sexually harassed or assaulted by another student or a teacher and can go to the teacher in question by having each teacher hang a poster stating such and some did not: Fire those who didn't.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]When the term "gay pride" is used, what is meant is, "Don't be ashamed," not "Be proud of it!" The term is a bit of a misnomer, but its intent is to oppose those who think a LGBT person should be ashamed.




This has not been my expirence.

Maybe I am not following you as I ask what do you mean? Bare with me as I am fighting an illness....

Have you been harassed for your sexuality?
Have people tried to "help" your morality?

As and elder friend who is gay once offered to me on the question of why gay pride, he said it came from the fact that we were expected to live in the closet because we were less then people. In my day, if people knew what you were they would treat you the same as a pedophile if not worst. We are what we are and if people would simply acknowlege it then there wouldn't be gay pride events.

If you scan the Net for some the Religious sites, you can still find some rather nasty people.....

"Gay-pride" simply means, "Don't be ashamed of your sexuality." Thus, a teacher who is anti-gay-pride, is essentially saying, "Be ashamed of your sexuality, unless you are straight." Does that sound like a safe place to you?

No, it doesn't. It wouldn't be gay pride if it just meant don't be ashamed. It means have pride in your sexuality. While I see the need for in the world, you are very much skewing the position of anyone who does not agree with the idea of Gay Pride. Many people who would argue against it would argue than there is nothing to be proud of in any sexuality. It's not as if it's a choice. You are very much changing the landscape of the argument so people have to agree with you or be defending people who wish to attack homosexuals.

No, five teachers have refused to hang it. And since they won't talk to the press, the principal is the only informant we have as to what reasons they have given for that decision. Could he be lying? Possibly. I don't really find it likely with 5 teachers involved, however, as even just one talking to the press and contradicting him would make him look stupid.

I didn't say lying, now did I? Much like you, he is simply skewing the information to make it sound like he's right. "They won't hang a gay pride poster so they must believe students should be ashamed of their sexuality." The principal is excercising the same flawed thinking that would lead him to believe a mandatory Gay Pride poster is a good idea. The same flawed thinking you excercise in your assumptions about these teachers.

However, the principal is not a first order source and the paper isn't even a second order source so the telephone line it traveled through isn't something I'd rely on. We do however know that they never complained about the district policies regarding the issue earlier so one can easily conclude something about this poster crossed what they view to be the line. You can pretend this is not so all you like, but there is no evidence these teachers condone gay bashing or forcing people to be ashamed, and much that they aren't doing so. Unless of course you're claiming the school distract has not enforced it's zero tolerance policy on these teachers. You're gonna have to show some evidence of such a thing, however.

True. Of course, any news article we ever read causes us to speculate. And even if someone says, "This is my motivation," we don't know that for sure. We have to speculate.

Yes, except the only first-order source we have for someone who says they won't hang the poster says specifically they have reasons other than holding the position you claime the MUST hold in order to not support the poster.

I don't have to "prove you wrong." We know the teachers don't like it, and from all information we have, don't like it because "their religion says so." Teachers, however, do not have 1st amendment rights in this case. Just as a teacher cannot say, "I will not teach evolution because I am a Creationist," and still keep her job, she cannot say, "I will not display school-mandated material because my religion is anti-homosexual."

Yes, all the information that is not given by them provided we ignore the additional information that can be extracted from our knowledge of the situation. And, yes, because of their religion does not mean they are anti-tolerance. It may very well mean there religion will not allow them to show Gay Pride. Gay Pride and tolerance of sexualities are not equal.

Yes, but that was information irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We are discussing the five teachers who, from all information we have, have refused to hang the poster simply because their religion makes them anti-homosexual.
Not true. You choose to ignore the rather obvious information that suggests they supported previous policies supporting state law. This poster clearly was different. That is the only first order information we have. And that first order information suggests they are not anti-homosexual, but merely unwilling to post a Gay Pride poster. Of course, let's ignore the additional information we have. It doesn't agree with you so I can see why you'd like to pretend it's not there.

Good point. I wouldn't take back any of the times I got picked on for being different, it did indeed make me stronger.

And I'm not comparing what I got with what gay kids get(or anyone else that's "different", for that matter). I know for them it is on a another level and much worse. I just think singling them out in front of the other kids will only add to the problems.
How would it single out thoes kids honestly? any more then they are already?

The teacher hanging that poster wont reviel thoes that are in the closet and those already out of the closet cant honestly be targeted any more then they are now (meaning focused rather then the actual acts carried out on them) at least not by a poster of any sort

Maybe I am not following you as I ask what do you mean? Bare with me as I am fighting an illness....

Have you been harassed for your sexuality?
Have people tried to "help" your morality?

As and elder friend who is gay once offered to me on the question of why gay pride, he said it came from the fact that we were expected to live in the closet because we were less then people. In my day, if people knew what you were they would treat you the same as a pedophile if not worst. We are what we are and if people would simply acknowlege it then there wouldn't be gay pride events.

If you scan the Net for some the Religious sites, you can still find some rather nasty people.....

See, all of this I agree with. I think Gay Pride absolutely has a place, but I don't agree with some who claim that to not agree with Gay Pride is to say gays should go back in the closet. Many, many people believe that sexuality is a personal issue that should remain personal. If that view were simply the prevelant view (and that view towards all sexualities and not just the ones they consider 'perverted') then there likely wouldn't be a problem. There are those that are trying to actively level the playing field, those who feel like simply treating everyone equally will cause it to level (I don't agree with them, but it's not a bigotted view) and those that wish to keep the playing field from being level. Simply because people aren't a part of the first group, we can't assume they are a part of the latter group. To do so risks turning the second group into people who view the first group as the problem.

The difference between requiring fair treatment and a safe environment and demanding the teacher hang a Gay Pride poster is similar to the difference between requiring fair hiring practices and a diverse work environment and placing quotas. Most would agree that quotas go to far and they have been found to be unconstitutional. I find that forcing hanging a gay pride poster very much treads the line even if I agree with the intent and the message.

See, all of this I agree with. I think Gay Pride absolutely has a place, but I don't agree with some who claim that to not agree with Gay Pride is to say gays should go back in the closet. Many, many people believe that sexuality is a personal issue that should remain personal. If that view were simply the prevelant view (and that view towards all sexualities and not just the ones they consider 'perverted') then there likely wouldn't be a problem. There are those that are trying to actively level the playing field, those who feel like simply treating everyone equally will cause it to level (I don't agree with them, but it's not a bigotted view) and those that wish to keep the playing field from being level. Simply because people aren't a part of the first group, we can't assume they are a part of the latter group. To do so risks turning the second group into people who view the first group as the problem.

The difference between requiring fair treatment and a safe environment and demanding the teacher hang a Gay Pride poster is similar to the difference between requiring fair hiring practices and a diverse work environment and placing quotas. Most would agree that quotas go to far and they have been found to be unconstitutional. I find that forcing hanging a gay pride poster very much treads the line even if I agree with the intent and the message.


The problem is even though some thing sexuality in general should be a private thing, heterosexuality is so prevelent it is almost non noticed by most people.
But about that same quantity of homosexuality displayed brings shouts of "pushing their sexuality on us" and claims that they are going over the top in public.

I mean just think of it in any small to mid sized town having a bf and gf giving eachother a peck good by

Honestly compare that to the reactions of a bf and bf doing the same

Basicaly what I am trying to say is that because it is such an attention getter even the simple acts it is almost requiring more strict controll of public displays of affection in homosexuals as compared to hetero's just because so much hetro actions are just so accepted and common placed they often go without notice

But about that same quantity of homosexuality displayed brings shouts of "pushing their sexuality on us" and claims that they are going over the top in public.
The issue with that being that if I saw a hetero couple walk down the street in bondage gear with one spanking the other, I WOULD notice.

I don't mind holding hands, or pecks on th cheek, I don't even mind long romantic kisses, I take offence when you attempt to take your partner down in front of me though. ;)

No matter what sex(es) they may be.

The issue with that being that if I saw a hetero couple walk down the street in bondage gear with one spanking the other, I WOULD notice.


I pray for that every goddamn day.

I don't mind holding hands, or pecks on th cheek, I don't even mind long romantic kisses, I take offence when you attempt to take your partner down in front of me though. ;)


Prude!. :p

The issue with that being that if I saw a hetero couple walk down the street in bondage gear with one spanking the other, I WOULD notice.

I don't mind holding hands, or pecks on th cheek, I don't even mind long romantic kisses, I take offence when you attempt to take your partner down in front of me though. ;)

No matter what sex(es) they may be.
Agreed ... but some people go overboard to just move the line to the reasonable

Like in busniess theory when you haggle
Go high to eventualy work the price to a resonable middle ground

But if you start at that middle ground you will usualy end up with less

How would it single out thoes kids honestly? any more then they are already?

The teacher hanging that poster wont reviel thoes that are in the closet and those already out of the closet cant honestly be targeted any more then they are now (meaning focused rather then the actual acts carried out on them) at least not by a poster of any sort


By placing more emphasis on them I think it could easily make matters worse for the kids that are already out. I hope I'm wrong. In reading the article I'm thinking more about the kids than I am anything else. I just hope the state and school board etc. really have the kids at heart and not just a political agenda.

I pray for that every goddamn day.
No thanks, it just LOOKS so... wrong.

Prude!. :p
Am not, it's just not polite to have fun and not offer to share. ;)

Agreed ... but some people go overboard to just move the line to the reasonable

Like in busniess theory when you haggle
Go high to eventualy work the price to a resonable middle ground

But if you start at that middle ground you will usualy end up with less
You have a good point, but there is also the danger of driving away those who would be your allies by going too far.

By placing more emphasis on them I think it could easily make matters worse for them. I hope I'm wrong. In reading the article I'm thinking more about the kids than I am anything else. I just hope the state and school board etc. really have the kids at heart and not just a political agenda.
I guess I just dont see it they are such a hot button right now they are at about peek focus as far as it goes

In the end I dont think this peticular issue is going to effect their lives truily one way or another.

You have a good point, but there is also the danger of driving away those who would be your allies by going too far.
Yeah the trick is to go fairly high but not too high

Problem is we are dealing with a diverse group of people not a single or a small controllable group. Some people have different views on how high is too high

[Quote= Dempublicents1]
When the term "gay pride" is used, what is meant is, "Don't be ashamed," not "Be proud of it!" The term is a bit of a misnomer, but its intent is to oppose those who think a LGBT person should be ashamed.






This has not been my expirence.



Maybe I am not following you as I ask what do you mean? Bare with me as I am fighting an illness....



I mean that the gay people I know are proud that they're gay, they flaunt it. I've been accused of being ashamed of my sexuality because I dress and act "straight," don't like foo-foo drinks, and generaly leave people alone about "accepting" me.

[quote]
Have you been harassed for your sexuality?
Have people tried to "help" your morality?



And yes, I have been beaten up because of my sexuality. And people have tried to help me with my morality.



If you scan the Net for some the Religious sites, you can still find some rather nasty people.....

I haven't searched Religious sites on the net very much, but there are some good natured people who are plesant to converse with as well on some religious sites.

Yeah the trick is to go fairly high but not too high

Problem is we are dealing with a diverse group of people not a single or a small controllable group. Some people have different views on how high is too high

However, if you aim high in a school expect some people to haggle. These teachers did that. Thank you for making my point. You suggest that an effort at haggling is being made then why is everyone surprised when people start doing just that. I've spent most of my life in the midwest and southeast of the US (two notoriously religious areas) and I've found a lot more acceptance for the guys who treat their sexuality with just a bit of humility regardless of what it is. If you walk into my workplace talking about all the women or men you'd like to shag or how your coworker has a great ass, you are likely to find yourself on the outs rather quickly.

There is a guy that we actually switched our business relationship with (that means we fired him but agreed that he does good work so we allow him to work jobs with us under a different company name) because we though he was overly aggressive with his HETEROSEXUALITY. He was subtle, but it made us uncomfortable and we told him to leave it home, twice. After a third time, we asked him to resign.

Sometimes asking people to be keep their sexuality to themselves is exactly fair.

However, if you aim high in a school expect some people to haggle. These teachers did that. Thank you for making my point. You suggest that an effort at haggling is being made then why is everyone surprised when people start doing just that. I've spent most of my life in the midwest and southeast of the US (two notoriously religious areas) and I've found a lot more acceptance for the guys who treat their sexuality with just a bit of humility regardless of what it is. If you walk into my workplace talking about all the women or men you'd like to shag or how your coworker has a great ass, you are likely to find yourself on the outs rather quickly.

There is a guy that we actually switched our business relationship with (that means we fired him but agreed that he does good work so we allow him to work jobs with us under a different company name) because we though he was overly aggressive with his HETEROSEXUALITY. He was subtle, but it made us uncomfortable and we told him to leave it home, twice. After a third time, we asked him to resign.

Sometimes asking people to be keep their sexuality to themselves is exactly fair.
As was stated earlier going too far overboard sometimes goes is a bad thing

So is undershooting

As was stated earlier going too far overboard sometimes goes is a bad thing

So is undershooting

And not knowing the environment in which you're haggling is a bad thing. This school clearly didn't. They do not have the right to require teachers to support Gay Pride. It's a public school and they should have focused on making it a safe haven not a hotspot for controversy.

And not knowing the environment in which you're haggling is a bad thing. This school clearly didn't. They do not have the right to require teachers to support Gay Pride. It's a public school and they should have focused on making it a safe haven not a hotspot for controversy.
Bah the only thing objectionable about that poster is the idiots that oppose homosexual rights using it as a target for their hatred

If the gay community made up a new series of symbols or sayings to show their support for their rights that would be made "contraversial" in time as welll

Bah this is the same reason I hate PC

What I find is that so many repubs hate PC but are doing the same thing when it supports their position

Bah the only thing objectionable about that poster is the idiots that oppose homosexual rights using it as a target for their hatred

If the gay community made up a new series of symbols or sayings to show their support for their rights that would be made "contraversial" in time as welll

Bah this is the same reason I hate PC

What I find is that so many repubs hate PC but are doing the same thing when it supports their position


So I'm an idiot? Gee thanks.

This, coming from someone who claims to be on my side.

So I'm an idiot? Gee thanks.

This, coming from someone who claims to be on my side.
You oppose homosexual rights? as in equality?

If so then yes I do feel the term applies if not I apologize

You oppose homosexual rights? as in equality?

If so then yes I do feel the term applies if not I apologize

I do not oppose equality, but I do oppose the special treatment alot of my peers demand and call it "homosexual rights."

Bah the only thing objectionable about that poster is the idiots that oppose homosexual rights using it as a target for their hatred

If the gay community made up a new series of symbols or sayings to show their support for their rights that would be made "contraversial" in time as welll

They aren't gay rights symbols. They are gay pride and they aren't the same. It's like comparing black pride arguments and MLK's arguments. MLK's was ONLY about equality. He never sought to suggest such a thing as black pride. I agree with your point about expecting to go a little high and then end up in the middle but in the world of a governmental educational institution, it's inappropriate. The symbols are unnecessary. They could have simply designed a poster that advocates safety and equal treatment for all people regardless of race, religion, sexuality, etc. Gay Pride is not the same as equal rights no matter how much you try to argue otherwise. They made an error and this is evidenced by the fact that there was no controversy over the statewide policy but there is controversy over the poster.

Bah this is the same reason I hate PC

What I find is that so many repubs hate PC but are doing the same thing when it supports their position

PC is a ridiculous concept in some cases by seeking to make descriptions and terms offensive instead of the opposite. By creating a controversy over Gay Pride, they are accomplishing something similar. This district will likely succeed in making Gay Pride offensive instead of making homosexuality by focusing where the would get almost guaranteed, and that is at the point of making school safe for everyone regardless of their sexuality, gender identity, health, beliefs, etc. Instead they piggy-backed pride on equality and they will damage both causes. It was a terrible tactical error.

I do not oppose equality, but I do oppose the special treatment alot of my peers demand and call it "homosexual rights."

Example?

Example?

groping and basically all-out f*cking in public places, for one. :)

Vegetarianistica']groping and basically all-out f*cking in public places, for one. :)

Really? I take it you've never been to a club, huh? I've never seen a gay or lesbian couple engage in any more inappropriate activities than heterosexuals engage in. Meanwhile, I have yet to meet anyone who claims that homosexuals should be allowed to f*ck in public, so I'm going to burn your strawman to the ground, friend.

Vegetarianistica']groping and basically all-out f*cking in public places, for one. :)

Yes. And if you oppose this, you're anti-gay, a homophobe. (Even if you'd be equally offended by a straight couple doing the same thing.)

Yes. And if you oppose this, you're anti-gay, a homophobe. (Even if you'd be equally offended by a straight couple doing the same thing.)

So you're really going to try to erect this strawman? Can you please direct me to anyplace, anywhere that makes such an argument or can you let me give one of your imaginary gay friends a call?

Really? I take it you've never been to a club, huh? I've never seen a gay or lesbian couple engage in any more inappropriate activities than heterosexuals engage in. Meanwhile, I have yet to meet anyone who claims that homosexuals should be allowed to f*ck in public, so I'm going to burn your strawman to the ground, friend.

sorry Jocabia, my reply was a bit tongue-in-cheek. yeah actually i do go to clubs in minneapolis from time to time, and yes it's equally.. erotic. i'm all for gay rights, and Duluth where i live is one of the top five (or it was) gay places in the USA. however, most of my gay friends.. it's all they talk about. i just like normal gay people who are.. normal people and talk about normal things. i don't get into the fixated types. i like holding real conversations. that's all i've got against them, the ones i know. :)

I do not oppose equality, but I do oppose the special treatment alot of my peers demand and call it "homosexual rights."
Just because they use use "homosexual rights" as a term for special treatement does not mean we all do.
Im sorry you assumed I ment it as you think your peers have but I did not

They aren't gay rights symbols. They are gay pride and they aren't the same. It's like comparing black pride arguments and MLK's arguments. MLK's was ONLY about equality. He never sought to suggest such a thing as black pride. I agree with your point about expecting to go a little high and then end up in the middle but in the world of a governmental educational institution, it's inappropriate. The symbols are unnecessary. They could have simply designed a poster that advocates safety and equal treatment for all people regardless of race, religion, sexuality, etc. Gay Pride is not the same as equal rights no matter how much you try to argue otherwise. They made an error and this is evidenced by the fact that there was no controversy over the statewide policy but there is controversy over the poster.



PC is a ridiculous concept in some cases by seeking to make descriptions and terms offensive instead of the opposite. By creating a controversy over Gay Pride, they are accomplishing something similar. This district will likely succeed in making Gay Pride offensive instead of making homosexuality by focusing where the would get almost guaranteed, and that is at the point of making school safe for everyone regardless of their sexuality, gender identity, health, beliefs, etc. Instead they piggy-backed pride on equality and they will damage both causes. It was a terrible tactical error.
The problem is that this is an even more grey area. Thinks like the pink triangle came up as a marking for safe places
Not nessisarily "gay pride"
Personaly thats the symbol I would choose on said posters

Vegetarianistica']groping and basically all-out f*cking in public places, for one. :)
I have seen PLENTY of heterosexuals doing the same. Plenty of horny people of all types try to do the same.

You have failed to point out something "special" about the treatment they request SO far. (now I am not doubting that there are some sub groups wanting silly over treatment though)

Vegetarianistica']sorry Jocabia, my reply was a bit tongue-in-cheek. yeah actually i do go to clubs in minneapolis from time to time, and yes it's equally.. erotic. i'm all for gay rights, and Duluth where i live is one of the top five (or it was) gay places in the USA. however, most of my gay friends.. it's all they talk about. i just like normal gay people who are.. normal people and talk about normal things. i don't get into the fixated types. i like holding real conversations. that's all i've got against them, the ones i know. :)

Actually, the only club that stays open late is the gay club there and it's the most fun place. The only problem I have to tell the men to keep their hands to themselves. After my first time there, I learned what hot women deal with.

The problem is that this is an even more grey area. Thinks like the pink triangle came up as a marking for safe places
Not nessisarily "gay pride"
Personaly thats the symbol I would choose on said posters

I just think they could have chosen a more tactical route that fostered understanding rather than controversy.

Several times, going out on double dates, the other couple would be grouping, passonatly kissing, etc. in the restaraunt. (While my boyfriend and I cringed as everyone was staring at us.) If anything was said, they'd be like, "Can you beleive that homophobe?" Then get on about how they were being discriminated against.



This was behavior that would be considered innapropriate for a hetero-couple to engange in.

Several times, going out on double dates, the other couple would be grouping, passonatly kissing, etc. in the restaraunt. (While my boyfriend and I cringed as everyone was staring at us.) If anything was said, they'd be like, "Can you beleive that homophobe?" Then get on about how they were being discriminated against.



This was behavior that would be considered innapropriate for a hetero-couple to engange in.

So you do wish to erect this strawman? Okay, then would you like to point me to a group that is making this argument? And I find it hard to believe that people treat such behavior as more acceptable if it's two gay men despite your ridiculous claim.

I went to a club where the bouncers would allow women to enter that would give them oral sex. Two guys were in line waiting and holding hands and the bouncer beat them to death. See, we can all give anecdotal evidence. It says NOTHING.

The problem is that this is an even more grey area. Thinks like the pink triangle came up as a marking for safe places
Not nessisarily "gay pride"
Personaly thats the symbol I would choose on said posters

How about a nice poster that says: Intolerence of ANY kind will not be tolerated.

You have failed to point out something "special" about the treatment they request SO far. (now I am not doubting that there are some sub groups wanting silly over treatment though)

i think they deserve equal treatment. i just want to make sure it is actually equal and it doesn't turn into affirmative action or something crazy. how un-PC of me, huh. my specialty.

So you do wish to erect this strawman? Okay, then would you like to point me to a group that is making this argument? And I find it hard to believe that people treat such behavior as more acceptable if it's two gay men despite your ridiculous claim.

I went to a club where the bouncers would allow women to enter that would give them oral sex. Two guys were in line waiting and holding hands and the bouncer beat them to death. See, we can all give anecdotal evidence. It says NOTHING.

So if you said some club bouncers hate gay men, and used this argument as evidence, I could accuse you of building a strawman?

I merely am claiming that there are gay people out there that want special rights, more and above equal rights, and view any slight as being anti-gay.

So if you said some club bouncers hate gay men, and used this argument as evidence, I could accuse you of building a strawman?

I merely am claiming that there are gay people out there that want special rights, more and above equal rights, and view any slight as being anti-gay.

You are claiming it like it's the norm when you are clearly talking about the fringes. It's a strawman to derail the argument. Almost ALL gay rights advocates sincerely wish for equal rights, not special rights, like you claim.

If I claimed a lot of bouncers want to be able to randomly beat up gay men, you should expect me to show some evidence. You claimed that A LOT of your peers are seeking for special treatment. If we can randomly make unsupported claims, then I'm going to make the much more supported claim that you're full of it.

So if you said some club bouncers hate gay men, and used this argument as evidence, I could accuse you of building a strawman?

I merely am claiming that there are gay people out there that want special rights, more and above equal rights, and view any slight as being anti-gay.
The straw man part comes with using anecdotal evidence as the only evidence of "above equal rights"

Hmmm...

Interesting...

Actually, the only club that stays open late is the gay club there and it's the most fun place. The only problem I have to tell the men to keep their hands to themselves. After my first time there, I learned what hot women deal with.

i've never been to a gay club. i go to electronic music clubs. since you brought it up, girls hit on me every time i go to a club.. and they're always super bitchy when i tell them i'm straight. but whatever. i shall survive. :D

You are claiming it like it's the norm when you are clearly talking about the fringes. If we can randomly make unsupported claims, then I'm going to make the much more supported claim that you're full of it.

must say.. i like your style. not much anyone can say to that without sounding like a fool. :) cool.

I guess everyone's going to try and get along now.

Tensions ease over gay posters
Conflict resolved by faculty meetings, principal says

Two days after San Leandro High School teachers were ordered to hang posters in their rooms promoting tolerance toward gay students, many faculty and students said the move was long overdue.

"It shouldn't even be a debate. Kids need to feel comfortable in class, and the adults need to make sure that happens," said senior Je'Nea Woods. "The school environment's supposed to be about students. Everyone should feel safe whether they're homosexual or not."

The school board-mandated posters sparked a controversy Monday when a handful of the school's 120 teachers said the posters -- which feature pink triangles, a rainbow banner and the words "safe space" -- contradicted their religious beliefs.

TV news crews swarmed the 2,500-student campus Tuesday, and Principal Amy Furtado spent much of the day, the second day of the spring semester, fielding calls from the media, parents and the community.

But so far, the conflicts appear to have been resolved through faculty discussions about the underlying message of the posters, which is to promote tolerance, said Furtado.

"We are a diverse staff. We have teachers here who are active in their churches, and we respect their beliefs," Furtado said Wednesday. "But none of those teachers have said they won't put up the posters because of that."

Teachers have a week to hang the 8 1/2-by-11 posters, which were designed by the 30 or so students in the school's Gay-Straight Alliance. Furtado will check all 200 classrooms next week to see if the posters are visible, and she said she'd have "a private conversation" with teachers who don't comply.

"The expectation is compliance," she said. "It's board policy. But what's great is that today we have some very conservative teachers who've already put it up."

The posters, along with faculty training about racism and homophobia, were required in the 2002 settlement of a lawsuit filed by a San Leandro High teacher who was disciplined after teaching those topics in his honors English class in the mid-1990s. The teacher, Karl Debro, was awarded $1.1 million and still teaches at the school.

"The school has changed a lot since then, but then, society's changed a lot, too," Debro said Wednesday. "A lot of kids have relatives who've come out. The Gay-Straight Alliance has helped a lot. The poster could be a way to get people to think even further about it."

Debro, who was at Monday's faculty meeting when the posters were distributed, said he was pleased with the outcome. The teachers were shown a movie about Gwen Araujo, the transgender teen from Newark who was killed in 2002, heard the district's policy on tolerance and then broke into small groups to discuss the poster and how they would talk to their students about it.

"Some people were not comfortable with it, but no one said they weren't going to put it up," Debro said. "I'm really proud of that. They're taking a stand on the right side, even if it's not something they personally agree with."

Still, the school is far from a nirvana for gay and lesbian students, said school counselor Barbara Stump.

"We're not Berkeley or San Francisco. I've had gay and lesbian students talk to me about being treated unfairly," she said. "I think homophobia is definitely a problem here, but this is a good step. We do what we can."

Debro and other teachers said gay and lesbian students are sometimes taunted, and students will call someone they don't like "gay" or a "fag."

Furtado, who was Araujo's freshman geography teacher, said the teen was constantly besieged with verbal abuse, and "every day was a battle" to protect her.

"When you see that as a teacher, you know the culture of the school has to be changed," she said. "Students have to know that that behavior is not acceptable. That's why this is so important."

Science and health teacher David Ellington has already put up the poster and talked to his students about it.

"A lot of kids want to hold on to their very strong beliefs, and they were trying to deal with it," he said. "But we talked about how, in life, you have to treat people with respect, and whether they're gay or straight isn't really an issue."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/26/BAGHRGT0GD1.DTL

I guess everyone's going to try and get along now.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/26/BAGHRGT0GD1.DTL
I aplaud thoes teachers that have gone out of their way to show that this is a safe place even if their students choice does not line up with their political or religious beliefs

I aplaud thoes teachers that have gone out of their way to show that this is a safe place even if their students choice does not line up with their political or religious beliefs
Yup! Good on them!

*blinks* Dear God... I've been hanging out with too many Australians.

No, it doesn't. It wouldn't be gay pride if it just meant don't be ashamed. It means have pride in your sexuality.

Main Entry: mis·no·mer
Pronunciation: "mis-'nO-m&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English misnoumer, from Middle French mesnommer to misname, from mes- mis- + nommer to name, from Latin nominare -- more at NOMINATE
1 : the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument
2 a : a use of a wrong name b : a wrong name or designation

What part of "it's a bit of a misnomer" did you misunderstand? The entire point behind "gay pride" is to get people to stop being ashamed of their sexuality. There would be no "gay pride" movement if homosexuals had not been told for years to hide who they were because their attractions were somehow shameful. Much like the idea of improving self-esteem is not to make a person arrogant or full of themselves, the idea of gay pride is not to make someone proud of their sexuality. It is to stop them from being ashamed of it.

While I see the need for in the world, you are very much skewing the position of anyone who does not agree with the idea of Gay Pride. Many people who would argue against it would argue than there is nothing to be proud of in any sexuality. It's not as if it's a choice. You are very much changing the landscape of the argument so people have to agree with you or be defending people who wish to attack homosexuals.

I'm not changing the argument. THose who claim that gay pride actually means, "Be proud to be gay," rather than, "Don't be ashamed to be gay," are doing that. It's a bit like the Republican group on a college campus that wanted to hold a "Straight Pride" parade because of this skewed view of what gay pride means.

I didn't say lying, now did I?

If he's not lying, then the teachers won't hang the posters because they have religious objections to homosexuality. Therefore, if you are not claiming him to be a liar, then you have no dispute with me.

Much like you, he is simply skewing the information to make it sound like he's right.

How the hell could you possibly know this? Do you personally know what the teachers said to him, or what his views are?

"They won't hang a gay pride poster so they must believe students should be ashamed of their sexuality."

If they have a religious objection to homosexuality, they obviously believe that homosexuality is wrong, and therefore something to be ashamed of. Unless, of course, they are in the habit of telling people to be proud of doing something wrong or of having religious objections to things they think are right.

The principal is excercising the same flawed thinking that would lead him to believe a mandatory Gay Pride poster is a good idea. The same flawed thinking you excercise in your assumptions about these teachers.

That doesn't even make sense. Thinking the poster is a good idea and will do anything is certainly flawed thinking. But taking, "I have a religious objection to homosexuality," to mean, "I think people should be ashamed to be homosexuals," is not exactly a huge leap. My religion has a problem with stealing. I think people who steal should be ashamed of stealing. I think anyone who has a predisposition to stealing should try to subdue that urge and get past it. See?

However, the principal is not a first order source and the paper isn't even a second order source so the telephone line it traveled through isn't something I'd rely on.

But it is the only source we have. THerefore, if you won't rely upon the only source we have, then you really shouldn't bother with discussing the situation.

Edit: There is apparently another source now. =)

We do however know that they never complained about the district policies regarding the issue earlier

How do we know that?

so one can easily conclude something about this poster crossed what they view to be the line.

We can probably conclude that, yes. Of course, we can't make any assumptions - like you are - about what that is. All we can do is use the information given to us, which is that they refuse due to a religious objection. We can't assume that they don't like it for the same reason that another teacher, who didn't even mention religion, doesn't like it.

You can pretend this is not so all you like, but there is no evidence these teachers condone gay bashing or forcing people to be ashamed,

I never said there was any such evidence. I simply pointed out that you have no evidence to back your contention that they don't condone it. We know they probably don't do it themselves, at least not in the classroom. And that is all we know.

Meanwhile, while they may not force people to be ashamed, having a religious objection to homosexuality pretty much directly leads to the conclusion that they think people *should* be ashamed.

Yes, except the only first-order source we have for someone who says they won't hang the poster says specifically they have reasons other than holding the position you claime the MUST hold in order to not support the poster.

You really are confused here. I never said any such thing. I said that, in the case of the five teachers under discussion, the religious objection is the only reason we have any evidence whatsoever for. There is a difference. I, myself, have given all sorts of reasons a teacher might refuse to hang the poster, none of which were related to religion.

Meanwhile, if the article is not even a second-order source, how do we have a first-order source for the other teacher who wouldn't hang it? Has he personally posted in this thread?

Yes, all the information that is not given by them provided we ignore the additional information that can be extracted from our knowledge of the situation.

You can't extract knowledge of what other people think out the blue. You are trying to place your own viewpoints on people, even though we have no evidence to suggest they agree with you.

And, yes, because of their religion does not mean they are anti-tolerance.

No, it doesn't. But "because of their religion" is not an adequate reason for a teacher to defy the school board and expect to escape disciplinary action.

It may very well mean there religion will not allow them to show Gay Pride. Gay Pride and tolerance of sexualities are not equal.

Actually, they are. It is only the extreme right-wing and a few rather scary homosexuals that skew it out of proportion. Your claims are like saying that feminism is anti-male. It isn't. There are a few feminists who are, and those opposed to feminism try to act like that is the point, but we know it isn't.

I would guess that the teachers are upset because they think that hanging the poster will give off the idea that they approve of homosexuality, when they do not. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not true. You choose to ignore the rather obvious information that suggests they supported previous policies supporting state law.

THere is no such information. Where does it say in the article that the teachers actually supported the policies? All we know is that they apparently followed the policies. One does not have to support something to follow it.

And that first order information suggests they are not anti-homosexual, but merely unwilling to post a Gay Pride poster.

WHat part of "religious objections to homosexuality," do you not understand? WHile a person who holds such views may not actively alienate homosexuals, they are anti-homosexual. I won't go out of my way to say something bad about a bigot in my presence, but I am opposed to bigotry, and am therefore anti-bigot.

Of course, let's ignore the additional information we have. It doesn't agree with you so I can see why you'd like to pretend it's not there.

You mean the "additional information" you are assuming?

You think I somehow disagree with your suggestion that the poster was out of line. I don't. I'm just not going to stand by and watch you pull claims out of the blue and claim you somehow have evidence for them. THey are nothing more than assumptions.

Main Entry: mis·no·mer
Pronunciation: "mis-'nO-m&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English misnoumer, from Middle French mesnommer to misname, from mes- mis- + nommer to name, from Latin nominare -- more at NOMINATE
1 : the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument
2 a : a use of a wrong name b : a wrong name or designation

What part of "it's a bit of a misnomer" did you misunderstand? The entire point behind "gay pride" is to get people to stop being ashamed of their sexuality. There would be no "gay pride" movement if homosexuals had not been told for years to hide who they were because their attractions were somehow shameful. Much like the idea of improving self-esteem is not to make a person arrogant or full of themselves, the idea of gay pride is not to make someone proud of their sexuality. It is to stop them from being ashamed of it.

Who chose the name? Hint: It wasn't the opponents.

I'm not changing the argument. THose who claim that gay pride actually means, "Be proud to be gay," rather than, "Don't be ashamed to be gay," are doing that. It's a bit like the Republican group on a college campus that wanted to hold a "Straight Pride" parade because of this skewed view of what gay pride means.

Again. Who chose the name?

If he's not lying, then the teachers won't hang the posters because they have religious objections to homosexuality. Therefore, if you are not claiming him to be a liar, then you have no dispute with me.

Um, no. He can be wrong and not be lying. You are aware of this, methinks. It's sad that you're willing to overlook such an obvious possibility just to support your point.

How the hell could you possibly know this?

I actually mistyped. I meant to suggest that there are many possibilties. The most likely is that he is merely trying to take away their justification for not hanging the poster. Again, you are making an assumption based on a third-hand source. That's not such good support for your argument.

If they have a religious objection to homosexuality, they obviously believe that homosexuality is wrong, and therefore something to be ashamed of.

Um. Really? Are you sure? I think cancer is wrong. Do I think you should be ashamed of it? More importantly, would I allow you to be beaten for it?

Meanwhile, you are still assuming that your third-hand source is correct. The only person who has said why they would not hang the poster if asked was a person who said it is political, not religious, yet the principal claims that only religious zealots are unwilling to hang it. Since we have one person quoted and another summarizing the position of the opposition, forgive me if I chose to think the position of the quoted person is more likely. Interesting, isn't it, that the people who aren't quote are only doing it for religious reasons and the only person quoted just happens to have a different reason for refusing to hang the poster if asked (and he will be asked).

That doesn't even make sense. Thinking the poster is a good idea and will do anything is certainly flawed thinking. But taking, "I have a religious objection to homosexuality," to mean, "I think people should be ashamed to be homosexuals," is not exactly a huge leap. My religion has a problem with stealing. I think people who steal should be ashamed of stealing. See?

Many religions have a problem with medication and don't think people should be ashamed of taking medication (just prescribing it). Many religions have problems with blood transfusions but wouldn't condemn someone for having one. You should try reading the bible. Paul actually suggests respecting the beliefs of others even if they are contrary to your own. He also suggests not tripping people in their faith even though one can quite easily conclude he believes other faiths to be false.

You use an example of something people believe you should be ashamed, but unless you can ONLY give examples of actions they disagree with but also think are shameful, then you have little ground on which to stand. And since I've given you counter-examples, you *gasp* have NO ground on which to stand.

But it is the only source we have. THerefore, if you won't rely upon the only source we have, then you really shouldn't bother with discussing the situation.

Actually, the only source we have for reasoning, you rejected because they hadn't yet asked him. However, he said he would not hang the poster and why. It was not a religious reasoning, specifically.

How do we know that?

Ok, so you defend the reporting in the article and then you claim that they left out so major of a point as them having an ongoing problem with the statewide problem? You don't think it would significant to mention it if the teachers had involved themselves in protesting the law before? This argument just gets more ridiculous. Show some evidence that there problem is with the law and not the poster or withdraw the assertion.

We can probably conclude that, yes. Of course, we can't make any assumptions - like you are - about what that is. All we can do is use the information given to us, which is that they refuse due to a religious objection. We can't assume that they don't like it for the same reason that another teacher, who didn't even mention religion, doesn't like it.

I am? You said it must be that they think the children should be ashamed of their sexuality. I made no assumption about what it must be and said the principals claims of their reasoning is suspect. Meanwhile, I pointed out how one could easily justify not hanging such a poster. The only assumption here is yours. I don't have to be right for you to be wrong. I accept that your assumption could be right and that these teachers could be bigots. However, I do not accept that we have enough information to treat that assumption as more than a possibility. If you were treating it as an assumption rather than a fact, we wouldn't be having this argument.

I never said there was any such evidence. I simply pointed out that you have no evidence to back your contention that they don't condone it. We know they probably don't do it themselves, at least not in the classroom. And that is all we know.

Um. You are asking for negative evidence. You are making an assertion. Support it or withdraw it. I can't prove they have never practiced bigotry. You certainly have no evidence other than their protestations over this poster that they have. And these protestations could easily be justified by many things other than bigotry.

Meanwhile, while they may not force people to be ashamed, having a religious objection to homosexuality pretty much directly leads to the conclusion that they think people *should* be ashamed.

Again, support your assertion or withdraw it. You have no evidence that they wish for people to be ashamed. No, having a religious objection does no such thing. I can tell you even if I believed my religion tells me that I should not be homosexual (I don't), I still would not hold that others should be ashamed of it. I think my religion does tell me that we shouldn't be Wiccans but I don't think Wiccans should be ashamed of being Wiccans. I would, meanwhile, complain about a Wiccan Pride poster in my office. You love making claims as if they are fact when I can actively show you a counter-example. No matter how common the idea of homosexuality being shameful might be, show some evidence that these teachers endorse that idea or stop making the assertion.

You really are confused here. I never said any such thing. I said that, in the case of the five teachers under discussion, the religious objection is the only reason we have any evidence whatsoever for. There is a difference. I, myself, have given all sorts of reasons a teacher might refuse to hang the poster, none of which were related to religion.

And that evidence would be INADMISSABLE in a court of law. You've given all sorts of reasons, yet, you don't allow for any of them to be the reasoning of these teachers. Ridiculous.

Meanwhile, if the article is not even a second-order source, how do we have a first-order source for the other teacher who wouldn't hang it? Has he personally posted in this thread?

A first order source would be a quote of the teacher. A second order source would be a summary of what the teacher said by the author of the article. A third-order source would something further removed.

You can't extract knowledge of what other people think out the blue. You are trying to place your own viewpoints on people, even though we have no evidence to suggest they agree with you.

No, I am allowing for the possibility that these teachers are not guilty of what you claim.

No, it doesn't. But "because of their religion" is not an adequate reason for a teacher to defy the school board and expect to escape disciplinary action.

The schoolboard is wrong to mandate that a teacher hang a poster that promotes pride in homosexuality. People have the right to be Republicans, and teachers have a duty to make schools a safe place for Repbulicans but if you posted a poster with only Elephants on it and said feel free to support any party you like, I would support a teacher's objection to it, even if they objected on religious grounds. Why? Because unlike other areas, government employees cannot be forced to endorse a belief or group.

Actually, they are. It is only the extreme right-wing and a few rather scary homosexuals that skew it out of proportion. Your claims are like saying that feminism is anti-male. It isn't. There are a few feminists who are, and those opposed to feminism try to act like that is the point, but we know it isn't.

They are not. Don't try to compare feminism and Gay Pride. It's not gayism. It's Gay PRIDE. It's not a stretch to imagine that Gay Pride means *gasp* PRIDE in being gay. Seriously, claiming that gay PRIDE has nothing to do with pride is just dumb.

I would guess that the teachers are upset because they think that hanging the poster will give off the idea that they approve of homosexuality, when they do not. Nothing more, nothing less.

They don't have to approve of homosexuality. That's the point. They have a right to not be forced to approve of homosexuality.

THere is no such information. Where does it say in the article that the teachers actually supported the policies? All we know is that they apparently followed the policies. One does not have to support something to follow it.

You are ridiculous. Fine, they 'followed' the policies, but didn't follow this one. The poster is clearly the difference.

WHat part of "religious objections to homosexuality," do you not understand? WHile a person who holds such views may not actively alienate homosexuals, they are anti-homosexual. I won't go out of my way to say something bad about a bigot in my presence, but I am opposed to bigotry, and am therefore anti-bigot.

They are allowed to have religious objections to homosexuality. Just like they can have religious objections to being Muslim too. And if this was a poster that said be who you are and had the star on it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't think people should be fundamentalists, but I would fight to the death for their right to be one. If people started beating up fundamentalists, I would put a poster that promoted religious freedom but not one that promoted pride in being a fundamentalist. You can claim all you want to that pride is not the point of gay... now what is the second word in that title... oh, yeah... pride. Your argument is ridiculous.

You mean the "additional information" you are assuming?

Uh-huh. Thank you for that. I haven't laughed at you in a long time. Yes, I'm assuming that if they had protested this before that it would significant enough to include the article. And if the author of the article left it out then they are soooooooooooo bad at writing an article that the entire article should be thrown out and they should be teased until they cry.

You think I somehow disagree with your suggestion that the poster was out of line. I don't. I'm just not going to stand by and watch you pull claims out of the blue and claim you somehow have evidence for them. THey are nothing more than assumptions.
I pull claims out of the blue? Ridiculous. I simply won't condemn these teachers based on a bunch of assumption that may or may not be right. I think it's significantly possible that they would not have objected to a more even-handed poster.

I love how you always twist everything to make out like you're not make assertions so you can justify your lack of evidence. You have no evidence for bigotry, yet you assert it or at least attempt to quietly suggest it ("we don't have evidence he doesn't beat his wife so...."). The entire argument is embarassing.

I don't know if anyone has posted an image of the poster on this thread yet, but I just came across it. I figured I'd post it because the symbols on it have been a source of discussion here--whether they were gay pride symbols, etc. So here it is, not nearly as outlandish as I imagine many people thought it might be.

http://www.pamspaulding.com/graphics/mn_poster.jpg

I don't know if anyone has posted an image of the poster on this thread yet, but I just came across it. I figured I'd post it because the symbols on it have been a source of discussion here--whether they were gay pride symbols, etc. So here it is, not nearly as outlandish as I imagine many people thought it might be.

http://www.pamspaulding.com/graphics/mn_poster.jpg

I think I'm more offended because it's ugly.

I still think there are better ways to get such a message across.

I think I'm more offended because it's ugly.

I still think there are better ways to get such a message across.
Maybe so, but I don't see the "pride" message you were concerned about in earlier posts. I think the original article said there were pride symbols, by which I can only assume they're talking about the rainbow, but that's a bit of a stretch to my mind. This poster seems to have the straightforward message that glbt/q students know that the school has their back, and I don't see a problem with that. Of course it won't solve the problem, but it is a strong message to send nonetheless.

Maybe so, but I don't see the "pride" message you were concerned about in earlier posts. I think the original article said there were pride symbols, by which I can only assume they're talking about the rainbow, but that's a bit of a stretch to my mind. This poster seems to have the straightforward message that glbt/q students know that the school has their back, and I don't see a problem with that. Of course it won't solve the problem, but it is a strong message to send nonetheless.

The original article said that the designers of the posters intended to include pride symbols. Now that is also third-hand information and not particularly reliable, but since I tend to go with innocent until proven guilty and there are tons of reasons to give these teachers the benefit of the doubt...

Who chose the name? Hint: It wasn't the opponents.

Again. Who chose the name?

That's a bit irrelevant. You think that the people who start a movement don't sometimes pick misnomers?

You know, when we deal with a child with low-self esteem, we aren't trying to invoke an active pride (generally known as arrogance) in them. We are trying to invoke a passive pride (which wouldn't generally be called pride at all), one that simply says, "Be who you are and be confident in that position." But we don't say, "Don't be ashamed of who you are, you are just fine." "Just fine" might suggest to them that they still have something wrong. Instead, we say, "Be proud of yourself!"

This is the type of "pride" invoked by gay pride symbols/marches/etc. It isn't, "Wow, being gay is so awesome. Everyone should try it. You should be proud to be gay because you are better than everyone else." Nope. It is, instead, "Don't be ashamed of being gay, no matter what anyone else tells you. Be proud of yourself. Be confident. You are gay and that is ok no matter what anyone else says."

Edit: Meanwhile, the term "gay pride" is really only a misnomer because it doesn't use the common definition of the word. (Thus, it isn't really a misnomer so much as a commonly misunderstood term).

Main Entry: 1pride
Pronunciation: 'prId
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English pryde, from prud proud -- more at PROUD
1 : the quality or state of being proud: as a : inordinate self-esteem : CONCEIT b : a reasonable or justifiable self-respect c : delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship <parental pride>
2 : proud or disdainful behavior or treatment : DISDAIN
3 a : ostentatious display b : highest pitch : PRIME
4 : a source of pride : the best in a group or class
5 : a company of lions
6 : a showy or impressive group <a pride of dancers>

Most people use 1a, 2, or 3. Those are the uses that people who complain about gay pride and say things like, "Your sexuality isn't something to be proud of, that's just silly," are using. Of course, the bolded definition is actually the one being used. 1b - "A reasonable or justifiable self-respect." Gay pride is meant to foster a lack of shame - a reasonable self-respect that all human beigns, regardless of sexuality, should feel - in a population that has been told that they should have no such respect for generations. That is the intention of gay pride.

Um, no. He can be wrong and not be lying.

How would you possibly get, "These teachers won't do X because of their religion," without them saying it outright? He is either making it up, or they said it to him.

I actually mistyped. I meant to suggest that there are many possibilties. The most likely is that he is merely trying to take away their justification for not hanging the poster. Again, you are making an assumption based on a third-hand source. That's not such good support for your argument.

You mean the most likely is that he is lying? That he is intentionally misrepresenting their motives? But I thought you said that was unlikely?

The only assumption I am making here is that the only source we have is accurate. If it is not, then anything and everything we say is pure speculation, no better than suggesting that the teachers won't hang the poster because they are afraid aliens might come get them if they do.

Edit: Meanwhile, you are making assumptions based on no source at all - which is exactly what I have been trying to point out. You are assuming that the principal must either be misinforming the public - that he must be misrepresenting the motives of these five teachers, with not a single shred of evidence to believe he is doing so other than, "I don't want to believe that these teachers actually used their religion as their objection."

Um. Really? Are you sure? I think cancer is wrong. Do I think you should be ashamed of it? More importantly, would I allow you to be beaten for it?

Strawman. Cancer is not a trait of a human being. It is a disease state. Meanwhile, there is a difference between having a religious objection to something (ie. thinking it is a sin) and thinking something is wrong. I think babies dying of easily curable diseases is wrong, but I don't think their deaths are a sin (unless someone who can cure it stands by and watches instead, in which case the death itself would not be the sin, but the person allowing the suffering would be sinning).

Meanwhile, you are still assuming that your third-hand source is correct.

There is no reason to assume otherwise. It is the only source given, therefore it is all we have to go on.

Why should I assume that your concoctions are somehow more correct than someone who is actually at least somewhat related to the case?

The only person who has said why they would not hang the poster if asked was a person who said it is political, not religious, yet the principal claims that only religious zealots are unwilling to hang it.

Where did the principal claim that? I didn't see that in the article. It seems that you are making things up again. The principal claimed 5 particular teachers, a set which did not include the teacher who objected for political reasons, would not hang the poster for religious reasons. None of these teachers would speak to the press. Therefore, all we have to go on are the principal's statements.

There is nothing even remotely close to a suggestion made by the principal that the only possible reason for not hanging it would be a religious reason. Once again, you are so eager to discredit the principal that you assume things about him that you have no evidence for.

Since we have one person quoted and another summarizing the position of the opposition, forgive me if I chose to think the position of the quoted person is more likely.

Wait, so you have a guy outside the set being discussed, and somehow his opinion, which he did not in any way try to say was the opinion shared by the five teachers in question, is better than the principal's stated reasons for why they would not hang them - when the principal is one of the most likely people to have spoken to the five teachers about the matter directly?

I see. So you're cherry-picking just so you don't have to address the very likely possibility that the principal is simply repeating the reasoning given to him.

Interesting, isn't it, that the people who aren't quote are only doing it for religious reasons and the only person quoted just happens to have a different reason for refusing to hang the poster if asked (and he will be asked).

It just goes to show the exact point I already made - that there are many reasons one might give for not hanging the poster, but that the five teachers in question seem to have chosen a religious reasoning.

Many religions have a problem with medication and don't think people should be ashamed of taking medication (just prescribing it). Many religions have problems with blood transfusions but wouldn't condemn someone for having one.

You haven't actually interacted with these people, have you? My advisor saw a family of Jehovah's Witnesses put their daughter up for adoption because she had received a blood transfusion (against their will and, without any permission from her) and was therefore going to hell. They certainly thought she should be ashamed of it, even though she didn't even approve of it. Such families often disown children for breaking their religious beliefs.

You should try reading the bible. Paul actually suggests respecting the beliefs of others even if they are contrary to your own. He also suggests not tripping people in their faith even though one can quite easily conclude he believes other faiths to be false.

And you think all people follow the teachings of Paul? You think all people who claim to follow Biblical teachings actually do so? How quaint.

You use an example of something people believe you should be ashamed, but unless you can ONLY give examples of actions they disagree with but also think are shameful, then you have little ground on which to stand. And since I've given you counter-examples, you *gasp* have NO ground on which to stand.

You have given no counter-examples. Those who are religiously opposed to medication/blood transfusions DO think that those who receive them should be ashamed, as they think it is sinful to take them. They may be able to say, "Well, I can't hold you to my personal religious beliefs," but they still think that the person is doing wrong (and should therefore be ashamed).

Actually, the only source we have for reasoning, you rejected because they hadn't yet asked him. However, he said he would not hang the poster and why. It was not a religious reasoning, specifically.

How exactly is teacher A a source of the reasonsing teacher B, C, D, E, and F used? Are you really going to make the assumption that any teacher who refuses to hang the poster must used the exact same rationale as another?

Ok, so you defend the reporting in the article and then you claim that they left out so major of a point as them having an ongoing problem with the statewide problem? You don't think it would significant to mention it if the teachers had involved themselves in protesting the law before? This argument just gets more ridiculous. Show some evidence that there problem is with the law and not the poster or withdraw the assertion.

Once again, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING ASSERTIONS HERE!!!! I didn't say the teachers had protested it. I said they might have. It might have been done at the very outset of the program and they might have been quiet since then. They might not have actively protested, but may have disagreed with it all the same. They may make a distinction between tolerance and acceptance and think that this steps over the line.

Edit: The point is that you can't make silly assumptions based on a lack of information. "The article didn't say that they protested," doesn't mean, "They definitely didn't protest." It means we have no evidence to suggest that they did. It could mean, "The protest was never officially logged and the writer of the article had no access to it." It could mean, "The teacher protested at home to his spouse, but didn't bring anything up officially." It could mean, "The teacher told some of the administrators she did not agree with the policy, but agreed to follow it all the same."

Let's pull this into another possible situation: Suppose a racist teacher was in a district in which there was a push to make black students feel safe. Suppose, at first, all they did was tell teachers not to discriminate against black students and not to tolerate any use of racial slurs. This teacher could deal with that. She doesn't allow her students to use the "n" word, and she doesn't actively discriminate against her black students. But then, suppose the district wanted her to hang a poster with MLK, Jr, Harriet Tubman, and other prominent historical black figures with similar wording. Suppose they wanted her to do this during black history month, and to lead the class in certain activities related to black history month. This, she might decide, is too far. This would suggest that she actually [i]accepts blacks, rather than just tolerating them.

Would you argue that she has a point?

I am? You said it must be that they think the children should be ashamed of their sexuality.

That is essentially what a religious objection would amount to, yes. There may be a form of religious objection that wouldn't amount to that, but I have yet to see one.

I made no assumption about what it must be and said the principals claims of their reasoning is suspect.

No more or less suspect than the entire article. But the principal's claims are ALL WE HAVE.

Meanwhile, I pointed out how one could easily justify not hanging such a poster.

I've pointed out numerous other reasons and how they might be justified. That is rather irrelevant to the specific case of a specific reasoning. If I think that I should be able to get St. Patrick's Day off from work because I want to party, and my coworker thinks we should get it off because she celebrates it as a religious holiday, and my other coworker thinks we should get it off because he thinks it will be unsafe to be out on the roads that day, should we all be placed under whichever reasoning you tend to agree with? Or should our arguments all be examined on their own merit?

The only assumption here is yours. I don't have to be right for you to be wrong. I accept that your assumption could be right and that these teachers could be bigots. However, I do not accept that we have enough information to treat that assumption as more than a possibility. If you were treating it as an assumption rather than a fact, we wouldn't be having this argument.

What part of, "IT MAY BE WRONG BUT IT IS THE ONLY INFORMATION WE HAVE," is hard for you? I never said, "It is an absolute fact that these teachers refused to hang the posters because of religious objections." In fact, I have gone out of my way to preface it each time with, "According to all available information...."

Um. You are asking for negative evidence. You are making an assertion.

Wrong again. I have made no assertion. I have never said, "These teachers have practiced bigotry." You have stated that you have evidence that they don't. The only thing we can surmise (from their continued employment) is that they have never actively practiced it in their classrooms. That is all.

Support it or withdraw it. I can't prove they have never practiced bigotry. You certainly have no evidence other than their protestations over this poster that they have. And these protestations could easily be justified by many things other than bigotry.

They could be, but all available evidence suggests bigotry.

Again, support your assertion or withdraw it. You have no evidence that they wish for people to be ashamed.

Yes, I do. According to all available evidence, they have a religious objection to homosexuality and that is why they will not hang the poster.

Make a list of things that you hold as wrong due to your religious beliefs. Things you believe to be sinful. Do you think people should be proud of them?

No, having a religious objection does no such thing. I can tell you even if I believed my religion tells me that I should not be homosexual (I don't), I still would not hold that others should be ashamed of it.

This is a spurious remark. "If I believed something I don't believe, I can somehow state how I would feel about my belief that I don't hold."

I think my religion does tell me that we shouldn't be Wiccans but I don't think Wiccans should be ashamed of being Wiccans.

Do you think it is sinful to be a Wiccan? If you do, how can you possibly justify thinking that it isn't a shameful action? Are sins against God something to be proud of?

And that evidence would be INADMISSABLE in a court of law.

Is this thread a court of law?

You've given all sorts of reasons, yet, you don't allow for any of them to be the reasoning of these teachers. Ridiculous.

I have no evidence to believe that they are the reasoning of these teachers. All available evidence tells me that the reasoning of these teachers was, "I have a religious objection." If any of the five teachers in question comes forward and claims a different reasoning, then I would certainly admit the possibility, even likelihood of a different possibilty. But if all I have to go on is, "These teachers won't hang the poster because they have religious objections to it," I am not going to start pulling things out of the air like you are and claiming, "They might have political reasons," "They might not understand the gay pride movement and might therefore think that you shouldn't be prideful of any sexuality," etc. All available evidence says that their reasoning is religious. Therefore, that's what I'm going on until further evidence is provided.

No, I am allowing for the possibility that these teachers are not guilty of what you claim.

No, you are making an assertion that it is most likely that they are not. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to back that assertion. Given the evidence, the most likely reasoning they have given is religious.

They are not. Don't try to compare feminism and Gay Pride. It's not gayism. It's Gay PRIDE. It's not a stretch to imagine that Gay Pride means *gasp* PRIDE in being gay. Seriously, claiming that gay PRIDE has nothing to do with pride is just dumb.

Actually, if you've ever attended a pride event, it's a pretty large stretch. Go to a gay pride event. Talk to people. Compare the number who support an active pride in homosexuality vs. the number who support a passive pride in themselves that amounts to saying, "We're here, we're queer, and we're not going to hide from you anymore."

They don't have to approve of homosexuality. That's the point. They have a right to not be forced to approve of homosexuality.

No, they don't have to approve of homosexuality. Of course, having a poster hung in every classroom doesn't suggest that any particular teacher approves of it either. It simply suggests that the school has decided that homosexuality is A-ok.

If the state mandated that black history month be celebrated in every history classroom, would that mean that there were no racist history teachers? Would students reasonably be able to assume that any teacher who went through the activities the state demanded actually approved of black people? No, not really.

You are ridiculous. Fine, they 'followed' the policies, but didn't follow this one. The poster is clearly the difference.

I have never said anything in opposition to this.

They are allowed to have religious objections to homosexuality.

Yes, but they are not allowed to act on said objections within the context of their job working for the state.

I pull claims out of the blue? Ridiculous.

Yes. You are putting words into the mouths of these teachers from a distance even more removed than the principal, who has probably actually discussed it with them, and then trying to claim that your assumptions are somehow better than his claims.

I'm sorry if I'm going to go with the information from someone at least involved in the situation over Internet Poster 001.

I simply won't condemn these teachers based on a bunch of assumption that may or may not be right.

I'm not condemning anyone. I have simply pointed out that, if a religious objection to homosexuality was their given reason for hanging the poster, they haven't got a leg to stand on. They must take whatever disciplinary action is decided upon.

I think it's significantly possible that they would not have objected to a more even-handed poster.

It's very possible, but you don't have to make things up to support it.

I love how you always twist everything to make out like you're not make assertions so you can justify your lack of evidence. You have no evidence for bigotry, yet you assert it or at least attempt to quietly suggest it ("we don't have evidence he doesn't beat his wife so...."). The entire argument is embarassing.

I have made no assertions that are not based completely in the evidence at hand. You have. The fact that you try to suggest I have is hilarious. I have simply pointed out the most likely possibility - that the principal is aware of the reasons they have given for opposing the poster and is repeating them. Like I said, as soon as one of the five teachers in question comes forward and disputes this, then it will make sense to shift the discussion.

The original article said that the designers of the posters intended to include pride symbols. Now that is also third-hand information and not particularly reliable, but since I tend to go with innocent until proven guilty and there are tons of reasons to give these teachers the benefit of the doubt...

Really? Where does it say that? The closest it comes is to say that the Gay-Straight alliance (which doesn't sound like it would be using "pride" in the way you are, since straight people are included too), included what the writer of the article calls, "symbols of gay pride."

Jocabia,

As per your recent tactics, you decided to immediately jump to conclusions about my posts and attempt to twist my words, rather than even reading what I was saying. And you did so with an immediate rudeness that goes beyond mere sarcasm.

Is it really impossible for you to have a discussion without attempting to directly insult the other person? Are you capable of actually reading my posts, instead of adding to them something that you think you can argue with? How you come to, "I assume X," from, "Hey, don't assume Y, X might be true," is beyond me, but it's exactly what you did.

You said that the teachers didn't mind the old policies. I asked how you could know that and suggested the possibility that they might have actually been opposed to them. You replied with, "BACK UP YOUR ASSERTION!!!" What assertion is there in, "You don't know that it is Y. It might have been X or Z."?

You insist on taking the objection's of a teacher who never even claimed to have spoken to the five teachers in question to also be the objections of those five teachers, despite the fact that you have no evidence to do so. Meanwhile, the only information given on the possible motives of these teachers is religious, but you somehow claim you have more evidence for your assertions (which don't have even a shred of evidence) than for going with what the article says. Care to explain why?

And as for the gay pride issue, I'm going to just have to be comfortable in the fact that you are wrong here. The "pride" in "gay pride" refers to not being ashamed, to having a healthy self-respect - the same self-respect that all human beings should have and should be allowed to have. The fact that you don't know this makes it evident that you've probably never been involved in pride activities, and probably don't know many homosexuals. That's fine, but be careful when you start making assertions like that.

And yes, "gay pride" has the word "pride" in it. And yes, "pride" generally refers to something beyond self-respect. You know what? Feminism has, as its root word, feminine, but that doesn't mean that feminists don't concern themselves with men's issues or with masculinity. Words come into use for many reasons, and are often blown out of proportion by people who want to overanalyze the semantics. When it comes down to it, feminism is a movement for gender equality - addressing issues of all genders. Gay pride refers to not being ashamed of your sexuality, and doesn't refer only to homosexuals, but also includes bisexuals, transsexuals, intersexed persons, confused persons, and, increasingly, straight persons. Go figure.

Ok, as pretending that we can just make all kinds of assumptions about these teachers and their religious beliefs has lost the amusement factor, I'll educate and then we can't pretend to be justified anymore.

1. First-hand - direct quote in the article.
Second-hand - summary of statement said to the author.
Third-hand - summary of a statement given to the author that is in and of itself a summary of the position of another party.

Let's see which this is -

Five teachers at San Leandro High School have refused to comply with a school district order to display a rainbow-flag poster in their classrooms that reads, "This is a safe place to be who you are," because they say homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, Principal Amy Furtado said.

Yep, third hand. Our ONLY first-hand source for not being willing to hang the poster is for reasons other than those claimed by the principle. Yes, that quoted person is not part of the five. That's the point. The only first-hand source we have contradicts the principles summary of the problem. Is it possible the principle is making an assumption? Hell yeah, it is.

2. Pride symbols -

The high school's Gay-Straight Alliance designed the poster, which includes pink triangles and other symbols of gay pride.

It includes a rainbow and pink triangles. Famous symbols of gay pride. They were chosen by the designer of the posters.

3. Gay Pride. How do you dismiss their misnomer (so much so that you quote the definition of misnomer) and then trry to prove it's not? Consistency is our friend. Pride is the word they chose to use and they chose it well aware of the effect such a word would have on the movement. I don't disapprove of choosing the name. I disapprove of putting symbols of gay pride on the poster. The poster should have been an across the board cry for equal and safe treatment of people of all sexual identities and all sexualities. There is no question that this would have been more effective. No one here has claimed otherwise.

4. There is no evidence that these teachers have acted against equality or safety for homosexuals EVER. Sans evidence - do not make the assertion.

5. Religious objections not equal shameful. Many people consider things wrong, often for religious reasons. Need a very appropriate example - hermaphrodites. Some parents consider it shameful. Some don't. But most correct the 'flaw'. Personally, I don't know that I would consider it a flaw or not allow my child to develop normally and then, if necessary, make a choice (unless there was a compelling medical reason). The point is just because someone thinks it's flawed doesn't mean someone think it's shameful. Obesity is both genetic and a choice (in reference to how people see being gay). I abhore obesity because I view it to be unhealthy but I would A) damage someone physically attacking a fat person and B) thoroughly chastise someone suggesting obese people should be ashamed of themselves. Some religions view obesity to be wrong, but not shameful (the body is a temple and all).

6. Redressing an argument to make it less supportable isn't lying. It's not even deceitful necessarily. Someone says they circumcised their son. I say they performed a ritualistic body mutilation on a child. Neither of us is lying. What is undeniable is that I redressed their argument to make it sound worse in order to dismiss it. Also, most people would infer that I am referring to the religious and cultural practice that encourages circumcision, yet the parents made no such suggestion that either thing inspired them. Still doesn't make me a liar. The principle might believe the only possible objection to the poster is that they view homosexuality as shameful. Some here have certainly made that assumption. The point is we don't and can't know.


7. Often is not always. Sometimes is not always. People are making sweeping generalizations based on anecdotal evidence. Example - because someone disowned their child because of a blood transfusion, does that mean everyone does it? "But, wait, wait, don't make that argument because it just makes me look silly." Too bad. I like making you look silly. Admit it. You made a sweeping generalization. You can give examples all day of people who may have done these kinds of creepy things, but if even one person who believes these things is reasonable then you can't prove that one or all of these teachers are of the reasonable sort. Thus, you're basing your accusations of these teachers on assumptions. But, then, we already knew that.

8. Saying they might have proven to be bigots in the past IS AN ASSERTION. It's just the same as saying they might be child molestors. It's an accusation you should not make without evidence. In this case, there is none and if there were it would have more than likely been included in the article as it's VERY pertinent. The absense of anything about it in the article suggests one of three things, the reporter sucked in which case we can toss the article, it never happened in which case we CANNOT assert that they did any such thing, or it happened but the evidence is not widely available in which case we have no logical choice to assume that in the absense of evidence that there is no such incident. We could also suggest the teachers MIGHT be legally insane, but in the absense of evidence it's totally logical to not assume they aren't.

9. A poster of historical black figures is not the same as a poster containing symbols of various active Pride political groups. They aren't even remotely comparable. If this was a poster of Matthew Shepard, one might make a comparison, but it was a poster containing symbols of popular political groups advocating pride. groups I support, but can't reasonably expect to be able to ORDER other people to support.

Every argument here is circular.
"I decided that religious reasons are bigotted automatically.
"Why are religious reasons bigotted automatically?"
Example A of a person who uses religion to justify bigotry.
Counter-example of a person who uses religion to suggest they think it is something that should be fixed, but not something that is shameful.
"But, that's not bigotry so it doesn't count."
"But if there can be none bigotted examples then doesn't that say that religious reasoning for not liking something does not have to be bigotted?"
"Um, no, because I don't accept them."

You refuse to accept that A) all we have is a summary by the author of a summary by the principal of the position of the people he thinks are wrong, B) religous reason does not equal shameful, no matter how many examples of INDIVIDUALS who have used religious reasons to justify shameful, C) the only actual first-hand source we have says that they object to for other than religious reasoning, yet just by very suspect coincidence everyone not being quoted directly objects for a different reason than the ONLY quoted person who objects to the mandatory hanging of the posters, D) the poster contains gay PRIDE symbols, a wonderful political movement, but a political movement nonetheless, E) presenting one-side of a current politic struggle is not equivalent to protecting widely-held rights to equality and safety.

Jocabia,

As per your recent tactics, you decided to immediately jump to conclusions about my posts and attempt to twist my words, rather than even reading what I was saying. And you did so with an immediate rudeness that goes beyond mere sarcasm.

Is it really impossible for you to have a discussion without attempting to directly insult the other person? Are you capable of actually reading my posts, instead of adding to them something that you think you can argue with? How you come to, "I assume X," from, "Hey, don't assume Y, X might be true," is beyond me, but it's exactly what you did.

You said that the teachers didn't mind the old policies. I asked how you could know that and suggested the possibility that they might have actually been opposed to them. You replied with, "BACK UP YOUR ASSERTION!!!" What assertion is there in, "You don't know that it is Y. It might have been X or Z."?

You insist on taking the objection's of a teacher who never even claimed to have spoken to the five teachers in question to also be the objections of those five teachers, despite the fact that you have no evidence to do so. Meanwhile, the only information given on the possible motives of these teachers is religious, but you somehow claim you have more evidence for your assertions (which don't have even a shred of evidence) than for going with what the article says. Care to explain why?

And as for the gay pride issue, I'm going to just have to be comfortable in the fact that you are wrong here. The "pride" in "gay pride" refers to not being ashamed, to having a healthy self-respect - the same self-respect that all human beings should have and should be allowed to have. The fact that you don't know this makes it evident that you've probably never been involved in pride activities, and probably don't know many homosexuals. That's fine, but be careful when you start making assertions like that.

And yes, "gay pride" has the word "pride" in it. And yes, "pride" generally refers to something beyond self-respect. You know what? Feminism has, as its root word, feminine, but that doesn't mean that feminists don't concern themselves with men's issues or with masculinity. Words come into use for many reasons, and are often blown out of proportion by people who want to overanalyze the semantics. When it comes down to it, feminism is a movement for gender equality - addressing issues of all genders. Gay pride refers to not being ashamed of your sexuality, and doesn't refer only to homosexuals, but also includes bisexuals, transsexuals, intersexed persons, confused persons, and, increasingly, straight persons. Go figure.

Bwahaha. I am amused by people who are completely unable to be self-aware. Do you know why we annoy each other? Um, because we both do what you accuse me of.

Let me see if I can find an example of what you accuse me of so I can avoid it in the future.

I didn't say lying, now did I? Much like you, he is simply skewing the information to make it sound like he's right. "They won't hang a gay pride poster so they must believe students should be ashamed of their sexuality." The principal is excercising the same flawed thinking that would lead him to believe a mandatory Gay Pride poster is a good idea.
If he's not lying, then the teachers won't hang the posters because they have religious objections to homosexuality. Therefore, if you are not claiming him to be a liar, then you have no dispute with me.


Yeah, I need to stop twisting your argument. Oh, wait, that was you. I tell you that he doesn't have to be lying, to be wrong and I examples of how he may have reached a flawed conclusion or is perhaps just summing it up in a way that makes him sound like he's on the side of right, and you pull off the examples and make it look like they were all a paragraph with a unifying theme. This isn't an isolated incident. You like to pull apart people's arguments and treat each sentence seperately instead of as if they are a unified argument. But hey, perhaps we should just concentrate on the argument itself, hmmm?

You admitted that gay pride is a misnomer, but you act like it's completely unreasonable for someone NOT to treat it as such.

Main Entry: mis·no·mer
Pronunciation: "mis-'nO-m&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English misnoumer, from Middle French mesnommer to misname, from mes- mis- + nommer to name, from Latin nominare -- more at NOMINATE
1 : the misnaming of a person in a legal instrument
2 a : a use of a wrong name b : a wrong name or designation

What part of "it's a bit of a misnomer" did you misunderstand?

Oops.

You miss the fact that it is perfectly reasonable to assume people are NOT guilty of something in the face of a LACK OF EVIDENCE. So I assume they are NOT GUILTY of violating the policy. You suggest that they MIGHT have violated the policy.

Assuming someone is not guilty of something is not an assertion. Suggesting that they do not deserve the benefit of that doubt is an assertion and needs backing. It suggests guilt and if you are going to suggest guilt then expect someone to ask you to back it up.

The fact that there is no evidence that they have a general problem with policy (THE FACT) and the fact that the discussion centers around their problem with the poster allows us to argue from the basis that they have a problem with the poster and not with the general policy. This should be obvious.

Ok, as pretending that we can just make all kinds of assumptions about these teachers and their religious beliefs has lost the amusement factor, I'll educate and then we can't pretend to be justified anymore.

Good, so then you won't make so many completely unjustified assumptions?

Yep, third hand. Our ONLY first-hand source for not being willing to hang the poster is for reasons other than those claimed by the principle. Yes, that quoted person is not part of the five. That's the point. The only first-hand source we have contradicts the principles summary of the problem. Is it possible the principle is making an assumption? Hell yeah, it is.

There is no contradiction. The principal didn't say, "The only reason any teacher has given for not hanging the poster is religion." The principal specifically referred to the five teachers in question. We do not have a single first-hand or even second-hand source for their motivations because THEY DIDN'T TALK TO THE PRESS. You can't take someone else's motivation and just assign it to them willy-nilly. The only, and I repeat, ONLY information we have about the motives of these five teachers comes from the principal.

It includes a rainbow and pink triangles. Famous symbols of gay pride. They were chosen by the designer of the posters.

How do you know that they were chosen as "gay pride" symbols and not as, "symbols that would be associated by just about everyone with homosexuality"? How do you know they weren't using it, as UT pointed out earlier, that the inverted pink triangle actually was used by many to indicate a "safe place" for homosexuals.

Meanwhile, how can you back up your assertion that gay pride means anything more than "have self-respect and don't be ashamed of being gay," when the entire pride movement has meant exactly that?

3. Gay Pride. How do you dismiss their misnomer (so much so that you quote the definition of misnomer) and then trry to prove it's not? Consistency is our friend.

Ah, proof that you didn't read my post. Thank you.

I said that it was a bit of a misnomer earlier because I was going by the same flawed assumption that you are using now - that the definition of pride was one of the generally used definitions. I was not aware that a perfectly acceptable definition of pride is simply, "a reasonable or justifiable self-respect" - EXACTLY what the pride movement is about.

Pride is the word they chose to use and they chose it well aware of the effect such a word would have on the movement. I don't disapprove of choosing the name. I disapprove of putting symbols of gay pride on the poster. The poster should have been an across the board cry for equal and safe treatment of people of all sexual identities and all sexualities. There is no question that this would have been more effective. No one here has claimed otherwise.

Interestingly enough, that is exactly what the pride movement is about.

You sound exactly like the people who say, "You shouldn't call it feminism. You should call it genderism. If you say feminism, you must know that everyone will assume you only care about females. Therefore, you must only care about females."

4. There is no evidence that these teachers have acted against equality or safety for homosexuals EVER. Sans evidence - do not make the assertion.

I haven't. I simply pointed out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You claim that since we don't have evidence that they have actively opposed equality and safety for homosexuals, then they obviously have not. This is not a justifiable claim. All I pointed out is that there is a possibility that they actually have.

Suppose I say, "Bigfoot might exist." Have I made an assertion sans evidence? Nope. I have stated a possibility. Your claims are exactly like those who say, "I have no evidence of bigfoot, therefore bigfoot absolutely doesn't exist." I have no reason to believe that bigfoot exists, as I have no evidence. I have no reason to believe that these teachers have actively expressed bigotry in the classroom or out of it. But I will not off-hand dismiss the possibility of either.

5. Religious objections not equal shameful. Many people consider things wrong, often for religious reasons. Need a very appropriate example - hermaphrodites. Some parents consider it shameful. Some don't. But most correct the 'flaw'. Personally, I don't know that I would consider it a flaw or not allow my child to develop normally and then, if necessary, make a choice (unless there was a compelling medical reason). The point is just because someone thinks it's flawed doesn't mean someone think it's shameful.

Strawman. Flawed != religious objection. I think cancer is a flaw. I do not have a religious objection to cancer. I think the discoloration on my pants is a flaw. I do not have a religious objection to discoloration on my pants.

Obesity is both genetic and a choice (in reference to how people see being gay). I abhore obesity because I view it to be unhealthy but I would A) damage someone physically attacking a fat person and B) thoroughly chastise someone suggesting obese people should be ashamed of themselves. Some religions view obesity to be wrong, but not shameful (the body is a temple and all).

Once again, you step outside of religious objections. Show me a religion that thinks "the body is a temple" and that obesity is therefore wrong, but does not suggest that those who become obese through their own actions should repent.

6. Redressing an argument to make it less supportable isn't lying. It's not even deceitful necessarily. Someone says they circumcised their son. I say they performed a ritualistic body mutilation on a child. Neither of us is lying. What is undeniable is that I redressed their argument to make it sound worse in order to dismiss it. Also, most people would infer that I am referring to the religious and cultural practice that encourages circumcision, yet the parents made no such suggestion that either thing inspired them. Still doesn't make me a liar. The principle might believe the only possible objection to the poster is that they view homosexuality as shameful. Some here have certainly made that assumption. The point is we don't and can't know.

Exactly, so why do you keep claiming that principal thinks that? You have stated time and time again that the principal asserted religious reasoning as the only possible reason, when that simply isn't true. The principal referred to five very specific cases and said that religious reasons were the cause in those cases.

Meanwhile, what argument could be redressed to mean "They are opposed to it for religious reasons," without a great deal of alteration? Hell, the result isn't even offensive. Many people are opposed to many things for religious reasons and that is not, in and of itself, offensive.

7. Often is not always. Sometimes is not always. People are making sweeping generalizations based on anecdotal evidence. Example - because someone disowned their child because of a blood transfusion, does that mean everyone does it?

Everyone that I have had experience with or read about that holds these beliefs has done these things. When people show such inconsistency as to say, "X is a sin, but I don't think it's wrong for other people to do it," I laugh in their faces. If it is sinful, then it is wrong, and it is something you should be ashamed of and should repent from. You may state that you won't hold others to it - I don't hold others to my religion. But I do believe that others should follow my religion. And part of my religion is repenting of your sins.

"But, wait, wait, don't make that argument because it just makes me look silly." Too bad. I like making you look silly. Admit it. You made a sweeping generalization. You can give examples all day of people who may have done these kinds of creepy things, but if even one person who believes these things is reasonable then you can't prove that one or all of these teachers are of the reasonable sort.

Saying, "I don't approve of homosexuality, I think it is a sin, it is wrong, but I don't think people should be ashamed of it," isn't reasonable. It is a direct logical contradiction.

Thus, you're basing your accusations of these teachers on assumptions. But, then, we already knew that.

Assumptions based on all available evidence that I have admitted are assumptions. What is the problem here? At least I'm not making assumptions that I can't back up, like the assumption that the principal thinks the only reason to oppose the posters is religious, or that he is misrepresenting what they said to him, or any number of assumptions you have made and failed to admit that they are such.

8. Saying they might have proven to be bigots in the past IS AN ASSERTION. It's just the same as saying they might be child molestors. It's an accusation you should not make without evidence.

Bigfoot might exist.

Did I just accuse bigfoot of existing?

In this case, there is none and if there were it would have more than likely been included in the article as it's VERY pertinent. The absense of anything about it in the article suggests one of three things, the reporter sucked in which case we can toss the article, it never happened in which case we CANNOT assert that they did any such thing, or it happened but the evidence is not widely available in which case we have no logical choice to assume that in the absense of evidence that there is no such incident. We could also suggest the teachers MIGHT be legally insane, but in the absense of evidence it's totally logical to not assume they aren't.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That was my whole point. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that these teachers are not anti-homosexual, and you have nothing to back that up but your assumption.

9. A poster of historical black figures is not the same as a poster containing symbols of various active Pride political groups. They aren't even remotely comparable. If this was a poster of Matthew Shepard, one might make a comparison, but it was a poster containing symbols of popular political groups advocating pride. groups I support, but can't reasonably expect to be able to ORDER other people to support.

How many people would recognize Matthew Shepard's face? What world-famous prominent gay rights activists are there that everyone would recognize? Oh, wait, there aren't. Therefore, to send a message specifically to the LGBT community, something had to be chosen that would be associated with that community. These symbols are about all there is.

Meanwhile, these symbols do not represent any particular political group. They represent, in general, the gay rights movement as a whole - anyone who thinks that people should be treated equally regardless of their sexual orientation.

Every argument here is circular.
"I decided that religious reasons are bigotted automatically.

I never said that. Try again.

You refuse to accept that A) all we have is a summary by the author of a summary by the principal of the position of the people he thinks are wrong,

Actually, this is EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING. The statement in the article is ALL WE HAVE. Shall I count the number of times I have said that?

B) religous reason does not equal shameful, no matter how many examples of INDIVIDUALS who have used religious reasons to justify shameful,

If you think something is a sin, and you don't think it is shameful, you have created a logical contradiction.

C) the only actual first-hand source we have says that they object to for other than religious reasoning, yet just by very suspect coincidence everyone not being quoted directly objects for a different reason than the ONLY quoted person who objects to the mandatory hanging of the posters,

Wrong again. Once again you are making assertions I haven't.

We have no first-hand source of the five teachers in question. Not a single one. We don't even have a second-hand source. And I never said that they couldn't possibly hold the same reasons as the person quoted. I simply pointed out that your assertion that they probably do makes no sense, considering that the closest information we have about them is a third-hand source that says otherwise.

The person who was quoted isn't a first-hand source of the other teachers - he is only a source of himself.

D) the poster contains gay PRIDE symbols, a wonderful political movement, but a political movement nonetheless,

A political movement that represents equality for all people regardless of sexuality. Thus, someone who opposes the PRIDE movement is opposed to equality on that basis.

E) presenting one-side of a current politic struggle is not equivalent to protecting widely-held rights to equality and safety.

I never argued against this. Remember how I said that the poster was a bad idea because it singled out a specific group of students?


Bwahaha. I am amused by people who are completely unable to be self-aware. Do you know why we annoy each other? Um, because we both do what you accuse me of.

Point out any direct insults I have lobbied at you, and I'll be happy to retract them. Point out to me where I have talked about laughing at you. Point to me where I have made sarcastic remarks directed towards you, and not towards your argument. Point out to me where I have arbitrarily assigned motives to you.

When you do, I will apologize.


Yeah, I need to stop twisting your argument. Oh, wait, that was you. I tell you that he doesn't have to be lying, to be wrong and I examples of how he may have reached a flawed conclusion or is perhaps just summing it up in a way that makes him sound like he's on the side of right, and you pull off the examples and make it look like they were all a paragraph with a unifying theme.

All of your "examples" boiled down to, "He is lying." One doesn't have to tell a complete untruth to be lying. The best lies have a grain of truth.

You have yet to explain exactly how any argument other than, "My religion says so," can be boiled down to, "My religion says so," without lying.

You admitted that gay pride is a misnomer, but you act like it's completely unreasonable for someone NOT to treat it as such.

I thought you said it wasn't? Do make up your mind.

Meanwhile, it is unreasonable. The information is out there. Any person in the world can find out what the pride movement is about pretty easily. If they assume something as ridiculous as what many of them claim, it is because they want it to be ridiculous. They want to be able to say, "That doesn't make sense. It's like being proud of having blue eyes!"

You miss the fact that it is perfectly reasonable to assume people are NOT guilty of something in the face of a LACK OF EVIDENCE. So I assume they are NOT GUILTY of violating the policy. You suggest that they MIGHT have violated the policy.

It isn't reasonable to base an argument on an assumption with no evidence. I could assume that my fiancee has never been guilty of speeding, since he's never had a speeding ticket. It would be a bad assumption.

The truth is, they might have been guilty of violating it. They might not have. They might not have actively violated it, but may have been passive where they shouldn't have. They might not have violated it, but may have wanted to. They might whole-heartedly agree with it and uphold it at every turn. They might agree with it enough, and uphold it for the most part. They might have read the entire policy to the class and posted it in their classrooms.

The point is that We Don't Know and you are the only one making an assumption either way.

Assuming someone is not guilty of something is not an assertion.

Yes, it is. You are making a positive assertion by saying they are not guilty. I am making no assertion, because I am saying, "They might be, they might not be. I don't know so I'm not making any assumptions."

Suggesting that they do not deserve the benefit of that doubt is an assertion and needs backing. It suggests guilt and if you are going to suggest guilt then expect someone to ask you to back it up.

I have not suggested guilt or that they "do not deserve the benefit of the doubt." As I have pointed out MORE THAN ONCE, the most likely case is that they haven't actively disobeyed the policy, no matter what their personal opinions on it were. But the possibilities here are really pretty varied, and I'm not going to assume any of them, unlike you.

The fact that there is no evidence that they have a general problem with policy (THE FACT) and the fact that the discussion centers around their problem with the poster allows us to argue from the basis that they have a problem with the poster and not with the general policy. This should be obvious.

Close. It allows us to argue from the basis that they were willing to comply with the general policy, but not with the poster, as we would expect to have information to the contrary if they had notn complied with general policy. If an argument relies upon them actually agreeing with or supporting or even "not having a problem with" the general policy, then it is based in assumptions that have no evidence, and is thus faulty.

When you have no evidence to make a particular assumption, the best thing to do is argue from a point of view that encompasses all the possibilities, not assume one and go with it, as you have done. You assume that the teachers agree with the current policy, and therefore they can't possibly have religious objections to homosexuality and object to the poster based upon them. Therefore, the principal must be misrepresenting things.

I, on the other hand, make no assumption that doesn't come directly out of the evidence at hand. It seems that the teachers probably didn't fail to comply with the general policy, as that would be pertinent information. The only source that we have at all about their reasoning for objecting the posters says that they have a religious objection to it. Thus, until further evidence comes along, we can assume that they have a religious objection to homosexuality. Having a religious objection to homosexuality, unless this is a very odd religion indeed, would suggest that the teachers think homosexuality is sinful - wrong - something one should repent.

Meanwhile, we can also likely assume that, since the teachers have been sent to more than one class addressing the issues homosexuals face, they would know that the pride movement is about equality, and about not being ashamed of sexuality, not about having some sort of arrogant pride related directly to their sexuality. Thus, the "Sexuality isn't an accomplishment!" argument, while certainly possible, isn't very likely.

Edit: The point is that we can only make assumptions based on the given information, and should avoid making any assumptions that aren't pretty much necessary for discussion of the topic.

Yes, we can fairly well assume that the teachers did not actively defy current policy. However, we cannot assume that they agreed or disagreed with it. We cannot assume that they liked or disliked it, or that they were strict or lax in their compliance.

We can fairly well assume that the principal has actually spoken to the teachers in question, and we know for a fact that he is currently our closest source to them. He could be lying or misrepresenting them, but it would be a stupid move. It would only take 1 teacher out of the five coming forward and giving alternate, secular reasons to blow him out of the water. And yet not a single one of them has spoken to the press, as far as we can tell. So the principal remains our only source of information, with nothing really to gain by being dishonest, and quite a bit to lose. Thus, in the end, all we have is, "These teachers have refused to comply with a school policy based upon their religious beliefs." This is not acceptable. They can refuse to comply with policy on legal or ethical concerns, but their personal religion is irrelevant to their jobs. If they choose to refuse to do something based on it, they can take the discipline meted out.

We could probably assume that the teachers are familiar with the gay pride m movement, and what it actually represents, but I'm not going to make that assumption. I think it's entirely possible that they misunderstand the focus of the posters and think it makes them look gay, or makes it look as if they approve of homosexuality. It's a silly position, but one I wouldn't be surprised to find. Of course, I'm not going to assume that's their position. I simply acknowledge it as a possibility.

We cannot assume that a single teacher who was willing to give his reasons for opposing the poster speaks for the five teachers in question, or anyone other than himself, for that matter.

We can certainly discuss the reasons that we, as people rather removed from the issue, think that the posters are not a good idea. However, we cannot assign our own viewpoints to anyone else. I think the posters are a bad idea because they single out the LGBT community as a separate group and might suggest, to someone already looking to bully people around, that they need extra coddling. It is certainly true that members of this community are likely to need someone to talk to and to need support above and beyond your average student, but pointing that out certainly isn't going to help them with their peers. But I'm not going to say, "I don't think the teachers had religious reasons. I think they thought it was a bad idea to single out the LGBT community with this poster and that's why they're opposing it. The principal must either be lying or misrepresenting them."

We've got a less overt poster that professors on my campus display. It's a simple text-only poster with the words "Safe Space" in big letters across it. Stickers are also on some office doors. Basically, it's a support program for ALL students -- regardless of sexuality, income, mental health, or any other issue a student may be dealing with.

We've got a less overt poster that professors on my campus display. It's a simple text-only poster with the words "Safe Space" in big letters across it. Stickers are also on some office doors. Basically, it's a support program for ALL students -- regardless of sexuality, income, mental health, or any other issue a student may be dealing with.

Now that sounds like a wonderful idea. It gives students an idea of which professors are looking out for them, and doesn't single out any given group as if they need more coddling than others. I like it.

It find it funny that those in this thread who attack the teachers, would be very supportive and attacking the school if it was a Catholic school forcing atheist teachers to put up bigoted posters.

Heh, if the poster looks like that, I can fully understand the teachers objections, I would most definitly NOT put something like THAT up in my classroom.

We've got a less overt poster that professors on my campus display. It's a simple text-only poster with the words "Safe Space" in big letters across it. Stickers are also on some office doors. Basically, it's a support program for ALL students -- regardless of sexuality, income, mental health, or any other issue a student may be dealing with.

The "Safe Space" posters are clearly for the LBGTG students.

I don't know if anyone has posted an image of the poster on this thread yet, but I just came across it. I figured I'd post it because the symbols on it have been a source of discussion here--whether they were gay pride symbols, etc. So here it is, not nearly as outlandish as I imagine many people thought it might be.

http://www.pamspaulding.com/graphics/mn_poster.jpg
Did anyone else just glance at the top of the poster and think it was a parody of the "Terror alert system"?

Thank random deities that today's homosexual alert level is only 'Questioning'.

Annnnnnd the award for longest posts ever in a posting dual goes to......................Jocabia and Dempublicents1 on page 24!!!! Come up and take a bow.

The "Safe Space" posters are clearly for the LBGTG students.


Not on my campus. Safe Space has been used to report abuse, suicide attempts, roommates who are using drugs, and various other things that pose a danger to students health and safety.

I wonder what the school would say if someone put up a big Swastika with the phrase "it's ok to be who you are here"

(please note before freakin out, I'm not comparing gays to Nazis)

I've always been a proponent of the rainbow swastika myself.

The way I see it the banner is just a way of saying that you are safe from namecalling and harrassment as a homosexuall in the class, it doesn't state that the teacher approve of homosexuality, so I think it would be wrong not to put it up.


Yeah, not really buddy. The rainbow colored flag in my opinion says that they support gays. A better way to make gays feel comfortable would be to just punish people who use, "fag, gay, etc..." as an insult. I mean seriously, like someone said before, what if they put up a Nazi flag to make racists feel welcome in a very non-racist area?????

What about the rights of the people who don't particularly agree with homosexuality?

*Looks around, blinks* What on earth are you folks still doing here? There's other threads now. Shoo!

Yeah, not really buddy. The rainbow colored flag in my opinion says that they support gays. A better way to make gays feel comfortable would be to just punish people who use, "fag, gay, etc..." as an insult. I mean seriously, like someone said before, what if they put up a Nazi flag to make racists feel welcome in a very non-racist area?????

What about the rights of the people who don't particularly agree with homosexuality?
Neo-nazis arn't welcome, neither are racists. Fuck 'em.

Annnnnnd the award for longest posts ever in a posting dual goes to......................Jocabia and Dempublicents1 on page 24!!!! Come up and take a bow.

I tried numbering it so she wouldn't keep breaking it apart so much so that it gets longer and longer and longer... but she still broke out to individual sentences. I'm already a long poster, but when you make each sentence a quote, dang. It's gotta take like half an hour just to add the quote tags.

Did anyone else just glance at the top of the poster and think it was a parody of the "Terror alert system"?

Thank random deities that today's homosexual alert level is only 'Questioning'.
Personally I think lesbian would be lower on the list

Not on my campus. Safe Space has been used to report abuse, suicide attempts, roommates who are using drugs, and various other things that pose a danger to students health and safety.

Sorry. I was running a fever when I posted. I meant to say was:

On my college campus, the "Safe Space" posters are clearly for LGBTG students.

It find it funny that those in this thread who attack the teachers, would be very supportive and attacking the school if it was a Catholic school forcing atheist teachers to put up bigoted posters.

I would attack any school that forced anyone to put up bigotted anything. This poster, while misguided, isn't bigotted any more than me saying, "Black people generally have to worry about racism more than white people do," is racism. It isn't. Black people are more often the victims of racism, and LGBT students are more likely to be the targets of violence or insults.

Now, if a Catholic school wanted to put up religious posters, and some atheist said, "I don't believe in that, I won't put it up," then the atheist teacher absolutely could be fired. The school (which wouldn't be public btw) is a Catholic school. Anyone who goes to work there must obey the policies of the school, unless the policies are illegal or unethical. Thus, an atheist who didn't want a crucifix or something like that in his classroom would be SOL.

I would attack any school that forced anyone to put up bigotted anything. This poster, while misguided, isn't bigotted any more than me saying, "Black people generally have to worry about racism more than white people do," is racism. It isn't. Black people are more often the victims of racism, and LGBT students are more likely to be the targets of violence or insults.

In America, Non English speakers are the single largest group to ever experience racism.

In any time frame.

Black Americans have the most to gain financially from claming the title "Victims" for themselves.

Did anyone else just glance at the top of the poster and think it was a parody of the "Terror alert system"?

Thank random deities that today's homosexual alert level is only 'Questioning'.
*splits sides from laughter*

What about the rights of the people who don't particularly agree with homosexuality?

Until proven otherwise, they retain their right not to be gay.