NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard of this story today about the national day of silence. This particular story focused on California schools. What took place was a day of silence for people that supported gays. Ok, not a problem with me. Then some students counter protested. Some of these students were suspended. Now read the story and tell me why tolerance doesn't go both ways sometimes. My opinion schools should be for learning and not for political activist groups.




Gay rights face-off
Day of Silence spurs protests, suspensions
By Deepa Ranganathan, Kim Minugh and Laurel Rosenhall -- Bee Staff Writers
Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, April 27, 2006
Story appeared on Page A1 of The Bee

Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.

Print | E-Mail | Comments (73)


Students at Mira Loma High School on Wednesday conduct an after-school protest of the Day of Silence, a student-run effort to promote tolerance and highlight the struggles of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students. Christian students at other area high schools also demonstrated against homosexuality.
Sacramento Bee/Lezlie Sterling

See additional images


The national debate over gay rights became a divisive force on Sacramento-area school campuses this week, as religious Christian students wore T-shirts expressing their disapproval of homosexuality as others participated in a Day of Silence to honor gay and lesbian peers.
Thirteen students at Oakmont High School in Roseville were suspended Tuesday when they refused to take off T-shirts that declared: "Homosexuality is sin." The students hired a lawyer who appealed 12 of the suspensions to the district Wednesday.

Other schools in the region have disciplined students in recent weeks for refusing to remove T-shirts condemning homosexuality. Two students at Mira Loma High School said they were sent home Wednesday, and one student was suspended this month at San Juan High School.


Anna Choban, the 16-year-old sophomore at San Juan, said she refused to take off her shirt because she wanted to stand strong in her beliefs. "I want other people to know the truth," she said.
The T-shirts, students say, are a form of protest against the national Day of Silence, a student-run effort to promote tolerance and highlight the struggles of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students. About 500,000 students participated nationally, organizers said, staying quiet all day and often handing out cards to explain their actions.

The Oakmont High students haven't yet filed a complaint in court. But if their attorney does, they will accelerate a debate that began with the first Day of Silence in 1996.

They also may test a controversial ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week.

In a 2-1 vote, the court decided schools can forbid students from wearing a shirt that demeans gay and lesbian students. At the heart of the case was a Poway High School student in San Diego who wore a T-shirt calling homosexuality "shameful."

Gay and lesbian students "have the right to 'be secure and be let alone,'" wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt, referencing a seminal 1969 case, Tinker v. Des Moines. In that case, students in an Iowa school district were suspended after they wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students, stating that schools could restrict student expression only when it "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others."

Reinhardt wrote that the Poway High student's T-shirt "was injurious to gay and lesbian students and interfered with their right to learn."

In a section of the ruling that drew sharp dissent from Judge Alex Kozinski and has troubled even legal scholars who support gay rights, Reinhardt wrote that the decision is limited to speech that "strikes at a core identifying characteristic of students on the basis of their membership in a minority group."

Tobias Barrington Wolff, a law professor at UC Davis, said that stipulation is problematic.

"I'm troubled by the notion that a student could perhaps come into school wearing a T-shirt that says Christian fundamentalism is shameful, and that might be OK, whereas a student wearing a 'Homosexuality is shameful' shirt is subject to discipline or suspension," he said.

School administrators around the region said Wednesday they weren't familiar with the 9th Circuit ruling and hadn't used it as a basis for disciplining students.

"We celebrate the multicultural nature of our school, and an anti-gay or anti-lesbian T-shirt we don't find particularly tolerant," said San Juan High Principal Dave Terwilliger.

But the court's ruling last week was among the reasons Christian groups protested this year's Day of Silence, said Luke Otterstad, a member of the Church of the Divide, an activist Christian church of about 20 members in Garden Valley.

Otterstad organized a protest at Oakmont High Wednesday morning, denouncing the suspensions as "fascist censorship of religious speech."

He also was among more than 100 protesters outside Mira Loma Wednesday afternoon. One carried a sign that read: "One nation under God, not the 9th Circuit."

The 9th Circuit ruling came just before the Sacramento City Unified School District's approval last week of a resolution acknowledging the Day of Silence.

"It's all been building up to this," Otterstad said. "People are getting sick of it."

Kevin Snider, chief counsel at the conservative Pacific Justice Institute, represents 12 of the suspended students at Oakmont High.

He said the 9th Circuit decision doesn't consider state law, which he argues grants students broader First Amendment protections than federal law does.

Kathleen Sirovy, principal of Oakmont High, said about 20 students arrived at school Tuesday wearing T-shirts denouncing homosexuality and proclaiming "Jesus can set you free."

She said they were told that their shirts violated the dress code because they targeted a specific group of people. She also was concerned that the shirts were causing a disruption on campus.

"Many kids were upset because their shirts were rude," she said.

Administrators gave students a choice to take the shirts off or face a one-day suspension. Thirteen accepted the suspension.

Sirovy also suspended a student for wearing a shirt bearing an anti-Christian message.

Despite the ruckus at some schools, most Sacramento-area campuses were calm Wednesday, according to principals, school district officials and gay rights groups.

Religious students on many campuses will observe a national Day of Truth today - an event sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund to counter the Day of Silence.

At Folsom High School Wednesday, expressions for and against the Day of Silence peacefully co-existed, said student Lance Chih, co-chair of the Sacramento Regional Gay Straight Alliance. Many students wore rainbow arm bands and Day of Silence shirts, while a few students wore T-shirts stating homosexuality is a sin, he said.

Chih wasn't bothered by the open expression of homophobic messages, he said, because they weren't violent or vulgar.

"If they're stating their own belief that homosexuality is wrong, that's not promoting hate or violence against us," said Chih, 18. "If I want to promote my civil rights, I can't tell another group of students that they can't do it."

This is why I'm not tolerant.

Also, link needs registration.

This is why I'm not tolerant.

Also, link needs registration.

Alright will find a different source. Damn newspapers....

www.bugmenot.com all the resources for you login needs!

www.bugmenot.com all the resources for you login needs!

Thanks, cool linky. Anyway it is posted now. Cut and paste is my friend.

I heard of this story today about the national day of silence. This particular story focused on California schools. What took place was a day of silence for people that supported gays. Ok, not a problem with me. Then some students counter protested. Some of these students were suspended. Now read the story and tell me why tolerance doesn't go both ways sometimes. My opinion schools should be for learning and not for political activist groups.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14248330p-15065706c.html

i think suspending them was wrong unless they were being violent or otherwise actively disrupting the protest. by suspending them the school was removing their platform for expressing their views which is a restriction of free speech. people are entitled to express their opinions no-matter how moronic they are.

i think suspending them was wrong unless they were being violent or otherwise actively disrupting the protest. by suspending them the school was removing their platform for expressing their views which is a restriction of free speech. people are entitled to express their opinions no-matter how moronic they are.
People are, not kids. Minors don't have free speech in school.

People are, not kids. Minors don't have free speech in school.

yes i know, that is wrong. i've always wondered why people don't think that human rights should apply to kids.

The Religious Right is involved in this case. And the Religious Right believes that only two groups actually have any rights: Protestant pastors and unborn fetuses.

People are, not kids. Minors don't have free speech in school.

Ok following that then should the gay rights kids be allowed to wear pro-gay rights shirts? I mean obviously some kids are offended. Not to mention the parents of these children. I just don't see how this school can have it one way and not the other. They should treat everyone the same or don't allow political activities like this in school.

yes i know, that is wrong. i've always wondered why people don't think that human rights should apply to kids.

Because they believe kids have not had enough life experience to make educated, well-read opinions. Being a teenager, as you'd suspect, I find this ridiculous, not simply because I feel I'm am being denied a right, but simply because there are soooo many adults who make worse decisions than teens. ANYWAY, thats a different topic.

Ok following that then should the gay rights kids be allowed to wear pro-gay rights shirts? I mean obviously some kids are offended. Not to mention the parents of these children. I just don't see how this school can have it one way and not the other. They should treat everyone the same or don't allow political activities like this in school.

I'm sure it goes both ways. Tolerance of gays, tolerance of straights. What we don't have tolerance of on either side is hatred, apparently, and I'm missing where that becomes a problem.

Ok following that then should the gay rights kids be allowed to wear pro-gay rights shirts? I mean obviously some kids are offended. Not to mention the parents of these children. I just don't see how this school can have it one way and not the other. They should treat everyone the same or don't allow political activities like this in school.
The goal of schools is to teach. If something is being disruptive, it needs to be removed.

Because they believe kids have not had enough life experience to make educated, well-read opinions. Being a teenager, as you'd suspect, I find this ridiculous, not simply because I feel I'm am being denied a right, but simply because there are soooo many adults who make worse decisions than teens. ANYWAY, thats a different topic.

In general it's true, however. Lots of frontal lobe development going on and what-not.

The Religious Right is involved in this case. And the Religious Right believes that only two groups actually have any rights: Protestant pastors and unborn fetuses.What I fail to understand, is why the students involved didn't just show up in "Christianity is Idolatry" or something similar.

I'm sure it goes both ways. Tolerance of gays, tolerance of straights. What we don't have tolerance of on either side is hatred, apparently, and I'm missing where that becomes a problem.

Ok, hatred is sometimes in the mind of the offended. If a kid wears a shirt that says Homosexuality is a sin. Is that hatred or is that what there religious beliefs are? Now if the shirt said Homosexuality is a sin and all gays must die. That is hatred.

In general it's true, however. Lots of frontal lobe development going on and what-not.


Oh, of course. However, I wish to voice my opinion as well. (Although not in school, because everyone knows school administration in the US is full of tech/info nazis and suppression of voice). Thats understandable though, since as someone stated above, school is for learning, and disruptions should be removed.

The goal of schools is to teach. If something is being disruptive, it needs to be removed.

Completely agree. That is why political activist groups should be barred from using kids to promote there cause in the public school system.

So the point is that we should be tolerant of intolerance?

So the point is that we should be tolerant of intolerance?

The point being I believe is that all views should be tolerated if we want to keep this a free society. When it crosses into hate then do something about it. Of course that line is blurry in alot of respects. Really depends on the persons viewpoint.

So the point is that we should be tolerant of intolerance?

well yes. if you are intolerant of intolerance you are a hypocrit. doesn't mean you can't argue with or try to persuade a bigot it just means you have to allow them their say.

Can't people just learn to live and let live?

Oh, of course. However, I wish to voice my opinion as well. (Although not in school, because everyone knows school administration in the US is full of tech/info nazis and suppression of voice). Thats understandable though, since as someone stated above, school is for learning, and disruptions should be removed.

but then if you are being taught something that is debatable as fact you should have a right to disagree. at my school we were encouraged to engage with alternative viewpoints, and it wasn't an especially liberal school - we had prayers and hymns in the morning and a strict uniform code and all sorts of other shit. there are schools, like my primary school, that try to teach you things like creationism as fact. we were 'educated' in biblical literallism. if a child is not allowed to question something like that it is dangerous for their future development.

So what if they were saying the same about black people? Wouldn't it be just the same? A shirt saying that blacks are damned would get you suspended or expelled from nearly any school in the country, even if it avoided using racist language.

And saying there's a difference between intolerance and hate is all very well, but where exactly does one stop and the other begin?

I don't actually disagree, I'm just trying to play Devil's advocate.

Completely agree. That is why political activist groups should be barred from using kids to promote there cause in the public school system.
I also agree.

Ok, hatred is sometimes in the mind of the offended. If a kid wears a shirt that says Homosexuality is a sin. Is that hatred or is that what there religious beliefs are? Now if the shirt said Homosexuality is a sin and all gays must die. That is hatred.

Religious belief can't be hatred?

Given that schools ban people from wearing t-shirts displaying all number of potentially offensive things, and a student refusing to stop wearing such a shirt would probably get anywhere from sent home to suspended, I don't see how this is a big deal.

If a student can get punished for wearing a shirt displaying a marijuana leaf, then why shouldn't a student with a shirt negatively targetting a specific group get punished?

Religious belief can't be hatred?

When it advocates the destruction of a certain group of people yes. Now if it says you will go to hell if you don't believe in a certain way then no. There is a difference if it is given a statement of opinion or making a direct threat. If they advocate killing gays then it is hate. If they say god doesnt love you then that is an opinion. Is it not in your mind?

When it advocates the destruction of a certain group of people yes. Now if it says you will go to hell if you don't believe in a certain way then no. There is a difference if it is given a statement of opinion or making a direct threat. If they advocate killing gays then it is hate. If they say god doesnt love you then that is an opinion. Is it not in your mind?

And an opinion isn't hate? I think "you're going to writhe in anguish and hellfire" is pretty hateful. Although I can't tell whether it makes them or their god the hateful one.

When it advocates the destruction of a certain group of people yes. Now if it says you will go to hell if you don't believe in a certain way then no. There is a difference if it is given a statement of opinion or making a direct threat. If they advocate killing gays then it is hate. If they say god doesnt love you then that is an opinion. Is it not in your mind?

Right, because when someone walks up to you and tells you that you're going to burn and be tortured for all eternity, there's absolutely no hatred involved anywhere. Seems like a threat to me, even if they aren't threatening with harm dished out by his/herself.

Right, because when someone walks up to you and tells you that you're going to burn and be tortured for all eternity, there's absolutely no hatred involved anywhere. Seems like a threat to me, even if they aren't threatening with harm dished out by his/herself.

To me that is an opinion. They are not directly saying they are going to assualt them. Last time I checked no one speaks for God. So how is it they know they are going to burn in hell? No?

And an opinion isn't hate? I think "you're going to writhe in anguish and hellfire" is pretty hateful. Although I can't tell whether it makes them or their god the hateful one.


I think that is where in my opinion people blur the line on "hate". Take a police perspective on this. I know you can get arrested for making direct threats to someone. Now the last time I checked I haven't heard of anyone getting arrested for what they think there god is going to do to you. Why because in the legal arena that is a viewpoint not a direct threat.

The point being that their t-shirts were focused against one particular group, targeting them. If you read your own article, it also states that a student with an anti-christian message t-shirt was also suspended. The rules are pretty clear, just don't target a particular group.

The point being that their t-shirts were focused against one particular group, targeting them. If you read your own article, it also states that a student with an anti-christian message t-shirt was also suspended. The rules are pretty clear, just don't target a particular group.

Read the article I posted. Thanks for showing concerned though. The point is that the Gay activist were wearing pro gay shirts. Can tell you that alot of Christians would take high offense to it. Hence the counter rally.

Read the article I posted. Thanks for showing concerned though. The point is that the Gay activist were wearing pro gay shirts. Can tell you that alot of Christians would take high offense to it. Hence the counter rally.

Then they can wear pro-Christian shirts. Not anti-gay shirts. You see the difference.

Then they can wear pro-Christian shirts. Not anti-gay shirts. You see the difference.

Of course I see the difference. However I still think that there expression of there religious beliefs were on parallel with the pro gay shirts. Although all this can be fixed with a non-activist policy in public school. I think it gets in the way of learning. It isn't a mystery to me why education in this country has taken a sharp decline downward. Started in the early seventies when activism was widely injected into public schools. There is a time and place for activism. It isn't when kids should be learning math/science and finding Iraq on a map of the world.

What if they wore shirts that said:

Smoking is Shameful

Drugs are for Dunces

Polygamy is for Peccadilloes

Gambling is Gluttony

Fornication is Failing

Sex is for your Spouse

Male is for Female

Of course I see the difference. However I still think that there expression of there religious beliefs were on parallel with the pro gay shirts. Although all this can be fixed with a non-activist policy in public school. I think it gets in the way of learning. It isn't a mystery to me why education in this country has taken a sharp decline downward. Started in the early seventies when activism was widely injected into public schools. There is a time and place for activism. It isn't when kids should be learning math/science and finding Iraq on a map of the world.

They weren't on parallel. The pro-gay shirts were about being proud to be gay, not about being anti-Christian. The Christian shirts had nothing to do with their religion. They were an attack on the pro-gay shirts. Had they shown up in "Jesus Saves" shirts, that would be fine. As it turned out, they decided, instead of showing how they were proud of being who they were, they'd show how they despised gay people. An attempt to provoke, nothing less.

I won't address your thinly veiled assault on liberalism.

Then how about this one?

Coupling Creates Children
(Any other kind is just masturbation with a friend)

Many schools have dress codes that restrict students from wearing clothing that is disruptive to the learning environment, denigrates others, is vulgar or promotes illegal activities and so on. It is not intolerant to expect that students will adhere to those dress codes. If students violate them, they can be asked to go home, or can be suspended, whatever the stated punishment is in the code.

That is all that happened here. The students who were in support of the Day of Silence were not denigrating anyone. The students who were wearing the Homosexuality is sinful shirts obviously were. The free speech argument does not apply in an environment where a specific dress code is expected of everyone.

People are, not kids. Minors don't have free speech in school.

Once again you show your ass

I think a National Day of Silence is a wonderful idea for a protest. It's Ghandi-like in its power. It enables people to make a statement by doing nothing and anyone that tries to interfere is forced to cease and desist. It seems like the Christian fundamentalists are running into the same problem that the British ran into in India: How does one defend one's self against an enemy that does not attack?

What if they wore shirts that said:

Smoking is Shameful

Drugs are for Dunces

Polygamy is for Peccadilloes

Gambling is Gluttony

Fornication is Failing

Sex is for your Spouse

Male is for Female


Smoking is illegal for kids, as is drugs, and gambling. So those would be acceptable, as they would actually be promoting legal behavior. Polygamy is for Peccadilloes? Well, since that means that having multiple spouses is a petty misdeed, I suppose so. Fornication might well be one of those words that shows up on the restricted list, as might sex, but either way, those two don't target any one particular group of people, so whatever. Male is for Female... well, if I were the principal, I would probably just ignore that one, or suggest that anyone who didn't care for that message simply wear a shirt that said "about 90% of the time" and follow around the folks wearing the Male is for Female shirts.

Of course, of all of these, only the Male is for Female shirt would have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Then how about this one?

Coupling Creates Children
(Any other kind is just masturbation with a friend)

I would read this one as a slogan to promote the use of contraceptives and safe sex. Since I don't want high school students to be having babies, that's certainly ok by me. Although masturbation is probably again one of those words forbidden by the vulgarity rules.

Smoking is illegal for kids, as is drugs, and gambling. So those would be acceptable, as they would actually be promoting legal behavior. ...

Of course, of all of these, only the Male is for Female shirt would have anything to do with the topic at hand.

As to the first part, how are any homosexual or heterosexual activities 'legal' for a fourteen year old to begin with? So your objection that they promote 'legal' behavior would apply to the shirt in question as well.

As to the second part here, I was addressing shirts that other's might 'object' to and feel targeted by. Smokers, drug users, Muslims, kids who's parents go to or work at casinos (maybe even racial defensive) might feel insulted by it, talking negatively about fornication also might make a person who has not remained chaste feel bad about it now etc., so I think all of my shirts were 'on topic.'

Some people will always feel targeted whenever right and wrong are discussed, regardless of what is defined as right and wrong. Should we then outlaw all valuation speech in regards to 'right and wrong.'

I would vote no on that.


How about a shirt that says: “Earn the right to wear White” With a picture of wedding gown on it or something like that. Would someone feel offended or belittled or insulted by that because they have not held that standard? Or how about a Shirt that says, “Fornication: a recipe for making Bastards.” How many people might be offended by that?

Once again you show your ass

No, he did have a point. In school there is no such thing as freedom of speech, just whatever the teachers and or admin is or is not offended by. I smacked that wall many, many times durring my school years.

Chih wasn't bothered by the open expression of homophobic messages, he said, because they weren't violent or vulgar.

Hardly a homophobic message. Here in lies the problem. Just because someone believes homosexuality is a sin it does not mean they are homophobic.

I find it amazing that homosexuals are threatened or offended by a statement such as "Homosexuality is a sin". Certainly they don't believe it is, so why would it be considered anything at all?

If someone wears a shirt that says "Christianity is shameful" do you really believe that Christians are threatened or offended by that? Not if their faith is what it should be. Not in the least.

Frankly none of this nonsense needs to be in school, and that includes a Day of Silence for anything. If you are going to do one, then do a Day in Silence tolerating Christians view on homosexuality. Fair is fair. If shirts saying Homosexuality is a sin is impeding a learning environment, then certainly a day of silence, armbands and shirts in favor of it is also impeding someone who doesn't believe that.

Those that equate a Christian's belief that homosexuality is a sin to hate haven't a clue at all to what Christianity is about. It would behoove all to try to understand each other.

Then how about this one?

Coupling Creates Children
(Any other kind is just masturbation with a friend)
Oddly enough, I find those shirt lines hilarious. I'd gladly wear one, if only for the irony of the thing.

Kinda like that "Homosexuals are gay" T-shirts. Pure gold. Wish I could get my hands on one.

Hardly a homophobic message. Here in lies the problem. Just because someone believes homosexuality is a sin it does not mean they are homophobic.

I find it amazing that homosexuals are threatened or offended by a statement such as "Homosexuality is a sin". Certainly they don't believe it is, so why would it be considered anything at all?

If someone wears a shirt that says "Christianity is shameful" do you really believe that Christians are threatened or offended by that? Not if their faith is what it should be. Not in the least.

Quite right. It's not in the least bit common to see Christian Rights movements protesting when someone insults their religion, and of course they are so secure in their personal faith and goodwill towards man that they would never actually protest when another organization showed solidarity to individuals that the Christian faith deemed somehow "sinful".

And of course the Christian Rights movement are so compassionate that they would never take the opportunity to state in public that a natural disaster so violent that it caused the death of thousands and cost over a billion in damages would be the result of a city that displeased their God because of their sinful lifestyle, right?

Oh....damn...

The fact is, you can not compare these two events. The day of silence was not about attacking christian morality, it was about saying to a group of disenfranchised "we may not be one of you, we may not think like you, but we are with you, and we support you."

The acts of these brainwashed teens were not about the rights to be christian. This was not about them standing up and saying "I support your right to be christian just as this day of silence supports their right to be gay". This was a direct response to the intent. It was saying to the gays, lesbians, bis and everyone involved "they may support you, they may believe in you, but WE think that you are wrong, we think that you are sinful, and we think that your lifestyle is immoral and should be outlawed". This was never a comparison, this was about one group showing solidarity, and another group showing contempt, and the two should never be considered equal.

The idea that this was simply an equal expression is ludicrus. Saying that a gay man is condemned to hell is in no way an equal comparison to a solidarity movement. The Christian Right supports freedom as long as it pertains to them and nobody else. They're the group that will attack, villify and harass any group that doesn't fit into their 2000 year old version of morality but then scream bloody murder when someone turns the barrels on them.

Good for those who supported gay rights in this country and offered their solidarity. And to shame on those wo took this demonstration of SUPPORT and COMPASSION and turned it into an arena to showcase their bias and contempt all the while trying to claim the two were in some way "equal". Those that use petty politics to intimidate and harass others deserved their suspensions (and yes, that goes for those with anti christian tshirts as well). And I'm sorry but I don't think you'll ever convince me that someone wearing a shirt claiming all gays go to hell is designed to do anything but intimidate and harass.

*snip*
Good for those who supported gay rights in this country and offered their solidarity. And to shame on those wo took this demonstration of SUPPORT and COMPASSION and turned it into an arena to showcase their bias and contempt all the while trying to claim the two were in some way "equal". Those that use petty politics to intimidate and harass others deserved their suspensions (and yes, that goes for those with anti christian tshirts as well). And I'm sorry but I don't think you'll ever convince me that someone wearing a shirt claiming all gays go to hell is designed to do anything but intimidate and harass.
*claps politely*

And, if I may add my two cents, those displays of intimidation are particularly ill-suited for a school environment. Some gay people (myself, for example) are adult, mature and confident enough to tell others to shove off upon hearing a message of condemnation and not think back on it too much.

A teen confused about his/her sexuality, however, lacks such a confidence and self-esteem. So those anti-gay protests hit them particularly hard, because younglings their age are still very vulnerable.

Besides, the "unequality" of treatment really never happened. The school's banning of anti-Christian shirt shows very well everyone was treated with equity and respect.

Oddly enough, I find those shirt lines hilarious. I'd gladly wear one, if only for the irony of the thing.

Kinda like that "Homosexuals are gay" T-shirts. Pure gold. Wish I could get my hands on one.
http://www.essexuncovered.com/clubbersshop/essexuncovered-shop.asp?ID=24
http://tshirtsthatbite.home.comcast.net/gay1.htm
:p

What if they wore shirts that said:

These ones are likely to be acceptable
Smoking is Shameful
Drugs are for Dunces
Gambling is Gluttony

These are not
Polygamy is for Peccadilloes
Fornication is Failing
Sex is for your Spouse
Male is for Female
Why did I categorize these in such a manner? In my country, Canada, social taboos denounce smoking, drugs, and gambling. I believe a school administration would be against the bottom four due to their sexual nature.

A few points...

Students who are 18 yrs old (as many seniors are) are not considered minors and are therefore afforded the rights of any other mature adult.

HOWEVER, Any student of the public education system has no rights except those expressly given to them. Free speech is NOT one of those rights.

Any student who is 18 is not required to be at school and is therefore voluntarily subjecting himself to those limitations.

Any student who is not 18 may leave the public education system at 16 with the permission of their parents, if they are not taken out of the school by their parents their parents have submitted them to remain under the authority of the school while at school, and so do not have the right to free speech.


next....

I agree with the point that neither side should have been allowed to hold such displays. They are obviously destructive to the children's learning evironment. Both of these displays are destructive to learning environments, when school officials allowed the gay rights group to advocate its beliefs they knew that antihomosexuals (not necessarily homophobes, which clearly shows the articles bias) would also state their beliefs on the issue. Any claims that they could not have suspected such a display are ludicrous as this is hardly an untested issue. This sort of thing has happened before, and unless school officials change their stance it will happen again.

The school adminisitration cannot allow one and disallow another, though neither should have been allowed in the first place.

The whole deal about the suspension of students is much less a stable or provable issue. The supreme court has thus far supported students rights to freedom of religion in public schools, and the antihomosexual group was clearly attempting to utilize that as their position. (It is clearly a tenant Christianity that homosexual is sinful, which makes it a clearly religious statement). This statement is not in and of itself hateful. In fact there are many in the Christian camp that define this as an act of love, this will take a little explanation...

Christians believe with all their heart that homosexuality is a sin, and that an unrepentant sinner will go to Hell. The Christian does not wish to see anyone go to Hell and therefore will attempt to show the homosexuals their view of this. (This is viewed as an application of the law in a loving manner, similar to a parent punishing a child for doing something contrary to what is good for them.) You can try and blast that last statement all you like but it is the true belief of many Christians, and that point cannot be denied. As such this T-Shirt is not meant to be hateful, or condemning, but rather a message of love.



In summary:

Students do not posses the right to free speech though they do posess the right to freedom of religion.

Neither demonstration should have been allowed, though if one is allowed both should have been allowed (as they were).

NEITHER demonstration was enacted out of hate, malice, or anything of that sort.

Students should not have been expelled for excercising the freedom of religion (until the Supreme Court wishes to take up such a case and more clearly delineate what is and is not permissable).

Actually, the Courts have ruled that students in the public schools do have all rights that are protected by the Constitution. Free speech being amongst them.

One of the school systems near where I went to high school demonstrated this fact very clearly. The school newspaper published an article critical of a decision the administration had made. The administration impounded the papers, and the end result was, shortly before actually going to court, an out of court settlement in which, in light of existing case law, the students did have the right of free speech as protected by the Constitution, and the school did have to allow them to distribute the papers.

Then how about this one?

Coupling Creates Children
(Any other kind is just masturbation with a friend)

I'd call you a virgin, because you clearly know nothing about sex.

Oh, and there is no need to be tolerant of intolerance, which only intolerant people seem to think.

Actually, the Courts have ruled that students in the public schools do have all rights that are protected by the Constitution. Free speech being amongst them.

Only if they are not disruptive of the school's educational purpose.

Only if they are not disruptive of the school's educational purpose.
It is tough to prove how disruptive something is. I think we can all agree that standing up and shouting in class is disruptive, but how about wearing a T-shirt, or talking to your friends in the hallways between class.

It is tough to prove how disruptive something is. I think we can all agree that standing up and shouting in class is disruptive, but how about wearing a T-shirt, or talking to your friends in the hallways between class.

In this particular case, I think the school was in error. It doesn't seem to me that the bigotry of the anti-gay students reached the level of serious disruption, at least from the information in the article; it's possible that we are missing some of the context, and that might make it more justifiable.

Let's see: what exactly was the Day of Silence for?

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/1926.html

"to peacefully bring attention to the pervasive problem of anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) bullying and harassment in schools."

So the protest was against the bullying and harassment of some students. Period. Tell me again why that is inappropriate or how silence is disruptive?

Better yet, tell me again that the counter-protest was for?

Then they can wear pro-Christian shirts. Not anti-gay shirts. You see the difference.
So it's OK to be pro-something, but not anti-something? Then how about a shirt saying "Hitler was a good man"? It wouldn't be alright, don't you think? As long as the statement is not offensive, I don't see what's the big deal. What would you say about a Christian t-shirt saying "Masturbation is sin"? Should 90% of the people feel offended by it? I don't think so. Saying that "Homosexuality is sin" is their oppinion and they are intitled to it, as long as they're not expressing it in an offensive way.

So it should be okay for someone to wear a shirt to school that says "fuck niggers", then?

No, more relevant to a school environment - how about "Die, nerd"? Or I wonder what those Christians would say if I walked around with a shirt depicting a crucifix covered in feces?

Wearing "Homosexuality is a sin" shirts, just like all of the above, is ridiculously inflammatory in a school environment. If they want to spout their bullshit, they can do it in a place outside of school where homosexuals can avoid having to deal with them directly with far greater ease. Gay and lesbian students are entitled to a comfortable and safe learning environment as much as anyone else. It is the responsibility of the teachers ensure this, and they did the right thing.

And just who the hell are they trying to win over to their side anyway? "you're evil and you're committing a sin because our book says so! You are living a shameful life! Now join us and be saved!" Ugh!

Because they believe kids have not had enough life experience to make educated, well-read opinions. Being a teenager, as you'd suspect, I find this ridiculous, not simply because I feel I'm am being denied a right, but simply because there are soooo many adults who make worse decisions than teens. ANYWAY, thats a different topic.

You do hsort of have a point but the truth of the matter is that untill you are in your 20's your brain has not stopped growing. By the time you are say 21 you will feel and think a lot differant than yo would as a teen ager.

That is not to say that teenageers do not have valid opinions and of course a lot of what you learn on a moral level at that age goes into adulthood with you. Just that adults have been through the whole teen aguish thing, and contrey to popular opinion do understand what being a teenager is all about, and would not like to ever be 16 again.

So it should be okay for someone to wear a shirt to school that says "fuck niggers", then?
Off course not. But, according to Sdaerji's logic, it would be okay to wear a t-shirt saying "racism is good". After all, it wouldn't be "anti", but "pro", right? :rolleyes: I repeat, as long as the slogan is not insulting and does not incite to violence, I don't see any problem.

Wearing "Homosexuality is a sin" shirts, just like all of the above, is ridiculously inflammatory in a school environment.
Yeah, and the pro-homosexuality manifestation wasn't equally inflamatory? If you allow one, you must allow the other, too. If you want to be fair, that is. And if you really want to keep the kids focused on learning, simply ban all such manifestations from schools.

If they want to spout their bullshit, they can do it in a place outside of school where homosexuals can avoid having to deal with them directly with far greater ease. Gay and lesbian students are entitled to a comfortable and safe learning environment as much as anyone else. It is the responsibility of the teachers ensure this, and they did the right thing.
Tell me please, how does this sound:

"If the pro-gay want to spout their bullshit, they can do it in a place outside of school where the Christians can avoid having to deal with them directly with far greater ease. The Christian students are entitled to a comfortable and safe learning environment as much as anyone else. It is the responsibility of the teachers to ensure this."

Statements like the one above are full of empty rhetoric*, inflammatory and can be turned both ways. It's best if we keep them out of a civilised discussion.

*empty rhetoric=shit

"If the pro-gay want to spout their bullshit, they can do it in a place outside of school where the Christians can avoid having to deal with them directly with far greater ease. The Christian students are entitled to a comfortable and safe learning environment as much as anyone else. It is the responsibility of the teachers to ensure this."

Statements like the one above are full of empty rhetoric*, inflammatory and can be turned both ways. It's best if we keep them out of a civilised discussion.

*empty rhetoric=shit

Well, do remember the homophobicside is just plain irrational, so shouldnt be treated in the same way as those standing up for gay rights... preferably laughed at in public, and shown to be the intolerant fucks they are, but the two are not comparable.

Well, do remember the homophobicside is just plain irrational, so shouldnt be treated in the same way as those standing up for gay rights... preferably laughed at in public, and shown to be the intolerant fucks they are, but the two are not comparable.
It may be an irational belief, but people still have the right to believe anything they want and to express their beliefs in a civilised non-offensive manner. Somebody wearing a shirt saying "alien abductions are real" would promote an irrational belief. They still have the right to wear the shirt.

I wonder if it would be ok to wear shirts with the following text(s)?:

"Jesus is dead"
"I feel sorry for Christians"
"God sucks"

Let's see: what exactly was the Day of Silence for?

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/1926.html

"to peacefully bring attention to the pervasive problem of anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) bullying and harassment in schools."

So the protest was against the bullying and harassment of some students. Period. Tell me again why that is inappropriate or how silence is disruptive?

Better yet, tell me again that the counter-protest was for?

Apparently to prove the point of the Day of Silence.

I wonder if it would be ok to wear shirts with the following text(s)?:

"Jesus is dead"
"I feel sorry for Christians"
"God sucks"
Except for the last one, which may be insulting, I'd say they're ok.

At Folsom High School Wednesday, expressions for and against the Day of Silence peacefully co-existed, said student Lance Chih, co-chair of the Sacramento Regional Gay Straight Alliance. Many students wore rainbow arm bands and Day of Silence shirts, while a few students wore T-shirts stating homosexuality is a sin, he said.

Chih wasn't bothered by the open expression of homophobic messages, he said, because they weren't violent or vulgar.

"If they're stating their own belief that homosexuality is wrong, that's not promoting hate or violence against us," said Chih, 18. "If I want to promote my civil rights, I can't tell another group of students that they can't do it."

Now if only people like Chih were more prevalent.

People are, not kids. Minors don't have free speech in school.

If that was a blanket statement, I could agree. But since there is governmental agents which allow particular groups particular expression it becomes moot.

So the point is that we should be tolerant of intolerance?

Indeed, to the point of encitement to commit crimes

"Homosexuality is sinful" acceptable

"Homosexuality is evil and homosexuals should be culled" not acceptable

i think suspending them was wrong unless they were being violent or otherwise actively disrupting the protest. by suspending them the school was removing their platform for expressing their views which is a restriction of free speech. people are entitled to express their opinions no-matter how moronic they are.

School districts often rule that certain modes of dress are distracting, and thus unacceptable. At my old high school, a student was almost sent home for wearing black make-up in honor of a solar eclipse. Both Malcolm X T-shirts and Confederate Flag T-shirts were banned.

The fact that this wasn't really discrimination is evident in the fact that a student who wore an anti-Christian t-shirt was also suspended. The school obviously makes it a policy to ban t-shirts with derogatory remarks about a given group, because such clothing can be disruptive. How disruptive is up for debate, and would probably depend on the school in question.

The point being I believe is that all views should be tolerated if we want to keep this a free society. When it crosses into hate then do something about it. Of course that line is blurry in alot of respects. Really depends on the persons viewpoint.

I'm sure if the students in question had had their own "day of silence" and passed out pamphlets explaining why (the exact same thing the other students were doing), it would have been allowed. What wasn't allowed was derogatory t-shirts.

This isn't really a case of one viewpoint being tolerated and the other not being tolerated. It's more a case of two different modes of protest, one of them being allowed in the schools and the other not.

Of course I see the difference. However I still think that there expression of there religious beliefs were on parallel with the pro gay shirts. Although all this can be fixed with a non-activist policy in public school. I think it gets in the way of learning. It isn't a mystery to me why education in this country has taken a sharp decline downward. Started in the early seventies when activism was widely injected into public schools. There is a time and place for activism. It isn't when kids should be learning math/science and finding Iraq on a map of the world.

You don't think that students learn by being exposed to different political and cultural viewpoints, as well as being able to form and support their own? I know that I learned quite a bit in political debates in the classroom....

Wow. How does one equate a movement aimed at fostering an environment of tolerance with a movement aimed at judging people to eternal damnation?

This should not even be an issue. A t-shirt saying 'Homosexuality is a sin' demeans gays and lesbians. A day of silence does not demean Christians. If homosexuality was a movement that considered Christianity to be wrong, you might have a point. But it is not.

I just don't see how anybody can see this day of silence as being inflammatory or demeaning.

One side wants to be allowed to express themselves without fear of being bullied and harassed. The other side, apparently, wants to be allowed to tell people they will be punished eternally for waht they do with their genitals.

Tolerate everyone except the intolerant.

Hardly a homophobic message.

It isn't showing an intolerance for or aversion towards homosexuals or homosxuality?

Here in lies the problem. Just because someone believes homosexuality is a sin it does not mean they are homophobic.

Actually, it pretty much does. Your comment is like saying, "Just because someone believes blacks are inferior does not mean they are racist."

Frankly none of this nonsense needs to be in school, and that includes a Day of Silence for anything. If you are going to do one, then do a Day in Silence tolerating Christians view on homosexuality. Fair is fair. If shirts saying Homosexuality is a sin is impeding a learning environment, then certainly a day of silence, armbands and shirts in favor of it is also impeding someone who doesn't believe that.

How so? Being quiet is a disruption?

Those that equate a Christian's belief that homosexuality is a sin to hate haven't a clue at all to what Christianity is about. It would behoove all to try to understand each other.

I would say that those who think that Christianity defines homosexuality as a sin haven't much of a clue as to what Christianity is all about, but I guess that's just my opinion.


I agree with the point that neither side should have been allowed to hold such displays. They are obviously destructive to the children's learning evironment.

How is being quiet (generally except when spoken to by a teacher, as per the set-up of the demonstration) destructive to the children's learning experience? If I decided tomorrow not to talk to anyone all day long except my professors, would that somehow disrupt everyone else's lives?

antihomosexuals (not necessarily homophobes,

Homophobic essentially means antihomosexual. Thus, the two are basically synonyms.

The school adminisitration cannot allow one and disallow another, though neither should have been allowed in the first place.

The two were very different types of displays. Would you say that a school cannot disallow spray-painting on the walls if they allow putting up posters?

(It is clearly a tenant Christianity that homosexual is sinful, which makes it a clearly religious statement).

I don't find that to be "clearly a tenant of Christianity" at all.

This statement is not in and of itself hateful.

If I said, "Having blue eyes is a sin," would you not see that as hateful?

Christians believe with all their heart that homosexuality is a sin,

Correction: SOME Christians believe this. Others do not.

In response to the OP:

Techincally, you can say the "Homosexuality is a Sin" shirt is promoting violence and anti-tolerance. So I do believe they should've been suspended for wearing those shirts. However, the other students should realize that participating in the Day of Silence (Which I also participated in, to great attacks on myself) will probably result in them being attacked in some form, as most of America isintolerant.

Oh, and if anyone has been tossing around the whole "No religion in schools thing", it's the "No TEACHING religion AS THE RIGHT WAY in schools thing". And I hope you realize, students cannot teach.

Off course not. But, according to Sdaerji's logic, it would be okay to wear a t-shirt saying "racism is good". After all, it wouldn't be "anti", but "pro", right? :rolleyes: I repeat, as long as the slogan is not insulting and does not incite to violence, I don't see any problem.

No, that's still offensive see. There's no problem with someone wearing a shirt that says "Jesus saves", or "God is great", or even the much feared "I am gay and proud", because they aren't intended to be offensive. The only reason someone would wear a shirt that says "racism is good" is to be an arse.

Yeah, and the pro-homosexuality manifestation wasn't equally inflamatory? If you allow one, you must allow the other, too. If you want to be fair, that is. And if you really want to keep the kids focused on learning, simply ban all such manifestations from schools.

Why is it inflammatory? You confuse "pro-homosexuality" with a drive for tolerance. If you are one of those unfortunate minorities that thinks that their personal moral code applies to all others in society and are offended by homosexuality to the point where you see something like a day of silence by homosexuals as offensive - i sincerely feel sorry for you and hope you get over that terrible condition.


Tell me please, how does this sound:

"If the pro-gay want to spout their bullshit, they can do it in a place outside of school where the Christians can avoid having to deal with them directly with far greater ease. The Christian students are entitled to a comfortable and safe learning environment as much as anyone else. It is the responsibility of the teachers to ensure this."

Statements like the one above are full of empty rhetoric*, inflammatory and can be turned both ways. It's best if we keep them out of a civilised discussion.

*empty rhetoric=shit

I'm sorry, but your point is invalidated by the fact that homosexuals are routinely viewed as undesirable, even perverted or mentally ill. Christians on the other hand, have nothing to fear from homosexuals, and while i'm sure most adknowledge this, a minority at this school could not respect a day of tolerance and had to resort to this form of mental intimidation of gay and lesbian students - this is bullying. There was nothing to justify their attack. Hopefully they'll lose their appeal, and walk away having learnt something about respect for others.

I also call attention to the point that the article mentions a student who wore an anti-christian shirt and was also punished equally. My feelings are extended to him or her as well.

"Jesus is dead"

But this is true! Even the Bible said he died!

Eliminate the source of the problem. Ban shirts!

Eliminate the source of the problem. Ban shirts!

he he.

Let's see: what exactly was the Day of Silence for?

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/record/1926.html

"to peacefully bring attention to the pervasive problem of anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) bullying and harassment in schools."

So the protest was against the bullying and harassment of some students. Period. Tell me again why that is inappropriate or how silence is disruptive?

Better yet, tell me again that the counter-protest was for?

I will just say that silence can be disruptive as well. An example is if the class was going to do a group discussion on a topic, having a day of silence disrupts the lesson.

Christians on the other hand, have nothing to fear from homosexuals.

But everyone knows that people turn gay if they ever look at a gay person unangrily.

No, that's still offensive see. There's no problem with someone wearing a shirt that says "Jesus saves", or "God is great", or even the much feared "I am gay and proud", because they aren't intended to be offensive. The only reason someone would wear a shirt that says "racism is good" is to be an arse.
It's something called freedom of expression. According to most constitutions (okay, the democratic ones), even assholes have it.

Why is it inflammatory? You confuse "pro-homosexuality" with a drive for tolerance. If you are one of those unfortunate minorities that thinks that their personal moral code applies to all others in society and are offended by homosexuality to the point where you see something like a day of silence by homosexuals as offensive - i sincerely feel sorry for you and hope you get over that terrible condition.
Your objection, IIRC, was that the Christian manifestation was disruptive (edit: your exact phrase is "inflammatory in a school environment"). My response was that the pro-gay day of silence can be seen as equally disruptive (edit: or "inflammatory in a school environment" :)) for the Christian students.

I'm sorry, but your point is invalidated by the fact that homosexuals are routinely viewed as undesirable, even perverted or mentally ill. Christians on the other hand, have nothing to fear from homosexuals, and while i'm sure most adknowledge this, a minority at this school could not respect a day of tolerance and had to resort to this form of mental intimidation of gay and lesbian students - this is bullying. There was nothing to justify their attack. Hopefully they'll lose their appeal, and walk away having learnt something about respect for others.

I also call attention to the point that the article mentions a student who wore an anti-christian shirt and was also punished equally. My feelings are extended to him or her as well.
Would a "homosexuality is sin" day of silence have been accepted in that school? I strongly doubt it. Therefore, the Christians had to protest during the pro-gay manifestations. I don't particularly approve it, but my oppinion on this is simmilar to that of Lance Chih:

"If they're stating their own belief that homosexuality is wrong, that's not promoting hate or violence against us. If I want to promote my civil rights, I can't tell another group of students that they can't do it."

I will just say that silence can be disruptive as well. An example is if the class was going to do a group discussion on a topic, having a day of silence disrupts the lesson.

The day of silence, at least as I have seen it described, does not involve holding to silence when a class discussion is in order. It would simply involve the students not speaking unless necessary for class - not talking at lunch, not talking to friends in the hallways, etc.

Thus, not disruptive. In truth, it probably contributed to a quieter atmosphere and thus a less disruptive learning environment than on a normal day.


Your objection, IIRC, was that the Christian manifestation was disruptive (edit: your exact phrase is "inflammatory in a school environment"). My response was that the pro-gay day of silence can be seen as equally disruptive (edit: or "inflammatory in a school environment" ) for the Christian students.

How is it at all inflammatory?

If I were to wear a shirt that says, "Women can be engineers!" would it be "inflammatory" towards those who are sexist?

If I were to wear a shirt that says, "Women can be engineers!" would it be "inflammatory" towards those who are sexist?
Of course it would be. Duh! :p

...


Here in lies the problem. Just because someone believes homosexuality is a sin it does not mean they are homophobic.

Actually, it pretty much does. Your comment is like saying, "Just because someone believes blacks are inferior does not mean they are racist."


No, it pretty much doesn't. Your analogy is not valid. Saying that homosexuality is a sin is not an expression of fear against homosexuals. It is a statement of how the lifestyle is viewed. You ranalogy of blacks/racism fails because you're trying to equate homophobia with racism.

Now, maybe we are just using the same terminology in different ways, in which case it's a question of simple semantics, but the suffix "phobia" means an irrational fear of... I also believe that homosexuality as an act and as a lifestyle is sinful, but I am no more afraid of gay people than they are of me.

Using the word "homophobe" as a generic label to slap on anyone who doesn't support the gay agenda is a form of Newspeak, deliberately meant to make the person appear irrational and afraid. Newsflash to the gay community: We are not afraid of you. And I'm pretty sure you don't want us to be, anyway... so there should be no problem.

Now, I happen to think that all forms of activism should be kept out of schools on both sides, because this is the kind of disruption that can result. School is for learning. If a particular interest group wants to hold a protest or rally after school hors, I see no problem with that... But allowing politics into the schools invites this kind of controversy, and it's not doing the students any good.

The truth is that the gay community tends to be oversensitive where the issue of religion and sin come into play. I don't pretent to know why, but it's obvious. When someone wears T-shirts to counterprotest, they get labeled as bigots, homophobes, etc. When a few gay couples wear rainbows to a White House Easter Egg-Roll, a CHRISTIAN holiday event, that's no different.

To the Gay Community: You can protest if you want, you can say what you want, you can live however you want. You have that right. You also have the responsibility, as we all do, to realize that other people have that right too. You don't deserve special consideration. Nobody does. If you want your rights protected, you have a duty, as Americans, to protect the rights of others as well.

I wish I could remember who said this, it's a quote from the days of the Founding Fathers... if anyone knows please post it.

-"I may not like what you have to say but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."

The Religious Right is involved in this case. And the Religious Right believes that only two groups actually have any rights: Protestant pastors and unborn fetuses.

:rolleyes:

That isn't true at all Karakas. We had this day of silence here at my university as well. Though I thought it was stupid I did not participate in it and I just continued to talk.

Both sides have the right to protest and suspending one side and not the other is just rediculous.

The day of silence, at least as I have seen it described, does not involve holding to silence when a class discussion is in order. It would simply involve the students not speaking unless necessary for class - not talking at lunch, not talking to friends in the hallways, etc.




Ok, though to me that is not a true day of silence more of a day of being quiet.

Completely agree. That is why political activist groups should be barred from using kids to promote there cause in the public school system.

I agree 100%

No, it pretty much doesn't. Your analogy is not valid. Saying that homosNow, maybe we are just using the same terminology in different ways, in which case it's a question of simple semantics, but the suffix "phobia" means an irrational fear of... I also believe that homosexuality as an act and as a lifestyle is sinful, but I am no more afraid of gay people than they are of me.

So hydrophobic substances are afraid of water? Or are they just repelled by it?

When a few gay couples wear rainbows to a White House Easter Egg-Roll, a CHRISTIAN holiday event, that's no different.

Rainbows oppose Christianity?

I think a National Day of Silence is a wonderful idea for a protest. It's Ghandi-like in its power. It enables people to make a statement by doing nothing and anyone that tries to interfere is forced to cease and desist. It seems like the Christian fundamentalists are running into the same problem that the British ran into in India: How does one defend one's self against an enemy that does not attack?

:confused:

Christian fundamentalists? Granted there are some of those, those who blow things up, but the vast majority of us are not fundamentalists.

No, it pretty much doesn't. Your analogy is not valid. Saying that homosexuality is a sin is not an expression of fear against homosexuals.

And homophobia has nothing to do with fear of homosexuals. It has to do with an intolerance or aversion towards homosexuals, as per the root -phobia.

It is a statement of how the lifestyle is viewed.

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It is a trait.

You ranalogy of blacks/racism fails because you're trying to equate homophobia with racism.

That is because they are one and the same. Saying that homosexuality is a sin makes no more sense than saying black skin is a sin, or blue eyes is a sin, or menstruation is a sin.

Now, maybe we are just using the same terminology in different ways, in which case it's a question of simple semantics, but the suffix "phobia" means an irrational fear of...

Wrong. The word phobia relates to an irrational fear. The root -phobia can mean fear, or can mean intolerance or aversion. Hence words like "hydrophobic". No one is suggesting that water is afraid of a surface, but it is repelled by said surface.

I also believe that homosexuality as an act and as a lifestyle is sinful, but I am no more afraid of gay people than they are of me.

Homosexuality is neither an act nor a lifestyle.

Now, I happen to think that all forms of activism should be kept out of schools on both sides, because this is the kind of disruption that can result. School is for learning.

And forming one's viewpoints on political and cultural issues is a part of learning. If we keep everything controversial out of the schools, children will learn nothing....

The truth is that the gay community tends to be oversensitive where the issue of religion and sin come into play. I don't pretent to know why, but it's obvious. When someone wears T-shirts to counterprotest, they get labeled as bigots, homophobes, etc. When a few gay couples wear rainbows to a White House Easter Egg-Roll, a CHRISTIAN holiday event, that's no different.

Said homosexuals are not denigrating Christians or suggesting that there is anything wrong with Christians. In fact, they probably are Christians.

I wish I could remember who said this, it's a quote from the days of the Founding Fathers... if anyone knows please post it.

-"I may not like what you have to say but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."

But, in schools, the way that someone says something is significant. If the school deems it disruptive, it is blocked. Now, had those opposed to the idea of tolerating homosexuals and affording them equal treatment wished to hold a day of silence, I'm quite sure it would have been allowed. But, instead, they tried a different form of protest - one that was found to be disrputive by the administrators.


Ok, though to me that is not a true day of silence more of a day of being quiet.

Considering how much most people talk, remaining silent except when one has the need to speak makes a pretty significant difference. The point of this demonstration is not to disrupt anything, but to make a point.

So hydrophobic substances are afraid of water? Or are they just repelled by it?



Rainbows oppose Christianity?

So this is your idea of a serious argument? Do you really need a reply to this or are you just being silly?

No, he did have a point. In school there is no such thing as freedom of speech, just whatever the teachers and or admin is or is not offended by. I smacked that wall many, many times durring my school years.

I never had a problem voicing my opinion.

Both sides have the right to protest and suspending one side and not the other is just rediculous.

In a public high school, both have the right to protest in the same way. The two demonstrations were dissimilar in actions, and thus cannot be compared as if they are the same.


Completely agree. That is why political activist groups should be barred from using kids to promote there cause in the public school system.

Did someone miss the part about how this is a student-led movement?

*snip*

Or you can say congrats to both sides for standing up to what they believe in. Ever consider that?

So this is your idea of a serious argument? Do you really need a reply to this or are you just being silly?

I am certain you can figure this out for yourself.

I wonder if it would be ok to wear shirts with the following text(s)?:

"Jesus is dead"
"I feel sorry for Christians"
"God sucks"

Actually those would be in appropriate. Frankly, I do not care if someone wore those shirts because I would be sorry for them and would be praying for them to see the light.

People are, not kids. Minors don't have free speech in school.

And that is horseshit given that they are citizens. Supreme Court to teenagers today: "The Constitution doesn't apply to you."

Supreme Court to blacks in the 1800's: "The Constitution doesn't apply to you."

Everyone to Women all the time: "The Constitution doesn't apply to you."

Horseshit

But this is true! Even the Bible said he died!

But rose again in 3 days so Jesus isn't dead :)

I will just say that silence can be disruptive as well. An example is if the class was going to do a group discussion on a topic, having a day of silence disrupts the lesson.

Good point.

In a public high school, both have the right to protest in the same way. The two demonstrations were dissimilar in actions, and thus cannot be compared as if they are the same.

Frankly I did not care for this day of silence but ya know, I respected their right to do it. My roommate participated in it which surprised me but again, I didn't care :D

Or you can say congrats to both sides for standing up to what they believe in. Ever consider that?

One side is standing up and saying: we want to be recognised as equal memebers of society without fear of intidimation or violence.

The other side is saying: you homosexuals are going to hell.

One side deserves congratulations. The other does not.

And that is horseshit given that they are citizens.

Actually, you aren't really fully a US Citizen until you are 18, in this country. A child is a ward either of the state or of his/her parents.

Do a bunch of three year olds have the right to assembly? Or can their parents decide where they go and don't go? What about teenagers? Do parents have the legal right to restrict their activities?

One side is standing up and saying: we want to be recognised as equal memebers of society without fear of intidimation or violence.

The other side is saying: you homosexuals are going to hell.

One side deserves congratulations. The other does not.

I respect your opinion however I believe that both sides have their right to express their views.

I respect your opinion however I believe that both sides have their right to express their views.

Thank you. I think they do too, however I feel that the people who wore the t-shirts saying 'homosexuality is wrong' on that particular day were being offensive and intolerant.

Actually those would be in appropriate. Frankly, I do not care if someone wore those shirts because I would be sorry for them and would be praying for them to see the light.

So why would those be inappropriate, while shirts with texts such as "homosexuality is a sin" are ok?

Thank you. I think they do too, however I feel that the people who wore the t-shirts saying 'homosexuality is wrong' on that particular day were being offensive and intolerant.

And I just feel that they have the right to wear those types of shirts since they weren't advocating hatred towards them. I think it is wrong myself however, i know a few people who are homosexual and are friends with them. They know my feelings but we get along just fine.

And homophobia has nothing to do with fear of homosexuals. It has to do with an intolerance or aversion towards homosexuals, as per the root -phobia.

I'm not going to quibble with you on a matter of semantics. The root phobia has nothing to do with tolerance. People who believe Homosexuality is sinful so not fear homosexuals, and saying so is not intolerant. if anything, your use of labels is a form of intolerance toward anyone who stands in opposition of your views.


Homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It is a trait.

That's your opinion. Or maybe it's both. And I can say that my educationsl status is a trait. Semantics. Calling it a trait isn't going to win you an argument.


That is because they are one and the same. Saying that homosexuality is a sin makes no more sense than saying black skin is a sin, or blue eyes is a sin, or menstruation is a sin.
In your opinion. You know, I once had a black co-worker and I asked him how he felt about that analogy. He told me he finds it offensive, not because he has an issue with homosexuals, but because being black is a race. Beging homosexual is not. A gay black man is the same race as a straight black man. It's an analogy that doesn't apply.

Menstruation is a biological function necessary for life. Another bad analogy.

Blue eyes is a genetic trait that is either dominant or recessive, and can pe tracked over generations. A blue eye finctions exactly the same as a brown one or a green one, and thus is a matter of aesthetics. Another bad analogy.

...unless you're suggesting that homosexuals are people of a separate race, who require same sex relationships for basic survival, and only APPEAR to live differently from heterosexuals, but actually don't (in terms of sexual relations).


Wrong. The word phobia relates to an irrational fear. The root -phobia can mean fear, or can mean intolerance or aversion. Hence words like "hydrophobic". No one is suggesting that water is afraid of a surface, but it is repelled by said surface.

Again with intolerance. I think we may have another terminology dispute. To me, being intolerant is to actively seek to destroy or remove the target. To you, it appears that unless I pat a gay man on the back and congratulate him warmly for being gay, I'm intolerant. Face it. "homophobe" is a label used by the gay community to label people they perceive as enemies, regardless of the actual position taken by such a person.


Homosexuality is neither an act nor a lifestyle.

Oh I guess it's a race then? Or a necessity for basic survival? Or only a mattrer of outward appearance? What is it? As a straight man if I engage in sex with another man, have I not committed a homosexual act, separate from my identity as a person? Do homosexuals not have a lifestyle that differs, at least in part, from that of straight people?



And forming one's viewpoints on political and cultural issues is a part of learning. If we keep everything controversial out of the schools, children will learn nothing....

That's what Social Studies and Political Science classes are for. Nobody is suggesting that students shouldn't have their own viewpoints. What's being suggested is that political activism should be kept ot of an environment where it is a distraction from learning.


Said homosexuals are not denigrating Christians or suggesting that there is anything wrong with Christians. In fact, they probably are Christians.


Maybe they are, maybe they aren't Christian.. but you don't know, so this point is irrelevant. As to denegration... you want everybody to walk a minle in your moccasins but you won't take a moment to consider what this might look like form the point of view of a Christian.

My son was once given an assignment in school to bring with him a few personal items that he valued greatly, and talk about them in class. One of the things he wanted to bring was his Scriptures... but he didn't. He was afraid to bring them to school because he was AFRAID THAT HE WOULD BE PUNISHED FOR DOING SO. Let that sink in for a moment. As a Christian, he was given reason to believe that he would be punished for simply talking about an item he treasured, on the basis that it was part of his Christian belief. That's disgusting in a country where religion is supposed to be free. Now, imagine that Christians are made to feel this way, and see that the homosexual activism is allowed to go on completely unimpeded. Who feels denegrated now?


But, in schools, the way that someone says something is significant. If the school deems it disruptive, it is blocked. Now, had those opposed to the idea of tolerating homosexuals and affording them equal treatment wished to hold a day of silence, I'm quite sure it would have been allowed. But, instead, they tried a different form of protest - one that was found to be disrputive by the administrators.
Maybe that's a good idea. Maybe Christian students should have their own Day of Silence nationwide to commemorate the gag order imposed upon them by political correctness.

I respect your opinion however I believe that both sides have their right to express their views.

And if the opposition want to hold their own day of silence and pass out little fliers saying, "We actually don't think members of the LGBT community should be treated with respect and tolerance. Bullying them and treating them unequally under the law is A-OK because they are sinners," I suppose that might be allowed.

And that is horseshit given that they are citizens. Supreme Court to teenagers today: "The Constitution doesn't apply to you."

Supreme Court to blacks in the 1800's: "The Constitution doesn't apply to you."

Everyone to Women all the time: "The Constitution doesn't apply to you."

Horseshit

Their reasons for claiming such were very much unlike saying "You are not adults, and therefor cannot be entitled to all the rights and duties of adult citizens".

For example, blacks were claimed to not be human. Turned out they were.

Thank you. I think they do too, however I feel that the people who wore the t-shirts saying 'homosexuality is wrong' on that particular day were being offensive and intolerant.

"Intolerant" is another one of those words that gets thrown around without thought. How is a T-shirt being intolerant? Obviously, these Christian students are tolerant. They tolerate the people in school that they disagree with, don't they? They aren't boycotting schools because gay students go there, are they? They're WEARING T-SHIRTS, people. That's a form of expression. Tolerance isn't the issue.

"Intolerant" is another one of those words that gets thrown around without thought.

Perhaps, but in my opinions so are 'political correctness' and 'gag-orders'.

Perhaps, but in my opinions so are 'political correctness' and 'gag-orders'.
If you have a point then make it.

And if the opposition want to hold their own day of silence and pass out little fliers saying, "We actually don't think members of the LGBT community should be treated with respect and tolerance. Bullying them and treating them unequally under the law is A-OK because they are sinners," I suppose that might be allowed.

Saying someone should not be respected goes against Christian principles. I respect homosexuality. I do not condone it nor do I accept it but I respect their choice of lifestyle and I would have to oppose anyone who says that homosexuals should not be respected.

"Intolerant" is another one of those words that gets thrown around without thought. How is a T-shirt being intolerant? Obviously, these Christian students are tolerant. They tolerate the people in school that they disagree with, don't they? They aren't boycotting schools because gay students go there, are they? They're WEARING T-SHIRTS, people. That's a form of expression. Tolerance isn't the issue.

I used that word carefully and thoughtfully. The t-shirt is intolerant because it blatantly conveyed a message that excuses and supports intolerance of homosexuals, on the very day when gays and lesbians are trying to highlight that very problem.

If someone wore a t-shirt with a swastika on it on Martin Luther King Day, would you consider this person tolerant beacuse he deigns to go to a school where black people educate themselves?

I'm not going to quibble with you on a matter of semantics. The root phobia has nothing to do with tolerance.

Lets check an actual dictionary, shall we?

-phobia
One entry found for -phobia.
Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

Sorry, but the dictionary says you are wrong.

People who believe Homosexuality is sinful so not fear homosexuals, and saying so is not intolerant. if anything, your use of labels is a form of intolerance toward anyone who stands in opposition of your views.

I never said that they did fear them, although you might get that impression from the "HOMOSEXUALS WILL DESTROY SOCIETY," rants that often come out of that camp.

Meanwhile, I admit that I have little patience for intolerant views. People can certainly hold them, and I would fight for that right. But I'm not going to look at a bigot and say, "I respect you for that."

That's your opinion.

No, it is biological fact. Homosexuality isn't an action. It is the state of being attracted exclusively to members of the same sex.

Now, homosexual sex is an act, as is heterosexual sex. Either homosexuals or homosexuals can choose celibacy, promiscuity, monogamous relationships, etc. Thus, it cannot be a lifestyle, since homosexuals live the exact same range of lifestyles as heterosexuals.

And I can say that my educationsl status is a trait.

Sure. Are you suggesting that "educational status" is actually a lifestyle?

In your opinion. You know, I once had a black co-worker and I asked him how he felt about that analogy. He told me he finds it offensive, not because he has an issue with homosexuals, but because being black is a race. Beging homosexual is not. A gay black man is the same race as a straight black man. It's an analogy that doesn't apply.

Actually, being black is not technically a biological race. It is an ethnicity. And it is a trait, as are blue eyes and sexuality. To be offended by comparing one form of bigotry to another just demonstrates that someone has not examined the similarities.

Do you think the same coworker would be offended if someone suggested that blue-eyed people shouldn't be afforded tolerance and equal treatment, and I then compared it to racism?

Menstruation is a biological function necessary for life. Another bad analogy.

Menstruation is not at all necessary for life, although it is necessary for a healthy woman. But it is also something which is controlled by hormones, something not under direct control of the person involved. Interestingly enough, the OT claims that a menstruating woman is unclean because of her sinfulness, suggesting that menstruation is a sin. Most people, however, look at it and say, "It's a biological function, therefore it cannot really be a sin." Sexuality is equally a biological function. One cannot control who they are and are not attracted to.

Blue eyes is a genetic trait that is either dominant or recessive, and can pe tracked over generations. A blue eye finctions exactly the same as a brown one or a green one, and thus is a matter of aesthetics. Another bad analogy.

Eye color is partially genetic and partially environmental. It is also inherent. Sexuality is partially genetic and partially environmental. it is also inherent.

Neither is an action. Both are descriptors.

Again with intolerance. I think we may have another terminology dispute. To me, being intolerant is to actively seek to destroy or remove the target.

These people are actively protesting against a movement to grant homosexuals equal treatment - to protect them from harrassment and violence. If you oppose those who say, "Treat these people with the same respect you would treat all people. Do not harrass or attack them," you are instead advocating, "Treat these people with less respect than everyone else. Harrass them and attack them."

Oh I guess it's a race then? Or a necessity for basic survival? Or only a mattrer of outward appearance? What is it? As a straight man if I engage in sex with another man, have I not committed a homosexual act, separate from my identity as a person? Do homosexuals not have a lifestyle that differs, at least in part, from that of straight people?

Actually, no, not as a group. Homosexuals live their lives in exactly the same way as other groups. Some are celibate. Some are promiscuous. Some form monogamous relationships. Some homosexuals are poor. Some are rich. Some live in the suburbs. Some live in the city. And so on....

Homosexuality is not a race, it is a sexuality. We all have some form of sexuality. As a straight man, if you engage in sex with another man, you have engaged in homosexual sex. That does not make you homosexual.

That's what Social Studies and Political Science classes are for. Nobody is suggesting that students shouldn't have their own viewpoints. What's being suggested is that political activism should be kept ot of an environment where it is a distraction from learning.

And I fail to see how a student choosing not to speak unless required by classroom activities or an administrator is a distraction from learning. Indeed, it could be a help to learning, since there will be less talking out of turn.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't Christian.. but you don't know, so this point is irrelevant.

Most likely, considering that they wished to attend a traditionally religious celebration of Easter, they are Christian.



I AM a Christian. Thus, I already see this from the point of view of a Christian.

[quote]My son was once given an assignment in school to bring with him a few personal items that he valued greatly, and talk about them in class. One of the things he wanted to bring was his Scriptures... but he didn't. He was afraid to bring them to school because he was AFRAID THAT HE WOULD BE PUNISHED FOR DOING SO. Let that sink in for a moment. As a Christian, he was given reason to believe that he would be punished for simply talking about an item he treasured, on the basis that it was part of his Christian belief. That's disgusting in a country where religion is supposed to be free. Now, imagine that Christians are made to feel this way, and see that the homosexual activism is allowed to go on completely unimpeded. Who feels denegrated now?

If your son felt that way, that is a problem. And there is no reason that he couldn't have brought them.

Maybe that's a good idea. Maybe Christian students should have their own Day of Silence nationwide to commemorate the gag order imposed upon them by political correctness.

What "gag order"? It is clear that any form of "t-shirt protest" was being stopped. It wasn't discrimination against Christians.

"Intolerant" is another one of those words that gets thrown around without thought. How is a T-shirt being intolerant? Obviously, these Christian students are tolerant. They tolerate the people in school that they disagree with, don't they? They aren't boycotting schools because gay students go there, are they? They're WEARING T-SHIRTS, people. That's a form of expression. Tolerance isn't the issue.

They are wearing t-shirts specifically in protest to a demonstration that says, "Members of the LGBT community are human beings and should be treated with all the respect that accords. They should not be harrassed, bullied, or made to be afraid to be who they are."

Now, a t-shirt protesting such a movement necessarily says that the expressed sentiments are wrong. In other words, "Members of the LGBT community should not be treated with the respect we afford other human beings. They can be harrassed, bullied, and made to be afraid to be who they are."

If you have a point then make it.

Fine, I'll play along.

My point is that, while I agree that 'homophobe' is often/sometimes used too much by homosexuals, and indeed often against people who don't actually have anything against homosexuals, political correctness too is often used to
label an idea as bad, regardless of what the idea actualy entails.

I used that word carefully and thoughtfully. The t-shirt is intolerant because it blatantly conveyed a message that excuses and supports intolerance of homosexuals, on the very day when gays and lesbians are trying to highlight that very problem.

If someone wore a t-shirt with a swastika on it on Martin Luther King Day, would you consider this person tolerant beacuse he deigns to go to a school where black people educate themselves?

"Homosexuality is a sin"

Seems like a very simple, very direct statement of a belief. You're attaching a meaning to it that is not conveyed by the words themselves. Maybe that's part of the general misunderstanding. When a Christian describes somethign as sinful, he or she is saying that it is an action forbidden by the command
of God. The penalty for such an action is to be condemned.

That's really it. Now, I know there are people who have used that as an excuse for violence and hate, but such people are in the wrong. Lumping their error into a statement made by a bunch of counterprotesting kids is a fallacy.

Tolerance is not a double edged sword, it's quite fair. Everyone has to put up with people we don't much care for. The tolerant part is not eviscerating them for being mind-numbingly stupid.

"Homosexuality is a sin"

Seems like a very simple, very direct statement of a belief. You're attaching a meaning to it that is not conveyed by the words themselves. Maybe that's part of the general misunderstanding. When a Christian describes somethign as sinful, he or she is saying that it is an action forbidden by the command
of God. The penalty for such an action is to be condemned.

That's really it. Now, I know there are people who have used that as an excuse for violence and hate, but such people are in the wrong. Lumping their error into a statement made by a bunch of counterprotesting kids is a fallacy.

Edit: never mind

Saying someone should not be respected goes against Christian principles. I respect homosexuality. I do not condone it nor do I accept it but I respect their choice of lifestyle and I would have to oppose anyone who says that homosexuals should not be respected.

Then you would have no reason to protest a statment that homosexual should be respected and should be safe from harrassment and violence.

Then you would have no reason to protest a statment that homosexual should be respected and should be safe from harrassment and violence.

I didn't say I protested did I? No. I just didn't partake in this Day of Silence. I respect people's right to protest provided that it is a peaceful protest. Apparently, both sides had a peaceful protest from all I'm reading.

I heard of this story today about the national day of silence. This particular story focused on California schools. What took place was a day of silence for people that supported gays. Ok, not a problem with me. Then some students counter protested. Some of these students were suspended. Now read the story and tell me why tolerance doesn't go both ways sometimes. My opinion schools should be for learning and not for political activist groups.


I think homophobic students should be encouraged to advertise their ignorance and hatred as much as possible, particularly if they do so by holding up Christian doctrine as their justification. They should be encouraged to wear "God Hates Fags" pins in their yearbook photos, so we can record their beliefs for all posterity. They should be encouraged to videotape themselves as they protest the existence of homosexuality. I think these media aids will be very important in the future.

See, when I was in 3rd grade we had our first lessons about the Civil Rights Era, and I just couldn't believe some of what they told us. People in my parent's generation actually believed that black people didn't deserve respect and equality?! Impossible. Those ideas are so primitive, so hateful, so unAmerican!

So when our kids look at us doubtfully, refusing to believe that there was really a time when gay citizens were persecuted and hated and discriminated against, I want to have plenty to show them. I want to have image after image of the fear and hate that have corrupted so much of our culture. I want to have video footage of homophobes sharing their stupidity in their own words. I want those future children to see, and to believe, and to realize the shame of what has been allowed to fester in this country.

I didn't say I protested did I? No. I just didn't partake in this Day of Silence. I respect people's right to protest provided that it is a peaceful protest. Apparently, both sides had a peaceful protest from all I'm reading.

But the difference is that the homosexuals are saying "Can we have some equality and tolerance here?", while those christians are saying "No you can't.".

But the difference is that the homosexuals are saying "Can we have some equality and tolerance here?", while those christians are saying "No you can't.".

And yet Christians are also persecuted against and have a hard time speaking in public. Blacks are also persecuted against. Everyone should be tolerant of everyone but then, that would fly in the face of human nature.

So when our kids look at us doubtfully, refusing to believe that there was really a time when gay citizens were persecuted and hated and discriminated against, I want to have plenty to show them. I want to have image after image of the fear and hate that have corrupted so much of our culture. I want to have video footage of homophobes sharing their stupidity in their own words. I want those future children to see, and to believe, and to realize the shame of what has been allowed to fester in this country.

"Mommy? Are those people real?"
"Yes dear, but most of them are gone now."

And yet Christians are also persecuted against and have a hard time speaking in public. Blacks are also persecuted against.

And they should not be/have.
Assuming said speaking in public remains decent.

Lets check an actual dictionary, shall we?

Originally Posted by Mirriam-Webster
-phobia
One entry found for -phobia.
Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>
Sorry, but the dictionary says you are wrong.

From the same dictionary:

Main Entry: pho·bia
Pronunciation: 'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: -phobia
: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation

So what do we do now, play "my entry is better than yours?"[/quote]


I never said that they did fear them, although you might get that impression from the "HOMOSEXUALS WILL DESTROY SOCIETY," rants that often come out of that camp.

Meanwhile, I admit that I have little patience for intolerant views. People can certainly hold them, and I would fight for that right. But I'm not going to look at a bigot and say, "I respect you for that."
On this, you and I are in agreement. My point here is that often Christians who speak out for their views are treated in exactly the same way that they are accused of treating others, regardless of the nature of their speaking out.


No, it is biological fact. Homosexuality isn't an action. It is the state of being attracted exclusively to members of the same sex.

Now, homosexual sex is an act, as is heterosexual sex. Either homosexuals or homosexuals can choose celibacy, promiscuity, monogamous relationships, etc. Thus, it cannot be a lifestyle, since homosexuals live the exact same range of lifestyles as heterosexuals.

Which could also be argued to be a psychological issue, not necessarily biological.


Sure. Are you suggesting that "educational status" is actually a lifestyle?

It certainly can be. If I have a Bacheor's Degree and I use it in my employment, then my education directly affects my lifestyle.


Actually, being black is not technically a biological race. It is an ethnicity. And it is a trait, as are blue eyes and sexuality. To be offended by comparing one form of bigotry to another just demonstrates that someone has not examined the similarities.
You brought it into the discussion as race, not I. By this do you mean to change your position?


Do you think the same coworker would be offended if someone suggested that blue-eyed people shouldn't be afforded tolerance and equal treatment, and I then compared it to racism?
You're having to reach pretty far out there. Are there any groups out there who are discriminating against blued eyed people?


Menstruation is not at all necessary for life, although it is necessary for a healthy woman. But it is also something which is controlled by hormones, something not under direct control of the person involved. Interestingly enough, the OT claims that a menstruating woman is unclean because of her sinfulness, suggesting that menstruation is a sin. Most people, however, look at it and say, "It's a biological function, therefore it cannot really be a sin." Sexuality is equally a biological function. One cannot control who they are and are not attracted to.
And in the frame of reference of people in general, healthy women who menstruate are necessary for life, in terms of the propagation of the species.

Incidentally, the unclean state refered to in the OT was a matter of hygeine, not sin.



Eye color is partially genetic and partially environmental. It is also inherent. Sexuality is partially genetic and partially environmental. it is also inherent.

That point is not accepted as fact.


These people are actively protesting against a movement to grant homosexuals equal treatment - to protect them from harrassment and violence. If you oppose those who say, "Treat these people with the same respect you would treat all people. Do not harrass or attack them," you are instead advocating, "Treat these people with less respect than everyone else. Harrass them and attack them."
As I noted in my previous post (Not to you, to Gift-of-God), expressing one's belief that such a thing is a sin is not to attach all of those other meanings you put there yourself.


Actually, no, not as a group. Homosexuals live their lives in exactly the same way as other groups. Some are celibate. Some are promiscuous. Some form monogamous relationships. Some homosexuals are poor. Some are rich. Some live in the suburbs. Some live in the city. And so on....

Except, as I noted, sexual relations.


Homosexuality is not a race, it is a sexuality. We all have some form of sexuality. As a straight man, if you engage in sex with another man, you have engaged in homosexual sex. That does not make you homosexual.

In other words, yes.


And I fail to see how a student choosing not to speak unless required by classroom activities or an administrator is a distraction from learning. Indeed, it could be a help to learning, since there will be less talking out of turn.
Which would be fine, if that's as far as it went, but the whole purpose of this movement was to raise awareness of the issues involved, and that IS a distraction. Why? because, like it or not, we don't live in a vaccum in this country. If yuo have a right to make a point, so does someone else. If you choose to speak out, someone who disagrees with you might decide to speak out as well. Heck, these message boards are based upon that principle. It's a good and healthy thing. People seem to forget that.


Most likely, considering that they wished to attend a traditionally religious celebration of Easter, they are Christian.
Which is fine, but they chose to draw attention to themselves as homosexuals in an event that had nothing to do with homosexuality. In so doing, they brought that debate into the event.


I AM a Christian. Thus, I already see this from the point of view of a Christian.
So what? Does that obligate me to see it your way? I have two gay siblings with whom I get along great. Why doesn't that obligate you to see it mine?


If your son felt that way, that is a problem. And there is no reason that he couldn't have brought them.
On that we agree. There shouldn't be any reason in the wide world why he couldn't bring his Scriptures to school, but we've heard of cases where people react badly when someone brings in a Bible to school or prays openly.


What "gag order"? It is clear that any form of "t-shirt protest" was being stopped. It wasn't discrimination against Christians.

No, and if it sounded like that's what I was saying, I apologize. Let me rephrase. When I refered to a gag-order, I was talking about the general culture of religious censorship that exists in public schools.

"Mommy? Are those people real?"
"Yes dear, but most of them are gone now."
I honestly feel bad for the children of homophobes today. These fag-hating high school students are going to be the last, lingering homophobic generation, and they will be regarded by history in pretty much the same way that the Jim Crow South is now regarded. They will be remembered as an embarassment, a bunch of ignorant rubes who clung to out-dated hatreds long past the point of anything resembling sanity.

And, frankly, I think that's why they're all so damn shrill these days. They can smell the change in the air. Their parents can remember when using "kike" or "******" in conversation was totally normal and accepted, and they still resent how those delicious slurs have become unacceptable to civilized society. Now they are frantically screaming "FAGGOT FAGGOT FAGGOT" before that slur loses its savor as well, and teaching their children to shriek it right along with them.

This is for everybody.

It's a shame that so many of the people out there who oppose Christian beliefs in terms of the homosexual issue set up a dichotomy where you either embrace homosexuality or you must be a homophobic hate-filled biggot. Doing that is irrational and isn't going to generate any respect for your position.

By now anyone who has been reading these posts knows I'm not supporter of the gay agenda. I do believe homosexuality to be a sinful way of life in the eyes of the Lord, and I won't pretend otherwise. At the same time, that issue is between the individual homosexual and God. It's not my place to discriminate or to spew hate.

One evening my sons and I were watching The Apprentice, and one of the contestants was gay. My older son said that he hoped Trump would fire him outright for it. I scolded my son for that. I expained to him that a person's sexual practices have no bearing on his work or ability, and so it shouldn't be factored in, and that I'd be very disappointed if Trump had done so. As it turned out, the guy did eventually get fired from the show, but because of his work mistakes, not for whom he sleeps with.

What gay folks and gay agenda supporters need to understand is that they are not owed any special consideration, and the vast majority of Christians agree with the fact that they shouldn't be persecuted either. Know how we feel about it? Apathy. We don't really care how you live your life. It's your life to live.

Understand this though, we also have a right to speak our minds, same as you, and it's wrong for you to silence us by twisting our words into hate and venom so that we appear bigoted and evil. You have a right to proclaim that you support the gay agenda? We have a right to say we don't. You're no better than we are, and we owe you only one thing: indifference. That's the same thing you owe us.

This is a country founded on the idea that we all have the right to speak our minds, whether in agreement or not. Sometimes that means you get to speak up, sometimes it means someone else does. Don't like it? Don't listen. Day of Silence.. fine. T-shirts are just as silent. Don't read them.

Isn't that what you'd tell me if I went on a rant about how Will & Grace shouldn't be on TV?

The school/college has a duty to prevent harassment of its students.

The students have a right to protection from harassment.

The Day of Silence wasn't harassing anyone.

The counter-protest harassed homosexuals.

The first one was fine, the second was unacceptable.

End of story.

Incidentally you could just do what we do in England and enforce a school uniform. :p

The school/college has a duty to prevent harassment of its students.

The students have a right to protection from harassment.

The Day of Silence wasn't harassing anyone.

The counter-protest harassed homosexuals.

The first one was fine, the second was unacceptable.

End of story.

Incidentally you could just do what we do in England and enforce a school uniform. :p



The counter-protest harrassed no one. Stopping someone from wearing a shirt with a simple line of text is moronic.

Understand this though, we also have a right to speak our minds, same as you, and it's wrong for you to silence us by twisting our words into hate and venom so that we appear bigoted and evil. You have a right to proclaim that you support the gay agenda? We have a right to say we don't. You're no better than we are, and we owe you only one thing: indifference. That's the same thing you owe us.

So please tell me, what was the point of holding that t-shirt thing at that exact moment and time?

And what is 'The Homosexual Agenda'?

The counter-protest harrassed no one. Stopping someone from wearing a shirt with a simple line of text is moronic.

So it was just a coincidence they were worn at that exact tim and place?

This is for everybody.

It's a shame that so many of the people out there who oppose Christian beliefs in terms of the homosexual issue set up a dichotomy where you either embrace homosexuality or you must be a homophobic hate-filled biggot. Doing that is irrational and isn't going to generate any respect for your position.

By now anyone who has been reading these posts knows I'm not supporter of the gay agenda. I do believe homosexuality to be a sinful way of life in the eyes of the Lord, and I won't pretend otherwise. At the same time, that issue is between the individual homosexual and God. It's not my place to discriminate or to spew hate.

One evening my sons and I were watching The Apprentice, and one of the contestants was gay. My older son said that he hoped Trump would fire him outright for it. I scolded my son for that. I expained to him that a person's sexual practices have no bearing on his work or ability, and so it shouldn't be factored in, and that I'd be very disappointed if Trump had done so. As it turned out, the guy did eventually get fired from the show, but because of his work mistakes, not for whom he sleeps with.

What gay folks and gay agenda supporters need to understand is that they are not owed any special consideration, and the vast majority of Christians agree with the fact that they shouldn't be persecuted either. Know how we feel about it? Apathy. We don't really care how you live your life. It's your life to live.

Understand this though, we also have a right to speak our minds, same as you, and it's wrong for you to silence us by twisting our words into hate and venom so that we appear bigoted and evil. You have a right to proclaim that you support the gay agenda? We have a right to say we don't. You're no better than we are, and we owe you only one thing: indifference. That's the same thing you owe us.

This is a country founded on the idea that we all have the right to speak our minds, whether in agreement or not. Sometimes that means you get to speak up, sometimes it means someone else does. Don't like it? Don't listen. Day of Silence.. fine. T-shirts are just as silent. Don't read them.

Isn't that what you'd tell me if I went on a rant about how Will & Grace shouldn't be on TV?

Well said New Bretonnia. Well said indeed.

*snip*

Ok, how where the Christians harrassing the homosexual crowd when they did not utter a word about it? A t-shirt saying it is sinful is not harrassing.

Incidentally you could just do what we do in England and enforce a school uniform. :p

If only it were that simple :(

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c162/mustasielu/anti-christianBigotry.gif

So please tell me, what was the point of holding that t-shirt thing at that exact moment and time?

And what is 'The Homosexual Agenda'?

The point was that since others were bringing attention to the issue, it was an opportune time to express their own views. Nowhere is it written that only one viewpoint can be expressed at a time.

As to the second question, do you want to quibble semantics, too?

So it was just a coincidence they were worn at that exact tim and place?


Of course not, that however does not make it harrassment. See arguments like this is why people tend to think I'm a conservative republican christian when I'm actually a liberal democrat atheist.

The school/college has a duty to prevent harassment of its students.

The students have a right to protection from harassment.

The Day of Silence wasn't harassing anyone.

The counter-protest harassed homosexuals.

The first one was fine, the second was unacceptable.

End of story.

Incidentally you could just do what we do in England and enforce a school uniform. :p
I think your definition of harassment is too broad. How is wearing a t-shirt harassment?
It's their own freedom of expression. However distasteful to some it may be, it's freedom of expression. Those who are railing against it are the only ones here practicing intolerance.

<comic strip>
That's a nifty little comic strip, but doesn't apply. Wearing a T-shirt expressing one's ideas isn't the same as beating someone over the head with them, no matter how much you disagree with it.

Well said New Bretonnia. Well said indeed.
Thanks very much.

So please tell me, what was the point of holding that t-shirt thing at that exact moment and time?

And what is 'The Homosexual Agenda'?
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

This is for everybody.

It's a shame that so many of the people out there who oppose Christian beliefs in terms of the homosexual issue set up a dichotomy where you either embrace homosexuality or you must be a homophobic hate-filled biggot. Doing that is irrational and isn't going to generate any respect for your position.

Well, but see, it's actually pretty simple. People who believe that homosexual human beings do not deserve equal treatment under the law are no different, fundamentally, than people who believe blacks don't deserve equal treatment. A kid (or adult) who feels it is appropriate to speak hatefully about homosexuality is no different, fundamentally, than a person who feels it is appropriate to speak hatefully about Jews or blacks or sky divers.

I don't particularly care who "embraces" homosexuality, any more than I care about who "embraces" sky diving. But if somebody decides to go out of their way to show their arse and insult or disrespect all sky divers, then I'm going to point out that their acting like a dick and need to get over themselves.


By now anyone who has been reading these posts knows I'm not supporter of the gay agenda.

So you oppose the idea that gay citizens should be treated with the same dignity and respect as all other citizens? And you oppose the idea that all citizens should be equal under the law? Because that's the gay agenda, my friend. That's the whole damn agenda right there.

One evening my sons and I were watching The Apprentice, and one of the contestants was gay. My older son said that he hoped Trump would fire him outright for it. I scolded my son for that. I expained to him that a person's sexual practices have no bearing on his work or ability, and so it shouldn't be factored in, and that I'd be very disappointed if Trump had done so. As it turned out, the guy did eventually get fired from the show, but because of his work mistakes, not for whom he sleeps with.

Well that's mighty straight of you.

Congrats, you just made my "What Do You Want, A Cookie?!" thread.


What gay folks and gay agenda supporters need to understand is that they are not owed any special consideration,

Yeah, like how the blacks should have realized they didn't deserve "special consideration" back during the Civil Rights Era. They should never have forced us to let blacks and whites intermarry, because that constitutes "special consideration." They never should have fought to make it possible for black students to go to white schools without facing harassment, because that's "special consideration."

See, this is why we need to encourage homophobes to just go ahead and say they hate fags. If we don't, then you end up with this kind of two-faced bullshittery, which wastes everybody's time and effort. Plus, if we ever in any way object to their shtick, we'll have to listen to them whine about how they're being discriminated against and oppressed. And I think we already get plenty of that every Christmas.


and the vast majority of Christians agree with the fact that they shouldn't be persecuted either. Know how we feel about it? Apathy. We don't really care how you live your life. It's your life to live.

Well gosh, I guess that takes care of that! Gays are now officially free to live their lives! No need to continue with that annoying "gay agenda," folks, because the Christians have decided they don't much care!


Understand this though, we also have a right to speak our minds, same as you, and it's wrong for you to silence us by twisting our words into hate and venom so that we appear bigoted and evil.

There's no need to twist them, darling.


You have a right to proclaim that you support the gay agenda? We have a right to say we don't.

PLEASE DO! Please come right out and say it! Tell the world how you feel! Let us videotape you saying it. Let us take your pictures and write down your statements. Let us record it for posterity.


You're no better than we are, and we owe you only one thing: indifference. That's the same thing you owe us.

Your idea of "indifference" is believing that homosexuality is a sin. Why do you whine so loudly when somebody responds that homophobia is a sin? They're just being "indifferent" to you.

The point was that since others were bringing attention to the issue, it was an opportune time to express their own views. Nowhere is it written that only one viewpoint can be expressed at a time.

As to the second question, do you want to quibble semantics, too?

And this couldn't have been achieved by discussion?
Something like "Hey, I know you want tolerance and such, but my religion says you're going to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity, sorry about that."?

As to your second answer, you're the one who brough up the Homosexual Agenda. Which is curious, considering your earlier opinion about Newspeak words (or something similar).

Actually, I'll go ahead and answer that one. The Gay Agenda is that which states that everyone has a right to free speech and religion, as long as they acknowledge and defer to the moral superiority of homosexuality and its supporters.

Actually, I'll go ahead and answer that one. The Gay Agenda is that which states that everyone has a right to free speech and religion, as long as they acknowledge and defer to the moral superiority of homosexuality and its supporters.

Which is a view only expressed by people against equal rights for homosexuals.

Actually, I'll go ahead and answer that one. The Gay Agenda is that which states that everyone has a right to free speech and religion, as long as they acknowledge and defer to the moral superiority of homosexuality and its supporters.
And if you look to the right, kids, you will see a Homophobic Straw Man in its native environment.

From the same dictionary:
So what do we do now, play "my entry is better than yours?"

In a way, perhaps, considering that my entry is the entry for the suffix, while your is the entry for a word. One of the definitions of the suffix is that noted in the definition of the word, but it is obviously not the only one. It is also obviously not the one used in words such as hydrophobic, lipophobic, homophobic, etc.

On this, you and I are in agreement. My point here is that often Christians who speak out for their views are treated in exactly the same way that they are accused of treating others, regardless of the nature of their speaking out.

Sometimes it is the "speaking out" that is the treatment. When a "Christian" goes to a funeral for a man who was beaten to death with "God hates fags" posters, they are certainly speaking out for their views. But none of us have to respect such actions.

These students were protesting a statement that homosexuals should be treated with respect and tolerance. They may not have actively said, "God hates fags," but they were saying, "We don't agree with you that homosexuals should be safe from harrassment and violence."

Which could also be argued to be a psychological issue, not necessarily biological.

There isn't as clear a distinction between the two as you might think. Homosexual men's brains respond to male pheromones in much the same way as heterosexual female's brains. Your personality (aka psychology) is housed in your brain. The differences therein often have to do with physical differences that can be measured (aka biology).

It certainly can be. If I have a Bacheor's Degree and I use it in my employment, then my education directly affects my lifestyle.

Affecting your lifestyle is not the same as being your lifestyle. When I had short hair, having short hair affected my lifestyle - I didn't spend as much time styling it in the mornings. However, "short hair" was not my lifestyle.

You brought it into the discussion as race, not I. By this do you mean to change your position?

I never once made a statement that could be construed as claiming homosexuality was a race. I said that sexuality is like ethncity, gender, or eye color in that it is a trait - a descriptor of a person.

Suggesting that homosexuality is a lifestyle is no different from suggesting that you can determine the lifestyle of a person just by looking at their eye color.

You're having to reach pretty far out there. Are there any groups out there who are discriminating against blued eyed people?

Actively? No. But I did see an episode of Oprah once where they used it as an example - actively discriminating against blue-eyed people, just for a day. The point was made - biological traits are not a reason for unfair discrimination, whether the trait is ethnicity, gender, sexuality, sex, nationality, etc.

Incidentally, the unclean state refered to in the OT was a matter of hygeine, not sin.

Go back and read it again. It clearly states that her uncleanliness was a matter of her sinful state.

That point is not accepted as fact.

It is by anyone who has actually looked into the studies done on the subject.

I mean, gravity isn't really accepted as fact either, at least not by science, but it's accepted as pretty darn close.

As I noted in my previous post (Not to you, to Gift-of-God), expressing one's belief that such a thing is a sin is not to attach all of those other meanings you put there yourself.

It is when that expression is meant to be a protest against the statement being made by other people.

If I wear a t-shirt that says, "I love my skin," in direct protest to a celebration of Martin Luther King Day, would it not suggest that I was making a statement opposed to that of Martin Luther King Day?

Except, as I noted, sexual relations.

What difference in sexual relations does a celibate homosexual have when compared to a celibate heterosexual?

Which would be fine, if that's as far as it went, but the whole purpose of this movement was to raise awareness of the issues involved, and that IS a distraction. Why? because, like it or not, we don't live in a vaccum in this country. If yuo have a right to make a point, so does someone else. If you choose to speak out, someone who disagrees with you might decide to speak out as well. Heck, these message boards are based upon that principle. It's a good and healthy thing. People seem to forget that.

If it's a "good and healthy thing", why should we shield our young people from it?

Which is fine, but they chose to draw attention to themselves as homosexuals in an event that had nothing to do with homosexuality. In so doing, they brought that debate into the event.

They made their point. Homosexuals have families, are religious, and celebrate in the same way as heterosexuals.

If a group of Indian Chrisitans chose to band together and come to an Easter celebration in traditional Indian garb, would that bother you?

So what? Does that obligate me to see it your way?

No. It doesn't. But it does mean that you cannot suggest that I am not seeing things from the point of view of a Christian. At best, you can suggest that I am not seeing things your way. But since you obviously don't want to change your views just because of mine, that doesn't mean much, now does it?

On that we agree. There shouldn't be any reason in the wide world why he couldn't bring his Scriptures to school, but we've heard of cases where people react badly when someone brings in a Bible to school or prays openly.

And each such instance is an infringement upon their religion, and is a problem.


No, and if it sounded like that's what I was saying, I apologize. Let me rephrase. When I refered to a gag-order, I was talking about the general culture of religious censorship that exists in public schools.

Ah, well I don't think religious censorship is as widespread as many like to think. I certainly never saw any of it in any school I have attended, nor have I heard any direct accounts of it. My guess is that there are a few isolated incidents - each of which is a problem in and of itself - but I have seen no evidence for a widespread problem.

The counter-protest harrassed no one. Stopping someone from wearing a shirt with a simple line of text is moronic.

How is a t-shirt which accuses a group of being sinners not harassment?

Students have the right to a school enviroment where they feel safe, that means an enviroment where they aren't abused for their religion, sexuality or gender.

Of course not, that however does not make it harrassment. See arguments like this is why people tend to think I'm a conservative republican christian when I'm actually a liberal democrat atheist.

So if this is not harrasment, neither is visiting a peaceful Christian protest against anti-Christian views (for example, a protest against New Bretonnia's son being banned from bringing scripture to show-and-tell), wearing shirts saying things like:
"Christians are silly"
"God is not real"
"Religion is a crutch"

After all, they would just be voicing their opinions right?

Ok, how where the Christians harrassing the homosexual crowd when they did not utter a word about it? A t-shirt saying it is sinful is not harrassing.

You don't need to utter a word when it's emblazoned on your t-shirt now do you?

If they walked up to homosexual students and said "you're a sinner" that'd be harassment. Just because it isn't verbal doesn't mean it isn't harassment.

That's a nifty little comic strip, but doesn't apply. Wearing a T-shirt expressing one's ideas isn't the same as beating someone over the head with them, no matter how much you disagree with it.

It's an analogy, meant to portray the fact that often, Christians will 'be unfriendly' to homosexuals, and when asked to stop will scream exactly that.

And in case you wonder, I would be equally happy to post a comic that has a homosexual and a Christian in it, saying the following:
H: Equal rights for gays!
C: Well, it's not really ok according to my religion, but...
H: OMG! Bigot! HOMOPhoBE!
Since that happens as well.

Yea, either allow everyone to peaceably express their view or don't allow high schools to be the grounds for political and religious debates. You can't allow one group to express their opinion and prohibit people from countering them if they wish to.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c162/mustasielu/anti-christianBigotry.gif

LMAO!!! :p

It's a shame that so many of the people out there who oppose Christian beliefs in terms of the homosexual issue set up a dichotomy where you either embrace homosexuality or you must be a homophobic hate-filled biggot. Doing that is irrational and isn't going to generate any respect for your position.

(a) You mean your beliefs on the "homosexual issue. Chrisitan beliefs vary.
(b) No one is saying that you have to embrace homosexuality. No one is even suggesting it. But a protest against a statement that homosexuals should be treated with respect and should be safe from harrassment and violence isn't "not embracing" it. It is a direct derogatory statement against homosexuals.

By now anyone who has been reading these posts knows I'm not supporter of the gay agenda.

The what? What is this "gay agenda" you speak of.

I do believe homosexuality to be a sinful way of life in the eyes of the Lord, and I won't pretend otherwise.

Homosexuality isn't a way of life. Thus, your statement is like saying, "I believe short hair to be a sinful way of life." You might think that homosexual sex is sinful. You might think that cutting hair is sinful. But neither homosexuality nor "short hair" can logically be said to be a "way of life."

What gay folks and gay agenda supporters need to understand is that they are not owed any special consideration, and the vast majority of Christians agree with the fact that they shouldn't be persecuted either. Know how we feel about it? Apathy. We don't really care how you live your life. It's your life to live.

Obviously, the "Christians" at this school didn't think that the LGBT should be free from persecution, as they protested against a statement to that effect.

Day of Silence.. fine. T-shirts are just as silent. Don't read them.

Tell that to the school that decided all t-shirt protests and derogatory statements are disruptive.

Isn't that what you'd tell me if I went on a rant about how Will & Grace shouldn't be on TV?

Will and Grace shouldn't be on TV in a public school. Having it on in the background would be rather disruptive, don't you think?

So if this is not harrasment, neither is visiting a peaceful Christian protest against anti-Christian views (for example, a protest against New Bretonnia's son being banned from bringing scripture to show-and-tell), wearing shirts saying things like:
"Christians are silly"
"God is not real"
"Religion is a crutch"

After all, they would just be voicing their opinions right?


Yeah. Not a difficult concept. Free Speech an all that.

Don't make stupid presumptions about me, particularly when I've already discredited them.

How is a t-shirt which accuses a group of being sinners not harassment?

Students have the right to a school enviroment where they feel safe, that means an enviroment where they aren't abused for their religion, sexuality or gender.
My own high school dealt with pretty much this exact subject during my Junior year. A "Christian student group" (membership: three students and one advisor) wanted to protest the Day of Silence by putting up posters about how God does not approve of homosexuality, and handing out t-shirts with slogans like "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

The conclusion of our school administration was that homosexual students who want to participate in the Day of Silence are on par with Jewish students who participated in Remember The Holocaust. Gay students are not advocating that homophobic students be hurt or abused or disenfranchised, just as the Jewish students were not advocating that Germans be abused or disrespected. Gay students exist, just as Jewish students exist, and they are not attacking or insulting any other students by asserting that they exist.

However, a "counter protest" would, by definition, be an effort to assert that gay students do not have the right to be free from discrimination and harassment. According to our school's code of conduct, that sort of behavior would be every bit as inappropriate as a "Forget The Holocaust" Day.

Well, but see, it's actually pretty simple. People who believe that homosexual human beings do not deserve equal treatment under the law are no different, fundamentally, than people who believe blacks don't deserve equal treatment...
Irrelevant. I never stated, nor do those wearing the T-shirts state anything regarding homosexual treatment under the law. The statement was in relation to religion, which, last time I checked, IS separate from law.


So you oppose the idea that gay citizens should be treated with the same dignity and respect as all other citizens? And you oppose the idea that all citizens should be equal under the law? Because that's the gay agenda, my friend. That's the whole damn agenda right there.
If only that were true... :rolleyes:


Well that's mighty straight of you.

Congrats, you just made my "What Do You Want, A Cookie?!" thread.
Bottle, you've been on my "What Do You Want, A Cookie?!" list for about a month now.


Yeah, like how the blacks should have realized they didn't deserve "special consideration" back during the Civil Rights Era. They should never have forced us to let blacks and whites intermarry, because that constitutes "special consideration." They never should have fought to make it possible for black students to go to white schools without facing harassment, because that's "special consideration."
What??? Your train of logic seems to have derailed. Why don't you back it up to the station and try again.

Special consideration is when you expect to be able to hold a rally or protest and not have anyone allowed to respond.

Do you understand the concept that people who disagree with you might, just might, be equally protected as you are?


See, this is why we need to encourage homophobes to just go ahead and say they hate fags. If we don't, then you end up with this kind of two-faced bullshittery, which wastes everybody's time and effort. Plus, if we ever in any way object to their shtick, we'll have to listen to them whine about how they're being discriminated against and oppressed. And I think we already get plenty of that every Christmas.
So I "hate fags" now, because I don't support your politics? Bottle, I really like you. Know why? because you make such an excellent poster child for proving my point.


Well gosh, I guess that takes care of that! Gays are now officially free to live their lives! No need to continue with that annoying "gay agenda," folks, because the Christians have decided they don't much care!
So why isn't that enough? What do you want Christians to say?

oh wait... I know what you want. Everyone to agree with you.


There's no need to twist them, darling.
Really? So in your thesaurus, "Homosexuality is a sin." is a phrase that equates to "All gays must rot in hell forever so it's okay to discriminate against them and yadda yadda yadda..."

It might interest you to know that most people are not using the same thesaurus you are.


PLEASE DO! Please come right out and say it! Tell the world how you feel! Let us videotape you saying it. Let us take your pictures and write down your statements. Let us record it for posterity.
I sure hope someone will, before all such statements are anhilated for being "intolerant" and "biggoted."


Your idea of "indifference" is believing that homosexuality is a sin. Why do you whine so loudly when somebody responds that homophobia is a sin? They're just being "indifferent" to you.
I can believe whatever I please, as can you. How am I whining when I say so?

Yeah. Not a difficult concept. Free Speech an all that.

Don't make stupid presumptions about me, particularly when I've already discredited them.

I'm glad to hear that.

Too bad you're making a presumption that I made a presumption about you.

Well, but see, it's actually pretty simple. People who believe that homosexual human beings do not deserve equal treatment under the law are no different, fundamentally, than people who believe blacks don't deserve equal treatment. A kid (or adult) who feels it is appropriate to speak hatefully about homosexuality is no different, fundamentally, than a person who feels it is appropriate to speak hatefully about Jews or blacks or sky divers.

I don't particularly care who "embraces" homosexuality, any more than I care about who "embraces" sky diving. But if somebody decides to go out of their way to show their arse and insult or disrespect all sky divers, then I'm going to point out that their acting like a dick and need to get over themselves.
...

I reserve the right to teach my children the dangers of irresponsible behaviors, be that what it may (if I think it is skydiving or illicit drug use or promiscuous sex, or street car racing etc.,), and to teach them that there are some dangerous choices out there being made by others that should NOT be made even if they are legal. And to say my negative thoughts out loud to my children, that I think people that participate in those reckless behaviors are themselves selfish and irresponsible, to themselves and the ones that love them, as a way of reinforcing to my child those beliefs of mine, is well within my rights and responsibilities as a parent.

When seeing or talking about someone who has done something we think is wrong or stupid or dangerously irresponsible or harmful to themselves or others, and to comment on then in the negative to our children, “what a dumb thing to do,” you might say to your child, that is not in itself implication of hate to the person being referenced.

And if you look to the right, kids, you will see a Homophobic Straw Man in its native environment.
Cool! I wonder how many more labels I'll get from Bottle before this is all said and done.

Incidentally, throwing out a term like Straw Man doesn't actually turn your opponent's argument into a Straw Man. Just a tip.

I'm glad to hear that.

Too bad you're making a presumption that I made a presumption about you.
No it's called reading. You assumed I was christian so you asked if the same standard should apply to those espousing anti-christian messages.

That's a nifty little comic strip, but doesn't apply. Wearing a T-shirt expressing one's ideas isn't the same as beating someone over the head with them, no matter how much you disagree with it.

That all depends on how you look at things. If I see someone out in public wearing a t-shirt that offends me, I can leave. I don't have to see it, and I don't have to associate with the person wearing it. If, however, I am a high school student, I am required to be there. I cannot just leave, nor can I necessarily keep from associating with said person. The same, interestingly enough, goes for the workplace. And wearing such a shirt wouldn't be appropriate there either.

Actually, I'll go ahead and answer that one. The Gay Agenda is that which states that everyone has a right to free speech and religion, as long as they acknowledge and defer to the moral superiority of homosexuality and its supporters.

And this statement was made by someone other than you......where, exactly?

Yea, either allow everyone to peaceably express their view or don't allow high schools to be the grounds for political and religious debates. You can't allow one group to express their opinion and prohibit people from countering them if they wish to.

If the views had been expressed in the same way, you would have a point.

As it is, your statement is like saying, "If schools allow students to put up posters, they have to let them spraypaint the walls too. You can't let them paint their views on posterboard, but not on the walls."

I wonder why any of this is happening. If everyone is the same, equal, and correct in their beliefs (i.e. heterosexuality, homosexuality, et al are all fine acceptable choices), then why do homosexual, bisexual, transgender, multisexual, antisexual, or whatever-else-sexual students need some special day to honor them. Everybody struggles, not just these folks. If they want to be equal, they shouldn't get days to honor them over other students.

School is an inappropriate forum for this kind of stuff anyway. Why should any sexual group be doing anything to promote itself in a school? I want heterosexual day as little as homosexual day in school because neither of them have a place in school. You go to school to learn, not to get it on with any of your peers regardless of their "preferences."

No it's called reading. You assumed I was christian so you asked if the same standard should apply to those espousing anti-christian messages.

How did I assume you are Christian?

Actually, I'll go ahead and answer that one. The Gay Agenda is that which states that everyone has a right to free speech and religion, as long as they acknowledge and defer to the moral superiority of homosexuality and its supporters.
Let's see if this is right...

*open his agenda, mumbles a bit*
shower at 8h00... breakfast at 8h20... classes at 9h30...
*flips a page*
dinner at 5h00... party at 7h00...
*flips another page*
Getting equal rights at 9h00...

Nope, no making everyone defer to the moral superiority of homosexuality and its supporters. Are you sure you looked in this month's copy of the agenda? Maybe it's scheduled for next month...

I wonder why any of this is happening. If everyone is the same, equal, and correct in their beliefs (i.e. heterosexuality, homosexuality, et al are all fine acceptable choices), then why do homosexual, bisexual, transgender, multisexual, antisexual, or whatever-else-sexual students need some special day to honor them. Everybody struggles, not just these folks. If they want to be equal, they shouldn't get days to honor them over other students.

Because they are not equal.
And I'm pretty sure other non-equal people get their own days as well.
Including Christian 'Why can't I take my scripture to school for Show-And-Tell?' days.

Those 13 students should have been suspended. If someone wore a T-shirt saying "I hate Niggers" then they would be suspended. Especially if they did it on a day celebrating black culture.

Anyone making public opposition to a group whose activities do not affect them should be stopped. I'm all for freedom of speech but when you cannot abuse that freedom to attack someone without provocation.

Because they are not equal.
And I'm pretty sure other non-equal people get their own days as well.
Including Christian 'Why can't I take my scripture to school for Show-And-Tell?' days.

So we should try to make them equal by giving them a day of celebration? We don't need to end slavery, let's just have a slave day of silence. No, no, that probably wouldn't be a solution.

So we should try to make them equal by giving them a day of celebration? We don't need to end slavery, let's just have a slave day of silence. No, no, that probably wouldn't be a solution.

It'd be a start.
Before people can end slavery they need to realise slaves are human too.

...
These students were protesting a statement that homosexuals should be treated with respect and tolerance. They may not have actively said, "God hates fags," but they were saying, "We don't agree with you that homosexuals should be safe from harrassment and violence."
...

You built a strawman argument around what the T-Shirt message implies to you, not what it actually meant to the person wearing it. Their shirts said nothing other than, "We don't agree with your that homosexual sex should be viewed as not sinful."

It'd be a start.
Before people can end slavery they need to realise slaves are human too.

That kind of stuff is why activism annoys me. Instead of addressing problems, we sing kum ba yah (or however it's spelled) and sit naked in a field all day in a pattern that spells a word. If you want to solve a problem, you have to take an action that is not merely symbolic. In this case, I think the best solution is to not tell everyone what your sexual preference is because then it is not an issue. Maybe that wouldn't work, but it would cause a lot less grief for everyone.

You built a strawman argument around what the T-Shirt message implies to you, not what it actually meant to the person wearing it. Their shirts said nothing other than, "We don't agree with your that homosexual sex should be viewed as not sinful."

Which in turn implies what?
They must have had a reason for it.

You built a strawman argument around what the T-Shirt message implies to you, not what it actually meant to the person wearing it. Their shirts said nothing other than, "We don't agree with your that homosexual sex should be viewed as not sinful."
Well, then I guess since my beliefs tells me people wearing a shirt saying "We don't agree with your that homosexual sex should be viewed as not sinful" are homophobic. Maybe I should wear a shirt saying that.

Irrelevant. I never stated, nor do those wearing the T-shirts state anything regarding homosexual treatment under the law. The statement was in relation to religion, which, last time I checked, IS separate from law.

You were bitching about how homophobes get treated so mean. I was basically trying to politely say, "Boo hoo hoo, my heart breaks for thee, poor persecuted homophobes."


If only that were true... :rolleyes:

Talk about an over-inflated sense of your own importance. You really think that gay people are that concerned with making you like them? Are you kidding me? Do you have any fucking clue how crappy the economy is?!

Seriously, let me put your mind at ease. The overwhelming majority of gay people don't give two bits about whether or not you "embrace" homosexuality. They want the government to recognize their legal rights and leave them alone. They want to make sure their kid's lunch gets packed in time for him to make the school bus. They want to swing by the market to get some eggs on the way home. They're busy people.


Bottle, you've been on my "What Do You Want, A Cookie?!" list for about a month now.

Um, gee, I guess that show's me who's boss.


What??? Your train of logic seems to have derailed. Why don't you back it up to the station and try again.

Special consideration is when you expect to be able to hold a rally or protest and not have anyone allowed to respond.

Do you understand the concept that people who disagree with you might, just might, be equally protected as you are?

Please point out where I have stated that homophobes should not be permitted to protest or voice their opinions. Did you somehow miss the part of my post where I BEGGED y'all to be more vocal about your homophobic beliefs?


So I "hate fags" now, because I don't support your politics?

Actually, I think I specifically said that homophobes needed to be ENCOURAGED to say they hate fags, so we can avoid this kind of mincing wussery with the type of people who aren't prepared to just come right out and hate on some fags.


Bottle, I really like you. Know why? because you make such an excellent poster child for proving my point.

Glad I could help you out with your point, because you sure don't seem to be having much luck with it on your own.


oh wait... I know what you want. Everyone to agree with you.

Honey, if you think that then there is no possible way you've been reading my posts for a month. I love people who disagree with me.


Really? So in your thesaurus, "Homosexuality is a sin." is a phrase that equates to "All gays must rot in hell forever so it's okay to discriminate against them and yadda yadda yadda..."

I view "homosexuality is a sin" as no different than "being a ****** is a sin." The Hell-rotting specification isn't really necessary.


It might interest you to know that most people are not using the same thesaurus you are.

Oddly enough, that does not interest me in the slightest.


I sure hope someone will, before all such statements are anhilated for being "intolerant" and "biggoted."

Well never fear, because I do everything I can to help preserve your beliefs in all their glory. :)

That kind of stuff is why activism annoys me. Instead of addressing problems, we sing kum ba yah (or however it's spelled) and sit naked in a field all day in a pattern that spells a word. If you want to solve a problem, you have to take an action that is not merely symbolic. In this case, I think the best solution is to not tell everyone what your sexual preference is because then it is not an issue. Maybe that wouldn't work, but it would cause a lot less grief for everyone.

So you need to pretend you don't excist? And this will magically make all unfairness etc go away?

Irrelevant. I never stated, nor do those wearing the T-shirts state anything regarding homosexual treatment under the law.

Those wearing the t-shirts were protesting a statement that homosexuals should be treated equally.

Once again, if I wore a T-shirt saying, "White skin is great!" to protest a Martin Luther King Day demonstration, what would that suggest to you?

If only that were true... :rolleyes:

Care to provide some evidence that it isn't?

Special consideration is when you expect to be able to hold a rally or protest and not have anyone allowed to respond.

And no one has suggested this.

Do you understand the concept that people who disagree with you might, just might, be equally protected as you are?

Indeed they are. And if the students want to hold a "day of silence"....

I reserve the right to teach my children the dangers of irresponsible behaviors, be that what it may (if I think it is skydiving or illicit drug use or promiscuous sex, or street car racing etc.,), and to teach them that there are some dangerous choices out there being made by others that should NOT be made even if they are legal.

Certainly.

Are you suggesting (a) that homosexuality is a choice or (b) that homosexuals are doing something dangerous when they try to form relationsihps?

Those 13 students should have been suspended. If someone wore a T-shirt saying "I hate Niggers" then they would be suspended. Especially if they did it on a day celebrating black culture.

Anyone making public opposition to a group whose activities do not affect them should be stopped. I'm all for freedom of speech but when you cannot abuse that freedom to attack someone without provocation.


What without provocation? It was a day meant to bring attention to the struggles of gay youth. What better day to say so if you're against homosexuality?

The bottom line is, they had every legal right to wear their shirts as long as they conformed to the school dress code (which in my mind itself is unconsitutional). That they did so on National day of Silence was to me somewhat tacky, but for them an excellent time to bring attention to their point of view. Which they did.

No, it pretty much doesn't. Your analogy is not valid. Saying that homosexuality is a sin is not an expression of fear against homosexuals. It is a statement of how the lifestyle is viewed. You ranalogy of blacks/racism fails because you're trying to equate homophobia with racism.

Now, maybe we are just using the same terminology in different ways, in which case it's a question of simple semantics, but the suffix "phobia" means an irrational fear of... I also believe that homosexuality as an act and as a lifestyle is sinful, but I am no more afraid of gay people than they are of me.

Using the word "homophobe" as a generic label to slap on anyone who doesn't support the gay agenda is a form of Newspeak, deliberately meant to make the person appear irrational and afraid. Newsflash to the gay community: We are not afraid of you. And I'm pretty sure you don't want us to be, anyway... so there should be no problem.

*snip*


Here's the thing. The word "homophobia" does, in actual fact, mean "irrational fear of same", implying a fear of either homosexuals or homosexuality. However, common usage of the word has given it the meaning "prejudice against homosexuals or homosexuality". We don't have a more accurate term to indicate that prejudice, and the term homophobia has come to be understood to mean just that, "prejudice against homosexuals or homosexuality".

So the analogy holds absolutely true. Those of us who use the term homophobia understand it to mean that particular prejudice, not necessarily irrational fear. We know you don't freeze or run away screaming or faint in the presence of homosexuals, but we also know that you are prejudiced against them, and we know it more firmly when you wear a "Homosexuality is a sin" t-shirt.

We are also aware that you try to avoid the label of prejudiced by slapping the "phobia" definition around. I am sorry that there isn't a more precise word to define your prejudice, but until one comes into common usage, it is squirrily and pedantic to try and worm out of the issue with root word definitions when the universally understood meaning does not precisely equate.

That being said, the comparison of homophobia to racism is absolutely valid.

So you need to pretend you don't excist? And this will magically make all unfairness etc go away?
Well, it's worked so far, hasn't it?

[/sarcasm]

So you need to pretend you don't excist? And this will magically make all unfairness etc go away?

Not overtly flaunting some quality does not mean that you deny it's existance. People should not consider their sexuality to be the definition of themselves. Being gay or straight is an aspect of your person, not the totality of your person. If you are a raging drunk or a florist or an accountant, you probably don't define yourself solely through that part of your life.

Cool! I wonder how many more labels I'll get from Bottle before this is all said and done.

Bottle wasn't labeling you, but was instead labelling your argument. Just so you know.

Incidentally, throwing out a term like Straw Man doesn't actually turn your opponent's argument into a Straw Man. Just a tip.

Unless you can demonstrate that anyone has made the argument you are supposedly arguing against, its pretty much a strawman.

I wonder why any of this is happening. If everyone is the same, equal, and correct in their beliefs (i.e. heterosexuality, homosexuality, et al are all fine acceptable choices), then why do homosexual, bisexual, transgender, multisexual, antisexual, or whatever-else-sexual students need some special day to honor them.

The Day of Silence doesn't "honor" gay students. It calls attention to the continuing harassment and violence that gay students face for being gay. There have been similar days organized to highlight the abuse of other minority groups. It is not a day to "celebrate" homosexuality, but rather to celebrate the idea that we should all be able to coexist peacefully, even if we disagree about some things.


Everybody struggles, not just these folks. If they want to be equal, they shouldn't get days to honor them over other students.

Recognizing how various groups are marginalized is important if we are ever going to stop the marginalization. If nobody is allowed to talk about how gay students are victimized, how much can we really do to stop it?


School is an inappropriate forum for this kind of stuff anyway. Why should any sexual group be doing anything to promote itself in a school? I want heterosexual day as little as homosexual day in school because neither of them have a place in school.

This sounds just like me at age 5, complaining that there is a Mother's Day and a Father's Day but no "Children's Day."

My father pointed out dryly, "Every day is Children's Day."

We know you don't freeze or run away screaming or faint in the presence of homosexuals...

Now, wouldn't THAT be cool! :D

Some sort of mutant gay-power making homophobes freeze or faint... why hasn't anyone thought to add that in X-men3?

Well, it's worked so far, hasn't it?

[/sarcasm]

Yet if we protest in any shape or form, we are 'whining'. Right.

That'd be comic, making the fundies hike up their skirts and run away shrieking.

Not overtly flaunting some quality does not mean that you deny it's existance. People should not consider their sexuality to be the definition of themselves. Being gay or straight is an aspect of your person, not the totality of your person. If you are a raging drunk or a florist or an accountant, you probably don't define yourself solely through that part of your life.

Believe me, we know. It's just that 'other people'(tm) focus on it, so we need to bring it to attention.
Besides, it's rather hard to argue for same-sex marriages when no-one can say they're gay.

Cool! I wonder how many more labels I'll get from Bottle before this is all said and done.
You know, it really ruins a joke when you've got to explain it, but...

When a person uses a "straw man" argument, that doesn't mean that the person is a straw man. I was commenting on the straw man argument you were making; I was not asserting that you are a man made of straw.


Incidentally, throwing out a term like Straw Man doesn't actually turn your opponent's argument into a Straw Man. Just a tip.
Better keep that tip, so you can use it to hop a bus to the local library, where you can find a helpful pamphlet entitled: "Your Straw Man And You."

You built a strawman argument around what the T-Shirt message implies to you, not what it actually meant to the person wearing it. Their shirts said nothing other than, "We don't agree with your that homosexual sex should be viewed as not sinful."

Hardly. Context is key here. The students specifically stated that they were "counter-protesting" the viewpoints espoused by the day of silence. None of these viewpoints say anything about Chrisitan doctrine on sin. The viewpoints espoused are quite simply, "We believe that the LGBT community should be treated with the same respect afforded to all human beings. They should be safe from harrassment and violence. They should be treated equally under the law." Nothing at all in that statement says anything about sin.

Since a "counter-protest" would necessarily oppose the viewpoint being espoused in the original protest, it is fairly obvious that they were opposed to the idea that the LGBT community should be treated fairly and equally, safe from harrassment and violence.

If someone wore the shirt out on a general day, not as part of a protest, you might be able to make that argument. But since the stated purpose of the protest was to counter the statement above.......


Here's the thing. The word "homophobia" does, in actual fact, mean "irrational fear of same", implying a fear of either homosexuals or homosexuality.

Not really, as I showed earlier. It could mean, "intolerance or aversion for" something implied by "homo". Homo could simply mean the same, or since, it is a term used in reference to sexuality, could mean homosexual.

Even the etiology doesn't make the point they try to make.

Not overtly flaunting some quality does not mean that you deny it's existance. People should not consider their sexuality to be the definition of themselves. Being gay or straight is an aspect of your person, not the totality of your person. If you are a raging drunk or a florist or an accountant, you probably don't define yourself solely through that part of your life.

And what person is definining themselves "solely" through their sexuality?

Believe me, we know. It's just that 'other people'(tm) focus on it, so we need to bring it to attention.
Besides, it's rather hard to argue for same-sex marriages when no-one can say they're gay.

I still wonder why this appears in school. NObody needs to argue for or against gay marriages in grade school. Save it for college.

That's all I've got for today. Thanks to Hakartopia for being civil in this debate. It's often a powerful temptation on this forum to be rude and snide since most everybody does it. Thankfully, some out there manage to keep it polite.

Well, then I guess since my beliefs tells me people wearing a shirt saying "We don't agree with your that homosexual sex should be viewed as not sinful" are homophobic. Maybe I should wear a shirt saying that.

That sounds about right.

I still wonder why this appears in school. NObody needs to argue for or against gay marriages in grade school. Save it for college.

Perhaps arguments about gay marriage would be better left to older people. However, there are many children in this country who have gay parents. Teaching children that gay couples exist, and that gay marriage exists in some places, is every bit as reasonable as teaching kids that heterosexual marriage exists.

(a) You mean your beliefs on the "homosexual issue. Chrisitan beliefs vary.

Granted, but I only speak for myself and those whom I know to feel the same way. Christianity comes in more flavors than ice cream, and I won't defend the hate mongering ones. They are the minority, however.

(b) No one is saying that you have to embrace homosexuality. No one is even suggesting it. But a protest against a statement that homosexuals should be treated with respect and should be safe from harrassment and violence isn't "not embracing" it. It is a direct derogatory statement against homosexuals.
I addressed this in another post, I won't waste your time with redundancy.


The what? What is this "gay agenda" you speak of.

this too.


Homosexuality isn't a way of life. Thus, your statement is like saying, "I believe short hair to be a sinful way of life." You might think that homosexual sex is sinful. You might think that cutting hair is sinful. But neither homosexuality nor "short hair" can logically be said to be a "way of life."
Again, this is where we disagree. But you knew that already.


Obviously, the "Christians" at this school didn't think that the LGBT should be free from persecution, as they protested against a statement to that effect.
This goes with the above statements I answered.


Tell that to the school that decided all t-shirt protests and derogatory statements are disruptive.
Some are. If someone wore a T-shirt to school that encouraged violence against homosexuals, I'd absolutely be in favor of banning it. The best solution to figuring out wher eto draw the line is to just keep activism out for everybody during class time.


Will and Grace shouldn't be on TV in a public school. Having it on in the background would be rather disruptive, don't you think?
I said nothing about it being in high schools.

I still wonder why this appears in school. NObody needs to argue for or against gay marriages in grade school. Save it for college.

That's all I've got for today. Thanks to Hakartopia for being civil in this debate. It's often a powerful temptation on this forum to be rude and snide since most everybody does it. Thankfully, some out there manage to keep it polite.

"Insults bring shame only to those who utter them."
-Confusicus

And yes, before college it's more of an awareness thing. I do not think gradeschoolers have the required experience in life to discuss most things.

Not overtly flaunting some quality does not mean that you deny it's existance. People should not consider their sexuality to be the definition of themselves. Being gay or straight is an aspect of your person, not the totality of your person. If you are a raging drunk or a florist or an accountant, you probably don't define yourself solely through that part of your life.
You seem to be missing the point. Allow me to elaborate:

There is a double standard towards homosexuality. heterosexuals can, and do, freely show their sexual orientation on a daily basis. They kiss, they talk of their boy/girlfriend, check out people of the other gender, hold hands, etc. And nobody thinks twice about it, really, not even us gays.

However, when it comes to homosexuality, suddenly sexual orientation becomes taboo. It's all hush-hush, don't tell us, don't make a big deal about it. Don't make us acknoledge that your difference exist, and we'll tolerate you if you're discreet enough. No holding hands, no smooch on the cheek, no talking about your girl/boyfriend of the same gender, no checking people out, because that would be inappropriate. (I'd even add "Think of the children!", but that'd be too melodramatic. Besides, I'm sure my point is clear enough as it it.)

The day of silence, gay pride parades, equal rights rallies, and other nonsense are meant to acknowledge that. To tell gays and lesbians and bisexuals and all queers(especially the younger ones, who often feel alone in this world) "We know you're there, we don't mind your difference, we accept(not simply tolerate) you".

Now, personally, I've never been a big fan of rallies, parades, or days of silence or whatever. I'm more of a "I'm gonna hold hands in public with my boyfriend, and if you don't like it, well, sucks to be you" person, and I try to take my rightful place. I'm not in the least impressed by manifestations of prejudice. But then again, I have self esteem, confidence and no shame of my orientation, which isn't the case with every gay person out there, especially teenagers.

My point is: if you're a florist, an accountant, or even a raging drunk, of course you don't define yourself solely as that. Neither do gays and lesbians. But the accountant, florist, and even drunk can still be who they are openly, without fear of the incredible prejudice and contempt society may rain upon their sorry asses if they ever dare tell anyone "Oh, by the way, I work in a flower store". They can "flaunt that quality" as much as they want, to use your own words.

Luckily for me, I live in a pretty open-minded place in eastern Canada. I'm not quite sure I could handle living my orientation openly and healthily like that everwhere, like western Canada or central/southern USA.

Bottom line: when prejudice and contempt against those of different orientation than heterosexul falls, days of silence, rallies, and pride parades will all be obsolete and pointless. So, if you really can't stand them, help everyone achieve equality in legal rights AND everyday life, that'll make em stop quicker.

"Insults bring shame only to those who utter them."
-Confusicus

And yes, before college it's more of an awareness thing. I do not think gradeschoolers have the required experience in life to discuss most things.


If you're going to make it an awareness thing you're settin' the bar way too high. 75% of adults don't have the nessicary experience with being aware of anything that doesn't directly benefit them. People find it utterly impossible to see both sides of an argument, they cannot imagine playing devil's advocate. To a vast majority of people it's simple. Their point of view is always right, and everyone else is wrong.

Perhaps arguments about gay marriage would be better left to older people. However, there are many children in this country who have gay parents. Teaching children that gay couples exist, and that gay marriage exists in some places, is every bit as reasonable as teaching kids that heterosexual marriage exists.

And then likewise, teaching children that people exist whom think homosexual sex is a sin and showing how it is a controversial subject at best and many politicians and political positions are discussed and argued over and fought over in the society they live in, is MORE reasonable than trying to shelter them from the real world views of diverse opinions and only allowing them to be shown half of the arguments and positions in the school.

If you're going to make it an awareness thing you're settin' the bar way too high. 75% of adults don't have the nessicary experience with being aware of anything that doesn't directly benefit them. People find it utterly impossible to see both sides of an argument, they cannot imagine playing devil's advocate. To a vast majority of people it's simple. Their point of view is always right, and everyone else is wrong.

Hah! Too true.
To be honest, for a long time I have tried to understand the anti-gay point of view (if you will allow the simplification), but recently I have come to the conclusion that they all come down to the same, and I simply do not agree with them.

Again, this is where we disagree. But you knew that already.

So, you're saying that "short hair" or, even more obviously similar, "attracted to women with large breasts," is a "way of life"?

Some are. If someone wore a T-shirt to school that encouraged violence against homosexuals, I'd absolutely be in favor of banning it. The best solution to figuring out wher eto draw the line is to just keep activism out for everybody during class time.

Perhaps, but how exactly are you going to ban "not talking to people"? Are you going to suspend someone for not talking to their friends?

I said nothing about it being in high schools.

Then it was entirely irrelevant to the conversation, since we are talking about what is disruptive in a high school.

Dempublicents....this is Sinuhue. I really, really need to talk to you...could you please TG my nation Amiskwak.

It is quite clear from the Bible that homosexuality is indeed sinful. Now, Christians who believe that homosexuality is basically OK can't be taking the Bible - which is meant to be the foundation of their faith - very seriously. Such people seem to adopt a 'pick and choose' mentality towards the Bible.
From a Christian's point of view, homosexuality is sin. Would you seriously suspend students who wear T-shirts saying "Paedophilia is sin" or "Murder is sin", because clearly those are hateful messages aimed at paedophiles and murderers? Of course not.
Telling someone that they are doing something wrong is not in and of itself arrogant or intolerant. But Christians can't adopt a "we're better than you"-approach either. Everyone is sinful - including Christians. The point of wearing those T-shirts is not to intimidate homosexuals or to assure them of our hatred towards them - it is to point out to them that what they are doing is wrong in God's eyes, but Jesus suffered and died for those sins too, and all you need to do is accept that. Christians wear those T-shirts out of love, not hate.

I don't think I really have anything new to add, but since the debates I've been in have become pretty spread out and fragmented, I'm just going to summarize here my replies.

Dempublicents1, you and I are starting to go in circles, I think. I believe the core of our disagreement comes from the fact that we see the intent behind those T-shirts in different ways. You believe them to be intended to oppose the views of the students taking part in the Day of Silence, I believe them to have been simply taking the opportunity to present their own ideas. I believe mine to be the stronger argument, since all we know about those students is what their shirts said, and they did not tell anybody to bash homosexuals. To ascribe any other meaning to them is to make an assumption.

Bottle, you seem to think that snappy comebacks and grand gestures about how silly and foolish people who disagree with you are is a way to win points in a debate. They don't really, at least, not with people who are really trying to approach this thoughtfully.

In any case, I believe I've made my position clear. I don't care what homosexuals do as long as they don't suppress the rights of those who disagree with them. And yes, I believe that dynamic works both ways. I have made that clear. If that position makes anyone uncomfortable, I suggest a little soul searching to determine why.

This entire debate I have been trying not to attack homosexuals, but to defend the rights of those who don't agree with them. If I've said anything that appeared to be mean spirited or nasty, I ask your forgiveness.

:fluffle: No hard feelings anyone, I hope.

Here's the thing. The word "homophobia" does, in actual fact, mean "irrational fear of same", implying a fear of either homosexuals or homosexuality.



Not really, as I showed earlier. It could mean, "intolerance or aversion for" something implied by "homo". Homo could simply mean the same, or since, it is a term used in reference to sexuality, could mean homosexual.

Even the etiology doesn't make the point they try to make.


Sorry, you are correct. To fix what I said earlier... I should have said "homophobia CAN, in actual fact, mean..."

Velcome to tolerance camp. You are here because you would not accept people's differences. Because you refuse to accept the life choices of your fellow man. Vell those days are now over. Here you vill verk, every hour of every day until you submit to being tolerant of everybody. Here, intolerance... will not be tolerated.

i think suspending them was wrong unless they were being violent or otherwise actively disrupting the protest. by suspending them the school was removing their platform for expressing their views which is a restriction of free speech. people are entitled to express their opinions no-matter how moronic they are.

Yeah, but if someone wore a T-shirt saying for example "Blacks are Dumb" or "God hates Jews" surely that would be immoral, and those people shouldn't be able to express these views if it interferes with others' right to persue happiness. What's the difference with Anti-Gay shirts?

I apologise for not being American. I acknowledge that my being German utterly disqualifies me from participating in this conversation, as well as rendering everything I ever said meaningless.
I humbly ask your forgiveness for daring to voice my opinion.
I am overly glad at your total tolerance towards foreigners, showing your tolerant attitude towards everyone and everything.

I apologise for not being American. I acknowledge that my being German utterly disqualifies me from participating in this conversation, as well as rendering everything I ever said meaningless.
I humbly ask your forgiveness for daring to voice my opinion.
I am overly glad at your total tolerance towards foreigners, showing your tolerant attitude towards everyone and everything.

What?

It is quite clear from the Bible that homosexuality is indeed sinful. Now, Christians who believe that homosexuality is basically OK can't be taking the Bible - which is meant to be the foundation of their faith - very seriously. Such people seem to adopt a 'pick and choose' mentality towards the Bible.
From a Christian's point of view, homosexuality is sin. Would you seriously suspend students who wear T-shirts saying "Paedophilia is sin" or "Murder is sin", because clearly those are hateful messages aimed at paedophiles and murderers? Of course not.
Telling someone that they are doing something wrong is not in and of itself arrogant or intolerant. But Christians can't adopt a "we're better than you"-approach either. Everyone is sinful - including Christians. The point of wearing those T-shirts is not to intimidate homosexuals or to assure them of our hatred towards them - it is to point out to them that what they are doing is wrong in God's eyes, but Jesus suffered and died for those sins too, and all you need to do is accept that. Christians wear those T-shirts out of love, not hate.
Well said, thank you.

And as to your next post... I love German people. I haven't yet met one I didn't respect. :)

It is quite clear from the Bible that homosexuality is indeed sinful.

Except it isn't. If it were, people would not disagree over it.

If someone wore a T-shirt to school that encouraged violence against homosexuals, I'd absolutely be in favor of banning it. The best solution to figuring out wher eto draw the line is to just keep activism out for everybody during class time.

Thank the Lord for School Uniforms!

It is quite clear from the Bible that homosexuality is indeed sinful. Now, Christians who believe that homosexuality is basically OK can't be taking the Bible - which is meant to be the foundation of their faith - very seriously. Such people seem to adopt a 'pick and choose' mentality towards the Bible. Everyone does. People can't even keep the 10 commandments. Hell people can't even keep half of the 10.

From a Christian's point of view, homosexuality is sin. Would you seriously suspend students who wear T-shirts saying "Paedophilia is sin" or "Murder is sin", because clearly those are hateful messages aimed at paedophiles and murderers? Of course not. Newsflash, we're not all christians, feel free to voice your opinion in your church. Rest of us sinners, don't really care. And frankly telling me how I'm going to fry in hell does not make me any more likely to bone the next woman I see. Ya'll need to work on your PR.

Telling someone that they are doing something wrong is not in and of itself arrogant or intolerant. But Christians can't adopt a "we're better than you"-approach either. Everyone is sinful - including Christians. The point of wearing those T-shirts is not to intimidate homosexuals or to assure them of our hatred towards them - it is to point out to them that what they are doing is wrong in God's eyes, but Jesus suffered and died for those sins too, and all you need to do is accept that. Christians wear those T-shirts out of love, not hate.

The problem is, with religion you so often get the holier than thou attitude. Which serves no purpose but to piss people off. I've known plenty of people who have been put off of religon because of that.

It is quite clear from the Bible that homosexuality is indeed sinful. Now, Christians who believe that homosexuality is basically OK can't be taking the Bible - which is meant to be the foundation of their faith - very seriously.[/qutoe]

The foundation of my faith is the teachings of Christ and Christ's presence in my life.

Meanwhile, the Bible has very few references to homosexuality, and most of those are ambiguous at best.

[quote] Such people seem to adopt a 'pick and choose' mentality towards the Bible.

Everyone picks and chooses what they like and do not like in any Scripture. Do you think God was really in favor of selling your daughter into slavery or committing genocide? I don't.

From a Christian's point of view, homosexuality is sin.

Wrong. You are stating your point of view.

Dempublicents1, you and I are starting to go in circles, I think. I believe the core of our disagreement comes from the fact that we see the intent behind those T-shirts in different ways. You believe them to be intended to oppose the views of the students taking part in the Day of Silence, I believe them to have been simply taking the opportunity to present their own ideas.

I am going by their stated purpose. They said it was a counter-protest. Unless they don't understand English, that means they were protesting the statements made by the demonstration.

I believe mine to be the stronger argument, since all we know about those students is what their shirts said, and they did not tell anybody to bash homosexuals. To ascribe any other meaning to them is to make an assumption.

We know that they specifically stated that they were counter-protesting. You are ignoring that fact.

Except it isn't. If it were, people would not disagree over it.
If only that were true. No matter how clearly something is stated, people will always twist it to alter its meaning to support their own, prefabricated conclusions. Just read the posts in this thread awhile :rolleyes:

If only that were true. No matter how clearly something is stated, people will always twist it to alter its meaning to support their own, prefabricated conclusions. Just read the posts in this thread awhile :rolleyes:

But is 'homosexuality is wrong' clearly stated in the bible?

But is 'homosexuality is wrong' clearly stated in the bible?

Depends on the translation.

It is quite clear from the Bible that homosexuality is indeed sinful. Now, Christians who believe that homosexuality is basically OK can't be taking the Bible - which is meant to be the foundation of their faith - very seriously. Such people seem to adopt a 'pick and choose' mentality towards the Bible.
From a Christian's point of view, homosexuality is sin. Would you seriously suspend students who wear T-shirts saying "Paedophilia is sin" or "Murder is sin", because clearly those are hateful messages aimed at paedophiles and murderers? Of course not.
Telling someone that they are doing something wrong is not in and of itself arrogant or intolerant. But Christians can't adopt a "we're better than you"-approach either. Everyone is sinful - including Christians. The point of wearing those T-shirts is not to intimidate homosexuals or to assure them of our hatred towards them - it is to point out to them that what they are doing is wrong in God's eyes, but Jesus suffered and died for those sins too, and all you need to do is accept that. Christians wear those T-shirts out of love, not hate.


OK, then instead of picking and choosing which sinners you are going to point out, how about just wearing an "Everyone is sinful" t-shirt? That would not be seen as singling out any one particular group for disdain and intolerance, and would make the point that you are Christians. If that was all the Christian students intended to do, it would seem to me that would be acceptable.

From a Christian's point of view, homosexuality is sin. Would you seriously suspend students who wear T-shirts saying "Paedophilia is sin" or "Murder is sin", because clearly those are hateful messages aimed at paedophiles and murderers? Of course not.
You're honestly trying to persuade us that being homosexual is of the same order as murder or paedophilia?

Depends on the translation.

And that's one of the problems right there.

I am going by their stated purpose. They said it was a counter-protest. Unless they don't understand English, that means they were protesting the statements made by the demonstration.

We know that they specifically stated that they were counter-protesting. You are ignoring that fact.
Alright, now we're getting somewhere.

Now we're going to leave behind the statement on the shirt for a moment and focus on the specifics. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that these students really were hatemongers with a desire to see gay students beaten and harassed.

Would they or would they not have the right to say so?

(For the record, I don't believe the intent was to encourage hatemongering or harassment, and I suspect you don't think it was either.)

But is 'homosexuality is wrong' clearly stated in the bible?
Yes, it is. In both the Old and the New Testaments.

Now we're going to leave behind the statement on the shirt for a moment and focus on the specifics. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that these students really were hatemongers with a desire to see gay students beaten and harassed.
You're trying to take what happened out of perspective. What happened was that some people promoted equal rights for homosexuals. What happened next was that some other people denied equal rights to homosexuals. The gays weren't being anti-christian, the christians were being anti-gay. I don't seem to be able to see it any other way. But I'm open to another interpretation if you have one.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere.

Now we're going to leave behind the statement on the shirt for a moment and focus on the specifics. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that these students really were hatemongers with a desire to see gay students beaten and harassed.

Would they or would they not have the right to say so?

In school? No, they wouldn't, not if such a statement was found to be disruptive.

Outside of school? Certainly. If someone wants to stand up on a podium and say that they think people born on Tuesdays should be harrassed and attacked, that would be their right, so long as they didn't actually do it or incite others to actually do it.

(For the record, I don't believe the intent was to encourage hatemongering or harassment, and I suspect you don't think it was either.)

Actually, I absolutely do think it was. Either that, or they didn't bother looking into exactly what they were trying to protest.


Yes, it is. In both the Old and the New Testaments.

Really? Do show me that exact quote, please? And make sure you do it in the original language of the text.....

You're trying to take what happened out of perspective. What happened was that some people promoted equal rights for homosexuals. What happened next was that some other people denied equal rights to homosexuals. The gays weren't being anti-christian, the christians were being anti-gay. I don't seem to be able to see it any other way. But I'm open to another interpretation if you have one.
What right, exactly, was being denied?

In school? No, they wouldn't, not if such a statement was found to be disruptive.

Outside of school? Certainly. If someone wants to stand up on a podium and say that they think people born on Tuesdays should be harrassed and attacked, that would be their right, so long as they didn't actually do it or incite others to actually do it.
And if the Day of Silence was found to be disruptive?



Actually, I absolutely do think it was. Either that, or they didn't bother looking into exactly what they were trying to protest.
Which is a distinct possibility. They may very well have not been thinking it through, or maybe even pushed into it by some overzealous pastor. In any case, I wouldn't assume that was the intent of the individuals.



Yes, it is. In both the Old and the New Testaments.

Really? Do show me that exact quote, please? And make sure you do it in the original language of the text.....
No, I won't. And it's not because I'm afraid to or because I don't know. I would be happy to show you in my King James Bible.

I'm well aware that a lot of apologists for the idea that homosexuality isn't sinful take the "uncertainity of translation" approach. They try to look into the ancient Greek or Hebrew (depending upon the passage) and try to show that it didn't mean what it was translated into, or that it COULD have meant something else. It's another form of "pick and choose" Theology. When the Bible says something people like, they don't concern themselves with where the translation came from. When it says something they don't like, suddenly the source of the translation is brought into question. Linguists can argue that point from both sides, and if we get into that debate, it will degenerate into a "my expert is better than yours" debate, which is pointless.

Granted, but I only speak for myself and those whom I know to feel the same way. Christianity comes in more flavors than ice cream, and I won't defend the hate mongering ones. They are the minority, however.


Personally I feel that any faith, religion, or belief that believes that consenting, rational adults would suffer eternal, unending, and unbearable agony because of what they do with other willing, consenting adults is pretty hate mongering in and of itself.

But again, I only speak for myself, and those whom I know feel the same way.

Personally I feel that any faith, religion, or belief that believes that consenting, rational adults would suffer eternal, unending, and unbearable agony because of what they do with other willing, consenting adults is pretty hate mongering in and of itself.

But again, I only speak for myself, and those whom I know feel the same way.
And that's your right.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere.

Now we're going to leave behind the statement on the shirt for a moment and focus on the specifics. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that these students really were hatemongers with a desire to see gay students beaten and harassed.

Would they or would they not have the right to say so?

(For the record, I don't believe the intent was to encourage hatemongering or harassment, and I suspect you don't think it was either.)

Not in a school with rules that protect other students from violence and intolerance. That has been the point of this entire thread.

If they wanted to hold a protest somewhere else, they would (subject to acquiring the appropriate permits and permissions) not only have the right to say so, but I think many of us would probably support that right, no matter how evil and ugly their subject matter.

A school environment needs to be one in which students can be free of such things, and thus schools adopt specific policies to protect ALL their students from intolerance. Calling intolerance itself simply an opposing view does not make it worthy of support. It is not intolerant to ban intolerance in such an environment.

The Christian students could certainly have worn shirts saying "We are Christians", or some other positive message about themselves. The minute they referenced homosexuals in a negative light, they moved away from being supportive of themselves to being intolerant of homosexuals, which was against school rules and therefor punishable. Such rules do not apply out on the street, where they could have worn "God hates Homosexuals" shirts if they so chose. And would have been perfectly within their rights to do so. But not on school grounds.

And a more appropriate protest to the Day of Silence might simply have been to not follow it, to continue to chatter in the halls and at lunch about random school stuff, and thereby show that they were not in support of the Day of Silence without being intolerant of the people it intended to be supportive of.

yup. Perhaps I'll wear it on a tshirt. That and something about the lie of "christian love".

You know, as soon as I saw the topic "Tolerance is a double edg..." over on the left-hand side of the page, I thought, now what can this be about? Certainly it looks familiar; I've seen this particular combination of letters before. Is it about black people? Is it about Jews? Is it perhaps about women? Or is it most probably -- because I've heard the above statement from homophobes so often I could puke -- a little whinge about uppity gays and their "agenda"?

Well, of COURSE it's about gays! When is this sort of post NOT about gays? Why is it not about these other discriminated-against groups of people? Because it's apparently not OK anymore to discriminate against blacks, Jews, or women, whereas gays are fair game. It's not all right to talk about "niggers", "kikes", and "bitches", but somehow it's fine to rail on about "faggots".

And the worst, most cowardly thing is that those who discriminate tend to hide their bigotry behind religious doctrine: basically, they're saying, "Oh, oh, oh, you're discriminating against me by not letting me be a bigot. It's my god-given right to oppress others." Let me just say, I'm getting just as sick and tired of straight, fundamentalist Christian people whining about how they're so hard done by, as I am of the rich complaining about how they're overtaxed, or of whites going on and on about how so-called racial "quotas" are hurting their families. (They're not, they're not, and they're not.)

Not so very long ago, bigots would commonly use biblical passages to justify their racist laws, such as the law against "miscegnation", or even to justify slavery. Many bigots have also used that same book to defend their antisemitism. Yet another group of bigots will claim that the Bible says men are superior, and women should bow to their will and be obedient. But these groups of bigots all seem to agree one one thing: homos are bad because "god" said so, as we see in his revealed word.

Well, as I said, this is cowardly. Bigots, don't hide your bigotry behind constitutionally protected religious doctrine. Come out of the closet and proclaim your own deep-seated prejudice to the world, like a man. And then we can beat YOU with clubs and hang YOU up on a fence to die like Matthew Shepard.

Nobody expects blacks to be more tolerant towards the sorts of people who lynched them (in god's name). Nobody expects Jews to be tolerant of antisemitic jackasses who claim they must suffer "because they killed Jesus". Nobody expects women to accept being second-class citizens because the Bible tells them so. Why should gay people sit back and say nothing about or try to change a society in which gaybashing -- which in my books runs from job and housing discrimination all the way to beatings, torture, and murder -- is a common and, to some, acceptable occurrence?

What right, exactly, was being denied?
I honestly don't know. I'm assuming the day of silence was a call for equal rights for gays, and christian kids protested against this. If they weren't protesting against equal rights for homosexuals, can you tell me what it was they were doing?

You know, as soon as I saw the topic "Tolerance is a double edg..." over on the left-hand side of the page, I thought, now what can this be about? Certainly it looks familiar; I've seen this particular combination of letters before. Is it about black people? Is it about Jews? Is it perhaps about women? Or is it most probably -- because I've heard the above statement from homophobes so often I could puke -- a little whinge about uppity gays and their "agenda"?

Well, of COURSE it's about gays! When is this sort of post NOT about gays? Why is it not about these other discriminated-against groups of people? Because it's apparently not OK anymore to discriminate against blacks, Jews, or women, whereas gays are fair game. It's not all right to talk about "niggers", "kikes", and "bitches", but somehow it's fine to rail on about "faggots".

Don't forget "illegals".



Not so very long ago, bigots would commonly use biblical passages to justify their racist laws, such as the law against "miscegnation", or even to justify slavery. Many bigots have also used that same book to defend their antisemitism. Yet another group of bigots will claim that the Bible says men are superior, and women should bow to their will and be obedient. But these groups of bigots all seem to agree one one thing: homos are bad because "god" said so, as we see in his revealed word.

Don't forget interracial marriage

Yeah, but if someone wore a T-shirt saying for example "Blacks are Dumb" or "God hates Jews" surely that would be immoral, and those people shouldn't be able to express these views if it interferes with others' right to persue happiness. What's the difference with Anti-Gay shirts?
Double standards.

I honestly don't know. I'm assuming the day of silence was a call for equal rights for gays, and christian kids protested against this. If they weren't protesting against equal rights for homosexuals, can you tell me what it was they were doing?
It doesn't matter what they were protesting, but in any case was a statement of their beliefs and protected as free speech. They exercised that free speech. End of story.

You asserted that the T-shirt wearing Christians were denying someone's rights. I asked you what rights, and you said you didn't know. Make your point.

Personally I feel that any faith, religion, or belief that believes that consenting, rational adults would suffer eternal, unending, and unbearable agony because of what they do with other willing, consenting adults is pretty hate mongering in and of itself.

But again, I only speak for myself, and those whom I know feel the same way.
Then consider me as one of "those whom you know".

You know, as soon as I saw the topic "Tolerance is a double edg..." over on the left-hand side of the page, I thought, now what can this be about? Certainly it looks familiar; I've seen this particular combination of letters before. Is it about black people? Is it about Jews? Is it perhaps about women? Or is it most probably -- because I've heard the above statement from homophobes so often I could puke -- a little whinge about uppity gays and their "agenda"?

Well, of COURSE it's about gays! When is this sort of post NOT about gays? Why is it not about these other discriminated-against groups of people? Because it's apparently not OK anymore to discriminate against blacks, Jews, or women, whereas gays are fair game. It's not all right to talk about "niggers", "kikes", and "bitches", but somehow it's fine to rail on about "faggots".

And the worst, most cowardly thing is that those who discriminate tend to hide their bigotry behind religious doctrine: basically, they're saying, "Oh, oh, oh, you're discriminating against me by not letting me be a bigot. It's my god-given right to oppress others." Let me just say, I'm getting just as sick and tired of straight, fundamentalist Christian people whining about how they're so hard done by, as I am of the rich complaining about how they're overtaxed, or of whites going on and on about how so-called racial "quotas" are hurting their families. (They're not, they're not, and they're not.)

Not so very long ago, bigots would commonly use biblical passages to justify their racist laws, such as the law against "miscegnation", or even to justify slavery. Many bigots have also used that same book to defend their antisemitism. Yet another group of bigots will claim that the Bible says men are superior, and women should bow to their will and be obedient. But these groups of bigots all seem to agree one one thing: homos are bad because "god" said so, as we see in his revealed word.

Well, as I said, this is cowardly. Bigots, don't hide your bigotry behind constitutionally protected religious doctrine. Come out of the closet and proclaim your own deep-seated prejudice to the world, like a man. And then we can beat YOU with clubs and hang YOU up on a fence to die like Matthew Shepard.

Nobody expects blacks to be more tolerant towards the sorts of people who lynched them (in god's name). Nobody expects Jews to be tolerant of antisemitic jackasses who claim they must suffer "because they killed Jesus". Nobody expects women to accept being second-class citizens because the Bible tells them so. Why should gay people sit back and say nothing about or try to change a society in which gaybashing -- which in my books runs from job and housing discrimination all the way to beatings, torture, and murder -- is a common and, to some, acceptable occurrence?

That First Ammendment is such a pain, isn't it?

I find it interesting that you're the one daydreaming about violence, not the people you're trying to take the moral highground over.

Housing Discrimination, job discrimination, beatings, torture and murder are all crimes and are wrong. Who, exactly, in this thread has expressed a desire to do those things?

And if the Day of Silence was found to be disruptive?

Again and again and again... no, it was NOT found to be disruptive. Students did not talk in the halls. They did not speak in the lunch room. They refrained from chatter in class unless it was appropriate to the class.

This is not disruptive behavior. No matter how many times you ask that question, the answer remains the same.

The t-shirts were disruptive.


*snip*
I would be happy to show you in my King James Bible.
*snip*


No thanks. Of all the available translations, this is certainly not the one I would run with, if I were going to debate bible quotes, which, even though I have a solid grounding in comparative theology, I would just rather not do.

That First Ammendment is such a pain, isn't it?

I find it interesting that you're the one daydreaming about violence, not the people you're trying to take the moral highground over.

Housing Discrimination, job discrimination, beatings, torture and murder are all crimes and are wrong. Who, exactly, in this thread has expressed a desire to do those things?

The "Christians" who wore the shirts quoting Leviticus?

*snip*

Wow. Kudos. One rarely sees such a well-thought argument from someone whose post count is under 10. I agree wholeheartedly to all you've said.

Again and again and again... no, it was NOT found to be disruptive. Students did not talk in the halls. They did not speak in the lunch room. They refrained from chatter in class unless it was appropriate to the class.

This is not disruptive behavior. No matter how many times you ask that question, the answer remains the same.

The t-shirts were disruptive.
Not disruptive?

I'd say all the politicizing and debate has been more than just a ripple. You know, on that day I was listening to the radio in the middle of the day, and they had a student on who was participating in the Day of Silence. She was taken out of class to come and be on the radio. I wonder if she was the only one...

But I guess that's not disruptive, either.

If a kid wore a t-shirt that said "Homosexuality is NOT a sin" and it caused a disruption, you'd blame the people who reacted, not the kid wearing the shirt. If the shirts in ths case were disruptive, (which has not been shown to be true) then why are you exercising a double standard?



No thanks. Of all the available translations, this is certainly not the one I would run with, if I were going to debate bible quotes, which, even though I have a solid grounding in comparative theology, I would just rather not do.
That comment was directed toward Dempublicents1, not you.

What constitutes a solid grounding in comparative theology, anyway?

For that matter, what is comparative theology?

That First Ammendment is such a pain, isn't it?


Hi there. This thread is about children in schools. The first amendment rights of children in schools can be limited in ways that it can not be for adults. School officials have the RIGHT to end any activities that disrupt the educational experience. And these officials have determined, as is THEIR right that anything that displays a bias towards any group, belief, or sexual identity is on its face disruptive.

You talk a lot about "equal" access without actually realizing what equal means. The original students targetted nobody. They said they would not speak for a day in order to show support for gay rights.

The only equality that christians have, is the right to remain silent for a day in order to show support for christian rights. That would have been within their rights. They did not. Instead they wore materials that were contrary to the school's rules, and they suffered the concequences of that violation.

This is not about what they have the right to think, believe, or practice in their homes or houses of worship. This is about the constitutional right of schools to set limitations, which they did, and the punishment of the students who violated those rules...which they did.

The christian students had the opportunity to act in a way equal to the other students, which would have been protected. Instead they acted in a way that violated school rules, and got punished for it. NOthing more, nothing less, end of freaking story.

The "Christians" who wore the shirts quoting Leviticus?
What quote, please. Chapter and verse will suffice.

What quote, please. Chapter and verse will suffice.

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

I think that's the quote that the fundies throw out, isn't it?

It doesn't matter what they were protesting, but in any case was a statement of their beliefs and protected as free speech. They exercised that free speech. End of story.
People exercise their right of free speech to express an opinion about something. I'm trying grasp what it is the christian kids were trying to express, if not that homosexual people somehow are not allowed a call for emancipation.

You asserted that the T-shirt wearing Christians were denying someone's rights. I asked you what rights, and you said you didn't know. Make your point.
The silent day was meant to convey something like "gays deserve to be treated with the same respect as others". Christians protested against this. What I don't understand is, what did they protest? All I can think of is that they protested the right of homosexuals to be treated with the same respect as others. The reason I was asking is that this seems so ridiculous that there must be another explanation. Except, I don't see anyone sharing the christian kids' viewpoint who clearly states what it is they protested. All I see is "they're exercising their freedom of speech". But that's not enough; either they explicitly state the opinion they're trying to express, or they can't object to homosexuals using their own freedom of expression.

What quote, please. Chapter and verse will suffice.

Levititicus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

What quote, please. Chapter and verse will suffice.There's a couple of anti-homo lines in the OT. Nothing in the NT, to the best of my knowledge.