NationStates Jolt Archive

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.



Once again you fail to see the point. As STUDENTS they do NOT have the unqualified right to free speech. They have the right to exercise speech that is not, in the opinion of the managers of the school, disruptive to the educational purpose of that school.

Those whose job it was to make that determination...made that determination, and found it disruptive. They also found that students who merely refuse to speak in any way outside of their required classroom participation was not disruptive. I agree on both considerations.

And THAT is the "end of the story".

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."


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.

This surely sounds like being gay is a sin to me....

This surely sounds like being gay is a sin to me....


http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

Why exactly are there three gay couples in the bible. One of them apparently a three-way?

And if the Day of Silence was found to be disruptive?

Then all such demonstrations would have to be banned equally (including the popular anti-drunk driving demonstration in which students leave class for a few moments and come back in all black, supposed to be "dead" in order to demonstrate the dangers of drunk driving). Any students (or rather, their parents) who disagreed could sue on the basis that it was not disruptive and was therefore a violation of their free speech to say so. I would certainly disagree that not talking is necessarily disruptive.

What they couldn't rationally do is yell, "OMFG! We are so oppressed! They won't let us protest in a way they won't let anyone 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.

I can only get intent from what is stated. If that was not their intent, and they are being painted in an unfair light they should (a) say so publicly and (b) take it as an example in life that one shouldn't try to make a public statement without being fully informed on the issue.

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.

That's ok. The King James Bible is one of the worst versions out there as far as accuracy goes. I really don't trust a translation of a translation of a translation called for by a king who had no problem messing with the text as far as I can throw it, although some of it sounds pretty.

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.

I always concern myself with translation and context. You can get yourself in trouble otherwise. Take, for instance, the "turn the other cheek" passage. People like to believe it means, "Let them hit you again," or "Do nothing." However, taken in the context of the times, it means no such thing. It is, in fact, a form of passive resistance designed to keep the person doing it from getting hit, while also teaching them not to get violent in return...

I do, however, find it interesting that you attempt to paint those who do not agree with your interpretation of the texts in such a poor light.

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?

The school decided that such t-shirts are disruptive, giving equal treatment to a student who wore an anti-Christian shirt. The students can certainly argue that their behavior was not disruptive and that they should not have been suspended. Such an argument might have legal merit. What they cannot rationally argue is, "There's a double standard! They wouldn't let us have our different same protest!"

This surely sounds like being gay is a sin to me....

If you believe it that way. Which of course is your right. Still doesn't mean that students have the right to disrupt the school's educational environment in expressing that belief in a disruptive way.

This surely sounds like being gay is a sin to me....

Actually, even if you take that quote as is, it is illogical to suggest that it states that being gay is a sin. At most, it states that two men having sex is a sin. Of course, a person can be homosexual and be celibate. He could avoid sex.

And, interestingly enough, the passage doesn't mention women...

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.

Or the way they dress, look, how smart they are, etc. No school environment is safe. There will always be bullies and they are not dealt with by school officials.

This surely sounds like being gay is a sin to me....Depends.. Are you Jewish?

Christians, AFAIK, aren't supposed to live by the rules of the OT.

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.

To be consider harrassment, it has to be done overtly. A t-shirt is not overt harrassment as it is an inadament object.

Or the way they dress, look, how smart they are, etc. No school environment is safe. There will always be bullies and they are not dealt with by school officials.

So because school officials are occassionally slow to respond to some issues they should therefore intentionally ignore all issues?

To be consider harrassment, it has to be done overtly. A t-shirt is not overt harrassment as it is an inadament object.

It is, however, disruptive to the mission of the institution, giving officials the right to restrict it.

To be consider harrassment, it has to be done overtly. A t-shirt is not overt harrassment as it is an inadament object.

Says....you. Others may differ in that opinion. Apparently those whose actual JOB it is to make that determination disagree with you as well. On the same logic, spraypainting "I hate niggers" on the walls of a school is not harassment, as the paint, and the walls, are inatimate objects.

Sure there must be some choise to take the act and spray the paint. Just as there is to put on the tshirt. Difference is...what exactly?

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.

In that case, I want a white history month, a day where christians can teach the bible in school without being silenced, a heterosexual day etc etc etc. After all, it doesn't affect anyone else.

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.


Let's look at the reasons that it was disruptive. Consider this, if the Christian students had declared another Day of Silence in support of Christians not having to suffer bullying and harassment, but at a different time, do you think anyone would have been taken out of class and interviewed? I am guessing that it would have probably been pretty much ignored by everyone. The likeliest reaction of the homosexual students and their supporters would have been "They did what now? Quiet? All day? Huh." None of them would have worn "Christianity is evil" t-shirts. And, with no controversy or strife, the whole thing would have been an event possibly noted but certainly not the focus of media attention.

Now the other side. The students who participated in this Day of Silence were in support of homosexuals not having to suffer bullying and harrassment. Here comes a bunch of Christians wearing shirts that declare, in no uncertain terms, that they consider the people who are being supported to be evil and worthy of damnation. THAT is likely to stir up some attention, where the simple fact of the Day of Silence itself would not.

So it seems that the disruptive part of this whole event was the protest against fair and equal treatment, not the call for equality. Yes, the t-shirts and the voices of those who wore them were the disruptive influence here, not the students who walked quietly down the halls.



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?

Again and again it has been explained to you that the reason the "Homosexuality is a sin" t-shirts were found to be disruptive was that they were preaching prejudice. A shirt that says "Homosexuality is not a sin" would be preaching AGAINST prejudice. This is not a double standard. In schools, it is against the rules to wear clothing that promotes hatred, prejudice etc. Claiming that one group of people is bad (sinful) IS PREJUDICE. The "Homosexuality is not a sin" shirt would not be claiming that any group of people is bad, just the opposite, in fact.

If the Christian students took that to mean "Christianity is bad" they would be extrapolating something that isn't there unless THEY put it there. If they found the anti-prejudice statement to be disruptive, it would only be because they wanted to proclaim and celebrate their prejudices, which they are free to do elsewhere, but not in school.

Or the way they dress, look, how smart they are, etc. No school environment is safe. There will always be bullies and they are not dealt with by school officials.So... You're saying that a school wouldn't stop a bunch of students from showing up in "Burn in Hell Corney!" T-shirts?

This surely sounds like being gay is a sin to me....
Homosexuality being sinful according to the bible is hardly a matter of debate, is it?
Why exactly are there three gay couples in the bible. One of them apparently a three-way?
That's a long shot. I don't think any translation of the bible actually states that these relations are homosexual. Loving same-sex relationships, yes, but not necessarily sexual. The Leviticus quotes do deal with sexuality.

In that case, I want a white history month, a day where christians can teach the bible in school without being silenced, a heterosexual day etc etc etc. After all, it doesn't affect anyone else.

no establishment of religion = no reading the bible during public school hours. Unless I missed the memo that says being gay is a religion, supporting gay rights is not establishing or endorcing a religion.

If you want to have a day of silence in support of heterosexual rights in a public school, then that's your perogative.

It is, however, disruptive to the mission of the institution, giving officials the right to restrict it.

But they have the same rights as everyone else. Come on, I'm offended by half the crap on TV. I do not go around complaining about it.

I will wear the t-shirts I want to wear if I were these kids. If that means bible messeges or whatever, that's fine. They have that right. It is not disruptive to anyone but those in minority who decide to take offense to it.

In that case, I want a white history month, a day where christians can teach the bible in school without being silenced, a heterosexual day etc etc etc. After all, it doesn't affect anyone else.

Well, those generally seem unnecesary as every other month is white history month, every other day is heterosexual day, and you can teach bible wherever you want off of school grounds, and maybe even in an elective class on religion.

In that case, I want a white history month,

The vast majority of history taught in schools is "white history". But, if you wanted something truly similar to Black History Month, you might use the month to discuss the mistreatment of certain white groups - the Irish come to mind. You could also highlight white civil rights leaders.

Unless, of course, the history you were looking to teach was more along the KKK faction..

a day where christians can teach the bible in school without being silenced,

That doesn't make much sense, as there isn't a day in which any religious doctrine can be taught in public schools. Religion, if it is discussed at all, has to be taught from a historical standpoint, regardless of religion.

a heterosexual day

Why? Is there a "homosexual day?"

IThey have that right.

no

they

do

not

They have the right to wear what the school deems is not disruptive. What the STUDENTS think is, or is not disruptive, is not relevant. People are hired to make that determination. They made it.

So because school officials are occassionally slow to respond to some issues they should therefore intentionally ignore all issues?

I dealt with bullies myself on the playground because the "supervisors" did absolutely nothing about them despite me continuously going to them about it. I wound up putting 2 of them on the seat of their pants crying. Needless to say, I didn't have a problem with bullies again.

And what about these people who carry guns to schools and shooting people because of all the crap they have received?

Seems to me that the problems are being ignored.

But they have the same rights as everyone else. Come on, I'm offended by half the crap on TV. I do not go around complaining about it.

I will wear the t-shirts I want to wear if I were these kids. If that means bible messeges or whatever, that's fine. They have that right. It is not disruptive to anyone but those in minority who decide to take offense to it.

Except TV is not in a school, prison or the military, place where free speech can be limited if it's disruptive. If you disrupt the purpose of these places, the officials have the right to restrict your speech.

So... You're saying that a school wouldn't stop a bunch of students from showing up in "Burn in Hell Corney!" T-shirts?

I would actually laugh at such shirts.

I dealt with bullies myself on the playground because the "supervisors" did absolutely nothing about them despite me continuously going to them about it. I wound up putting 2 of them on the seat of their pants crying. Needless to say, I didn't have a problem with bullies again.

And what about these people who carry guns to schools and shooting people because of all the crap they have received?

Seems to me that the problems are being ignored.

Nice segue into your life...the fact that you were bullied may explain something.

However you ignored my question so let me ask it again. If school officials are ignoring one aspect, for whatever reason, does it mean that they are therefore required to ignore all?

no establishment of religion = no reading the bible during public school hours. Unless I missed the memo that says being gay is a religion, supporting gay rights is not establishing or endorcing a religion.

Ok, you totally missed the point of what I'm saying. Not surprising really.

Homosexuality being sinful according to the bible is hardly a matter of debate, is it?

Yes, actually, it is. Try to keep up.

That's a long shot. I don't think any translation of the bible actually states that these relations are homosexual. Loving same-sex relationships, yes, but not necessarily sexual.

In that case, loving same sex relationships are obviously ok. Now, why can't homosexuals express that love in the same way as heterosexuals?

The Leviticus quotes do deal with sexuality.

No, they don't. At most, they deal with sex, which is not the same thing as sexuality.

But they have the same rights as everyone else.

Indeed. And since others who wore protest t-shirts (against Christianity, no less) were treated exactly the same....

Come on, I'm offended by half the crap on TV. I do not go around complaining about it.

Are you forced to watch TV? What if someone in your workplace decided to bring in a TV and broadcast all of the things there that offend you? Would that be ok?

Well, those generally seem unnecesary as every other month is white history month, every other day is heterosexual day, and you can teach bible wherever you want off of school grounds, and maybe even in an elective class on religion.

Off school grounds. That's the key phrase. I want it on school grounds. After all, it isn't going to hurt anyone.

Ok, you totally missed the point of what I'm saying. Not surprising really.

not in the slightest. You said that these events, when they are allowed, should allow the things you stated, including reading the bible in class.

Show me where any gay rights movements were permitted to read the bible in class, and I will therefore argue that you should be to. however, since you can't, you can not logically argue that they are "the same thing".

no

they

do

not

They have the right to wear what the school deems is not disruptive. What the STUDENTS think is, or is not disruptive, is not relevant. People are hired to make that determination. They made it.

And how is it disruptive? It only becomes disruptive if you call attention to it. You have the full right to ignore it. People get offended at the littlest of things in this day in age.

Off school grounds. That's the key phrase. I want it on school grounds. After all, it isn't going to hurt anyone.

Maybe it won't, maybe it will, but it clearly would violate the 1st Amendment.

You want Bible classes in schools? Get out of the public schools and start a parochial school.

Off school grounds. That's the key phrase. I want it on school grounds. After all, it isn't going to hurt anyone.

Well, you'd need permission (time, place, and manner) and you'd have to not disrupt the educational process.

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 haven't had a chance to post this (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/drlaura.htm) in ages:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to best follow them.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

So Germania, are you a real Christian or just a 'pick and choose' Christian?

Except TV is not in a school, prison or the military, place where free speech can be limited if it's disruptive. If you disrupt the purpose of these places, the officials have the right to restrict your speech.

It becomes offensive to those who decide to take offense to it because that is society today. I ignore things that I consider offensive and do not call attention to it.

And how is it disruptive? It only becomes disruptive if you call attention to it. You have the full right to ignore it. People get offended at the littlest of things in this day in age.

The same way "Kill Niggers" spray-painted on a wall is disruptive. And the officials deemed these shirts disruptive, thus it's completely within their rights to restrict them.

Off school grounds. That's the key phrase. I want it on school grounds. After all, it isn't going to hurt anyone.

Your mixing your issues. The US Constitution limits many things for many reasons. Reading the bible may not be disruptive, and perhaps may not be bannable for that reason.

However it's STILL an endorcement of religion, and therefore STILL banned.

Your brain controls your breathing. It also controls your heart rate. If you decide to hold your breath your brain doesn't stop working. It has other functions that keep plugging right along away.

Reading the bible may, or may not be disruptive. It's irrelevant since it's still not permissable due to the establishment of religion clause.

But they have the same rights as everyone else. Come on, I'm offended by half the crap on TV. I do not go around complaining about it.

I will wear the t-shirts I want to wear if I were these kids. If that means bible messeges or whatever, that's fine. They have that right. It is not disruptive to anyone but those in minority who decide to take offense to it.

WHO has the same rights as everyone else? Surely you do not mean homosexuals. We can do another 87,000 posts here about gay marriage alone and show how homosexuals do not have the same rights as everyone else.

However, when you are speaking of the rights of students to say or promote prejudice against other students, then no, they do not have the same rights. Schools can and do restrict those rights in order to protect all of their students and give them all the best possible learning environment. What you see on TV has no bearing on that, as TV does not have those restrictions. If the Christian students had worn their t-shirts outside of school and around town, they would have been well within their rights. But not at school.

Nice segue into your life...the fact that you were bullied may explain something.

However you ignored my question so let me ask it again. If school officials are ignoring one aspect, for whatever reason, does it mean that they are therefore required to ignore all?

They shouldn't be ignoring anything. They are responsible for what happens in the school during the day. Frankly, I would not have punished the students wearing those T-shirts and tell those who were offended to grow up and not let the little things get to them. There's more to worry about than this.

It becomes offensive to those who decide to take offense to it because that is society today. I ignore things that I consider offensive and do not call attention to it.

*shrug* Unfortunately, not everyone is so fine tuned for such selectiveness. You have every right to ignore things, officials have every right to restrict disruptive speech.

Indeed. And since others who wore protest t-shirts (against Christianity, no less) were treated exactly the same....

And I would have let that go to for the same reasons I have stated before.

Are you forced to watch TV? What if someone in your workplace decided to bring in a TV and broadcast all of the things there that offend you? Would that be ok?

I do not watch much TV anymore because 90% of what is on, is class A stupid or violates my beliefs. Only thing I watch these days is sports and the weather.

Yes, actually, it is. Try to keep up.
In general, it isn't. In General, everything is a matter of debate. ;)

In that case, loving same sex relationships are obviously ok. Now, why can't homosexuals express that love in the same way as heterosexuals?
Woah. I'm with the silent day people. They can. I agree. You're right. I never said otherwise. Cool it.

No, they don't. At most, they deal with sex, which is not the same thing as sexuality.
I disagree. Sex is an expression of sexuality. But it's not worth the rant, thank you.

Maybe it won't, maybe it will, but it clearly would violate the 1st Amendment.

You want Bible classes in schools? Get out of the public schools and start a parochial school.

If schools are supposed to teach tolerance then why can't they tolerate a little Christianity?

Well, you'd need permission (time, place, and manner) and you'd have to not disrupt the educational process.

It wouldn't. Just like these t-shirts (both for and against Christianity) didn't disrupt the educational process.

But they have the same rights as everyone else. Come on, I'm offended by half the crap on TV. I do not go around complaining about it.Freedom of association. School kids can't just up & walk, when classmates have a go at them. You can simply turn off the TV, or not buy one in the first place. Schoolkids aren't so fortunate.I will wear the t-shirts I want to wear if I were these kids. If that means bible messeges or whatever, that's fine. They have that right. It is not disruptive to anyone but those in minority who decide to take offense to it.I actually agree with you. In my opinion it's the school's responsibility that the kids are able to participate in school activities, and aren't threatned.

I don't see how protests, support rallies, slogans or clothes impact on that. If it was my school, I'd be overjoyed the kids actually took a stand on some issues & learned a few lessons about communicating, intolerance & such

It's not my school, however. Whomever runs it, obviously feel they won't risk subjecting kids to a hatefilled environment against their will.

It wouldn't. Just like these t-shirts (both for and against Christianity) didn't disrupt the educational process.

Fortunately, that's not for you to determine.

The same way "Kill Niggers" spray-painted on a wall is disruptive. And the officials deemed these shirts disruptive, thus it's completely within their rights to restrict them.

Ah dude, I have seen and heard racial slurs most of my life. I ignore all of it.

If schools are supposed to teach tolerance then why can't they tolerate a little Christianity?

Because of the 1st amendment, which has been interpreted to mean that teaching bible in classrooms is endorcing a religion.

You want to read it to yourself? more power to you. Read it outloud? OK. Read it at the top of your lunges, that's disruptive, and should be limited not because it's the bible, but because you're freaking yelling in school.

Ah dude, I have seen and heard racial slurs most of my life. I ignore all of it.

So would someone spraypainting "kill niggers" on a school wall be ok? Yes or no?

If schools are supposed to teach tolerance then why can't they tolerate a little Christianity?

I imagine they could...along with some Judaism, and Hinduism, and Islam, and Sikhism. All in a religious education class....that was elective.

Ah dude, I have seen and heard racial slurs most of my life. I ignore all of it.

*shrug* Should I care? Officials can restrict it.

Your mixing your issues. The US Constitution limits many things for many reasons. Reading the bible may not be disruptive, and perhaps may not be bannable for that reason.

However it's STILL an endorcement of religion, and therefore STILL banned.

So tell me what religion I'm endorsing? You know how many religions there are out there? I could name several off the top of my head so tell me what religion I'm endorsing?

Your brain controls your breathing. It also controls your heart rate. If you decide to hold your breath your brain doesn't stop working. It has other functions that keep plugging right along away.

thanks for the science lesson :rolleys:

Reading the bible may, or may not be disruptive. It's irrelevant since it's still not permissable due to the establishment of religion clause.

I read my bible in a class room before class at a public university. I have not been suspended. I read it over lunch and I have it out in plain site everywhere I go. I have not been suspended.

*shrug* Unfortunately, not everyone is so fine tuned for such selectiveness. You have every right to ignore things, officials have every right to restrict disruptive speech.

They also have the right to tell the people complaining to grow a spine.

They also have the right to tell the people complaining to grow a spine.

And they decided to use restriction instead.

So tell me what religion I'm endorsing? You know how many religions there are out there? I could name several off the top of my head so tell me what religion I'm endorsing?



thanks for the science lesson :rolleys:



I read my bible in a class room before class at a public university. I have not been suspended. I read it over lunch and I have it out in plain site everywhere I go. I have not been suspended.

I imagine that if you are reading a christian bible to students it would be endorcing a christian faith.

YOU can read your bible anywhere you want. I dont think even a public highschool can prevent you from carrying a book. They can't stop you from reading it, however they can stop you from using it to create a disruption. See the difference?

Fortunately, that's not for you to determine.

call it my protest against the institution and being over 18....

Homosexuality being sinful according to the bible is hardly a matter of debate, is it?

That's a long shot. I don't think any translation of the bible actually states that these relations are homosexual. Loving same-sex relationships, yes, but not necessarily sexual. The Leviticus quotes do deal with sexuality.

Well when two men get naked and kiss, tend to think that's a little GAY

They also have the right to tell the people complaining to grow a spine.


Yeah well...they didn't. They chose to suspend the other students instead. Doing otherwise would suggest it's ok to violate school rules, as long as you're christian, wouldn't it?

So would someone spraypainting "kill niggers" on a school wall be ok? Yes or no?

To me, I wouldn't care one way or the other. I think they need to have their heads examined but meh.

So tell me what religion I'm endorsing? You know how many religions there are out there? I could name several off the top of my head so tell me what religion I'm endorsing?

I'm guessing....the one that is based on the bible?

I read my bible in a class room before class at a public university. I have not been suspended. I read it over lunch and I have it out in plain site everywhere I go. I have not been suspended.

I heard before class and during lunch. Where exactly was this happening during the educational process?

call it my protest against the institution and being over 18....

You're also not in public highschool. To remain in highschool at the age of 18 or beyond is agreeing to their rules. Someone at the age of majority could leave any time, chosing not to is accepting of those rules.

And they decided to use restriction instead.

Babies that they are.

call it my protest against the institution and being over 18....

*shrug* Fine, but that doesn't make it your right.

To me, I wouldn't care one way or the other. I think they need to have their heads examined but meh.

Well at least you're not a hypocrite. you may be a freaking loon who should never be allowed in polite society...but not a hypocrite

I imagine that if you are reading a christian bible to students it would be endorcing a christian faith.

YOU can read your bible anywhere you want. I dont think even a public highschool can prevent you from carrying a book. They can't stop you from reading it, however they can stop you from using it to create a disruption. See the difference?

I would speak it out loud if given the opportunity. They will not be able to silence my voice.

Babies that they are.

If you want to insult the school officials, I guess you could find their contacts on a school website of some sort, otherwise I'm not sure what this has to do with any of us.

Babies that they are.


Cause how dare school officials actually prevent something that disrupts the purpose of the school.

Bastards!

Yeah well...they didn't. They chose to suspend the other students instead. Doing otherwise would suggest it's ok to violate school rules, as long as you're christian, wouldn't it?

If you bothered to read what I have been typing, I would have allowed those wearing Anti-Christian shirts to stay in school as well. :gasp:

I would speak it out loud if given the opportunity. They will not be able to silence my voice.

*shrug* Unless they bind and gag you, I'd imagine not. Still have the right to restrict you though.

And I would have let that go to for the same reasons I have stated before.

So you would be consistent. Good.

So were they.

I do not watch much TV anymore because 90% of what is on, is class A stupid or violates my beliefs. Only thing I watch these days is sports and the weather.

That doesn't answer my question, although it would lead me to believe that you are not legally required to watch TV or to stay in a room where one is on.....


In general, it isn't. In General, everything is a matter of debate.

I've seen the same debate outside of NS. Even outside of the internet. At a Southern Baptist-afflilated school, no less....

I disagree. Sex is an expression of sexuality. But it's not worth the rant, thank you.

Not necessarily. A homosexual man can have sex with a woman. That doesn't make him heterosexual. It means he had sex with a woman. Unless he was actually attracted to her, there is no reason to believe that he is either hetero- or bisexual.


If schools are supposed to teach tolerance then why can't they tolerate a little Christianity?

No one is being intolerant of Christianity. There is a rather large difference between being tolerant of something and actively teaching it.


It wouldn't. Just like these t-shirts (both for and against Christianity) didn't disrupt the educational process.

That is an opinion. For the most part, I agree with you. But that's why we have elected and appointed shcool officials - to make these decisions. When we disagree with them we can take action to reverse them....

So tell me what religion I'm endorsing?

Suggesting Bible classes in school? You're pretty obviously endorsing Christianity, or maybe Judaism if you restrict it to the OT.

I read my bible in a class room before class at a public university. I have not been suspended. I read it over lunch and I have it out in plain site everywhere I go. I have not been suspended.

No one is arguing that a student cannot, on their own time at schoo, read the Bible. It simply cannot be taught in the classroom.

If you bothered to read what I have been typing, I would have allowed those wearing Anti-Christian shirts to stay in school as well. :gasp:

Which is why I'd rather you not be on a school board.

I'm guessing....the one that is based on the bible?

*points back to the original question*

You're also not in public highschool. To remain in highschool at the age of 18 or beyond is agreeing to their rules. Someone at the age of majority could leave any time, chosing not to is accepting of those rules.

If I was in highschool, I'd still do wear what I wanted to wear and say what i want to say.

Well when two men get naked and kiss, tend to think that's a little GAY
Sure. But not sexual. Let alone homosexual. Read. All I was saying is you won't succeed in pointing out to most christians that homosexuality is ok according to the bible. I'm not one of them. I don't agree with them. I was making a point. There's no gay sex in the bible. Don't for the sake of argument pretend there is.

*points back to the original question*

You were specifically mentioning reading the bible. I'd assume you'd be endorsing the one based on the bible, and I'm sure you know what that is.

I would speak it out loud if given the opportunity. They will not be able to silence my voice.

Once again, because you don't seem to get it.

If it's a public highschool...yes, they can. They can stop you from doing ANYTHING they reasonably deem to be disruptive to the school.

They can have the nice policemen escort you right the hell out if they want to. An individual in highschool does NOT have an unqualified right to free speech, by law. The sooner you accept that fact the better off you'll be. You do NOT have the right to be disruptive in public highschool, nor is it YOUR job to determine what is disruptive. By LAW (which cares nothing about your opinion) the school adminstrators have the right and power to deem your actions disruptive and take affirmative means to stop them.

So yeah, why they can't SILENCE you, they can sure as hell make sure you're not doing it on school grounds.

Much the same they can't STOP the kids from wearing the shirts EVER, but they can stop them from doing it on school grounds.

*shrug* Fine, but that doesn't make it your right.

Doesn't make what the school did right either.

If I was in highschool, I'd still do wear what I wanted to wear and say what i want to say.

And officials could still restrict it. You trying to make a point here?

If I was in highschool, I'd still do wear what I wanted to wear and say what i want to say.

And they would remove you for doing anything that they determined disruptive, as is their right.

What part of that don't ya get?

Cause how dare school officials actually prevent something that disrupts the purpose of the school.

Bastards!

How was it disrupting? It wasn't but then again, I never expect the schools to find their collective butts if they were handed a map. No wonder our schools are so messed up when we are afraid of offending people instead of actually teaching real subjects.

Doesn't make what the school did right either.

Still constitutional, don't start mixing up 'your rights', and 'what is right'.

If schools are supposed to teach tolerance then why can't they tolerate a little Christianity?

Tolerance : n.
The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

Christianity : n.
The Christian religion


I guess the answer is that teaching one of these things in a public school violates the US Constitution and the other does not. And before you ask "recognizing and respecting the beliefs of" Christians does not mean learning those beliefs in class. Christians are tolerated just fine. I don't recall hearing about any Christians being bullied and beaten up recently because they are Christian. I have never heard about Christians in this country being told they cannot go to school with non-Christians. I am sure that no one has ever told a Christian that they were not allowed to marry another Christian (well, ok... except for Christian homosexuals, but the reason there is not BECAUSE they are CHRISTIAN).

*shrug* Unless they bind and gag you, I'd imagine not. Still have the right to restrict you though.

Bind and gag huh? That'll be a violation of the US Federal Law. They can try but it wouldn't do them any good.

How was it disrupting? It wasn't but then again, I never expect the schools to find their collective butts if they were handed a map. No wonder our schools are so messed up when we are afraid of offending people instead of actually teaching real subjects.

Obviously you wouldn't think it disruptive, but you're not in charge. Rational and compassionate people usually are.

How so? Being quiet is a disruption?

Please read the whole post before commenting on a part of it. Allowing the "Day of Silence" is disruptive in a number of ways:

1. It is an invitation for antigay groups to counter protest. This will happen, it has happened before, and it will happen again, unless all these demonstartions are dissallowed.

2. Learning is predicated on active student involvement, a student who refuses to interact with the class is not only hurting his own education but the education of everyone in the class. Many classrooms are now set up to hinge on group discussions, open class discussions and the like. The refusal to speak is contrary to the constructivist and behaviorists view of learning.


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.

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (read this verse here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=6&verse=8&end_verse=10&version=31&context=context))

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?

Please see response above.



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

Homophobic, lets break apart this word....

Homo - Same

Phobic - Fear

Fear of the same, though in a more contextual light it means fear of homosexuality. Anti simply means against and implies no fear.


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

Then read the Bible.

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

No I wouldn't.

Bind and gag huh? That'll be a violation of the US Federal Law. They can try but it wouldn't do them any good.

Exactly, which is why they can't literally stop you from talking. However, they have the right to restrict your speech.

And officials could still restrict it. You trying to make a point here?

That I would still do what is necessary to have all sides heard.

Still constitutional, don't start mixing up 'your rights', and 'what is right'.

My rights come from the Constitution of the United States.

Tolerance = bad
Intolerance = good
Bigotry = bad

Tolerance is saying that even though something may be wrong, you will allow it.

Intolerance is saying that something is wrong and trying to change minds, opinions, policies, etc. though not forcing things to change.

Bigotry is saying somethings wrong and attempting to force things to change.

The gays, lesbians, etc. are intolerant of homophobia. Okay, so am I. But if they are intolerant of this wrong thing (homophobia), then they ought to understand that certain persons are intolerant of what they view to be a wrong thing (homosexuality).

Also, if someone can express his/her intolerance on one side, why ought others not be allowed to express their intolerance because they are on the other side?

There is always the matter of what is proper (not always the same as what is right). I'm not sure if it is proper for those students to have worn those shirts. But the idea that they are intolerant is completely correct. Just as the administration of the school was intolerant.

Obviously you wouldn't think it disruptive, but you're not in charge. Rational and compassionate people usually are.

LOL! If you actually believe that then apparently you do not know the state of this planet has irrational and uncompassionate people in charge of many different nations. :D

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.

For one, school is a place for learning. However it's been documented over and over that homophobia-- that is, a social environment that is hostile towards gays-- is an impediment to the learning of gay youths. Which makes homophobia in schools an educational issue, because it's impairing gay students' rights to feel safe in their schools.
As for "tolerance" not going both ways, the Day of Silence is an inobtrusive activity where those who oppose homophobia go the day without speaking, representative of the way that gay youths feel silenced. This, in itself, doesn't attack or condemn any particular group (such as Christians) so much as it protests a form of discrimination. It does no harm to anyone, and so it is a defensible or "tolerable" action. The counter-demonstration that took place-- "Christians" denouncing gays-- shouldn't be tolerated because besides the fact that it directly attacked gay youths' senses of security and self-esteem (anti-gay slogans on t-shirts), it would still have been an indirect attack against them because to denounce a demonstration that is against discrimination and oppression is to tacitly endorse said discrimination and oppression. The Day of Silence participants were acting in the spirit of 'tolerance' by saying "victimising gay youths is wrong," and by opposing that message (as well as by directly impuning gay people) the counter-protesters were demonstrating intolerance.
Promoting "tolerance" doesn't mean that you're obligated to accept bigotry as equally valid. Just the opposite; If your society says "tolerance is a social virtue," that doesn't mean that we have to tolerate the intolerant. The homophobes can't say "because you endorse equality you have to accept as equal my belief that gay people are not equal." Any intro logic or philosophy course will tell you that, a thing cannot be and not-be simultaneously, and you can't hide behind a value that you oppose.

Incidentally, "tolerance" is such a lousy word, really, in this context. I hate when people talk about "tolerance" for gay people. Tolerate is what you do to something when you have no choice, when you wish it was gone but you can't eradicate it. You "tolerate" a rash or the bad taste of medicine or a broken leg when you have no choice but to walk to the hospital. Disenfranchised people need acceptance, not tolerance.

That I would still do what is necessary to have all sides heard.

Well, good for you. That has nothing to do with this, considering what you do on school grouns can still be restricted. Is there some reason I should care whether you'd do it or not? You're not changing anything about how free speech works.

LOL! If you actually believe that then apparently you do not know the state of this planet has irrational and uncompassionate people in charge of many different nations. :D

I meant in charge of schools, not countries.

My rights come from the Constitution of the United States.

Not this time. Free Speech is not absolute, and can be restricted in many ways.

Tolerance = bad
Intolerance = good
Bigotry = bad

Tolerance is saying that even though something may be wrong, you will allow it.

Intolerance is saying that something is wrong and trying to change minds, opinions, policies, etc. though not forcing things to change.

Bigotry is saying somethings wrong and attempting to force things to change.

The gays, lesbians, etc. are intolerant of homophobia. Okay, so am I. But if they are intolerant of this wrong thing (homophobia), then they ought to understand that certain persons are intolerant of what they view to be a wrong thing (homosexuality).

Also, if someone can express his/her intolerance on one side, why ought others not be allowed to express their intolerance because they are on the other side?

There is always the matter of what is proper (not always the same as what is right). I'm not sure if it is proper for those students to have worn those shirts. But the idea that they are intolerant is completely correct. Just as the administration of the school was intolerant.

Well said Vellia.

Please read the whole post before commenting on a part of it. Allowing the "Day of Silence" is disruptive in a number of ways:

1. It is an invitation for antigay groups to counter protest. This will happen, it has happened before, and it will happen again, unless all these demonstartions are dissallowed.

So? As long as their mode of protest is not, in and of itself, disruptive, they can do it all they want.

2. Learning is predicated on active student involvement, a student who refuses to interact with the class is not only hurting his own education but the education of everyone in the class. Many classrooms are now set up to hinge on group discussions, open class discussions and the like. The refusal to speak is contrary to the constructivist and behaviorists view of learning.

Maybe you should read before posting. Students did not refrain from participating in class discussions. When class or a teacher or administrator necessitated it, students would speak. What they *didn't* do was speak in the hallways between classes, or to friends, or at lunch, or out of turn in class...

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (read this verse here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=6&verse=8&end_verse=10&version=31&context=context))

The word translated here as "homosexual offenders" has been translated in numerous ways, not all of which have to do with homosexuality. Not to mention that I believe Christ is the arbiter of proper Christian thought. Paul, like any preacher, is fallible.

Homophobic, lets break apart this word....

Homo - Same

Phobic - Fear

Fear of the same, though in a more contextual light it means fear of homosexuality. Anti simply means against and implies no fear.

Wrong again. This has already been discussed. Maybe you should read up in the thread.

The suffix -phobia *can* mean fear, but can also mean intolerance or aversion for, as in hydrophobia.

Then read the Bible.

I do.

No I wouldn't.

Ok, I don't know how you can back that up.... But at least you're somewhat consistent.

Well, good for you. That has nothing to do with this, considering what you do on school grouns can still be restricted. Is there some reason I should care whether you'd do it or not? You're not changing anything about how free speech works.

Actually it has everything to do with it.

I would speak it out loud if given the opportunity. They will not be able to silence my voice.The problem is how far people can be allowed to take their shit, when their peers can't simply walk away or respond freely.

For example, if you started reading the bible to me, in highschool, would it OK if I responded by reading from God & The State using a megaphone?

Would our inane behaviour at some point start annoying our peers, or possibly impede their ability to follow school activities?

I agree with your "People should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want" mentality, but the problem is that people can't do whatever they want in highschool. They're forced to show up & follow school activities. They can't just stay home, and they can't simply shut someone up - becauuse that'd interfere with that person's ability to follow school activities.

I would speak it out loud if given the opportunity. They will not be able to silence my voice.

Nobody wants to silence your voice. Or the voices of the Christian students. The operative thing here, however is "given the opportunity". There are plenty of places where it is appropriate for you, and them, to express opinions, no matter how prejudiced they may be. In school, however, is not the place.

If you read your bible quietly to yourself DURING class, that is your choice. If you read it aloud and/or use it to disrupt the class, it ceases to be "the opportunity" and becomes a violation of the rules.

Not this time. Free Speech is not absolute, and can be restricted in many ways.

For once, I'll agree with you.

Actually it has everything to do with it.

Not really. I could, physically, go and kill someone. It's legal now?

They shouldn't be ignoring anything. They are responsible for what happens in the school during the day. Frankly, I would not have punished the students wearing those T-shirts and tell those who were offended to grow up and not let the little things get to them. There's more to worry about than this.

What was your stance on the Phelps crowd who protested at soldiers' funerals again?

Just curious.

Not really. I could, physically, go and kill someone. It's legal now?

Physically killing someone violated the Laws of all 50 States as well as Federal law.

The only way you can get away with that is if it was indeed, self-defense.

What was your stance on the Phelps crowd who protested at soldiers' funerals again?

that is a totally different issue.

Not sure all of whats gone down in this thread since I just got here. But just from seeing the situation I think its way past wrong. These kids got suspended for wearing a t-shirt that said that homosexuality is a sin because it was disrupting. Well whos to say things such as happy bunny t-shirts that call everyone stupid are not disrupting? Or budweiser shirts. People can find anything to be disrupting no matter what it is. Some times you just have to ignore it. I would say the same is true with homosexuals. If they want to be treated like everyone else they need to take critisism like everyone else. I am a christian. And for that I take alot of heat in school, and sports. I see t-shirts all the time calling christians names I dont care to mention, and bashing things like that. I havent hired a lawyer so far. I am a conservative and I support Bush in most issues except the border. But thats another issue. When I see anti bush bumper stickers I dont hire a lawyer and say my rights are being trampled on. I dont care if you are a minority or not. You need to be able to take more opinions than your own. And I know what it is to be a minority. I am 75% jewish so I look middle eastern. I get crap for that too. In my opinion (Sorry if it pisses you off) the homosexuals need to grow up just like the black people, the mexicans, the middle easterns, Chirstians, muslims, and anyone else who thinks they are being treated unfair do. They have the right to express their opinion, but so do christians. If they want to wear anti-christian shirts they can do that. I wont care. But if they want to exercise a right they better let me exercise it too!

NN

Physically killing someone violated the Laws of all 50 States as well as Federal law.

The only way you can get away with that is if it was indeed, self-defense.

Soo...Whether or not I would do it...has nothing to do with my rights?

Well whos to say things such as happy bunny t-shirts that call everyone stupid are not disrupting?

School officials.

Not sure all of whats gone down in this thread since I just got here. But just from seeing the situation I think its way past wrong. These kids got suspended for wearing a t-shirt that said that homosexuality is a sin because it was disrupting. Well whos to say things such as happy bunny t-shirts that call everyone stupid are not disrupting? Or budweiser shirts. People can find anything to be disrupting no matter what it is. Some times you just have to ignore it. I would say the same is true with homosexuals. If they want to be treated like everyone else they need to take critisism like everyone else. I am a christian. And for that I take alot of heat in school, and sports. I see t-shirts all the time calling christians names I dont care to mention, and bashing things like that. I havent hired a lawyer so far. I am a conservative and I support Bush in most issues except the border. But thats another issue. When I see anti bush bumper stickers I dont hire a lawyer and say my rights are being trampled on. I dont care if you are a minority or not. You need to be able to take more opinions than your own. And I know what it is to be a minority. I am 75% jewish so I look middle eastern. I get crap for that too. In my opinion (Sorry if it pisses you off) the homosexuals need to grow up just like the black people, the mexicans, the middle easterns, and anyone else who thinks they are being treated unfair do. They have the right to express their opinion, but so do christians. If they want to wear anti-christian shirts they can do that. I wont care. But if they want to exercise a right they better let me exercise it too!

NN

Your rant would make sense, if anyone had worn anti-Christian t-shirts and not received the same treatment these students did.

The students were treated completley equally. While we may not agree with the policies, there was no inequality here.

Well said Vellia.

Thank you.

Although I, myself, think the idea is a good one, and I approve of homosexual rights and all that jazz, I think it's rediculous that the school district makes the gay bashing kids take off their shirt, and suspend them if they don't. Although I don't agree with their opinions, they have every right in the world to voice them.

Although I, myself, think the idea is a good one, and I approve of homosexual rights and all that jazz, I think it's rediculous that the school district makes the gay bashing kids take off their shirt, and suspend them if they don't. Although I don't agree with their opinions, they have every right in the world to voice them.

Not in school they don't.

Homophobic, lets break apart this word....

Homo - Same

Phobic - Fear

Fear of the same, though in a more contextual light it means fear of homosexuality. Anti simply means against and implies no fear.Phobia: A strong fear, dislike, or aversion...

So, would you say that calling the Orthodox christian aversion to homosexuals isn't an aversion?
Interestingly, phobias are irrational. Would you say that the basis of the Biblical aversion to homosexuals is a rational one?

Please read the whole post before commenting on a part of it. Allowing the "Day of Silence" is disruptive in a number of ways:

1. It is an invitation for antigay groups to counter protest. This will happen, it has happened before, and it will happen again, unless all these demonstartions are dissallowed.

2. Learning is predicated on active student involvement, a student who refuses to interact with the class is not only hurting his own education but the education of everyone in the class. Many classrooms are now set up to hinge on group discussions, open class discussions and the like. The refusal to speak is contrary to the constructivist and behaviorists view of learning.


1. An invitation to counter protest? Asking for equal treatment in a quiet and respectful way should not be allowed because the folks who are against equal treatment might get upset about it? Let's rethink that objection, shall we?

2. As has been mentioned several times, the students did NOT refuse to interact in class, they simply did not speak anywhere else. This objection does not apply.



Homophobic, lets break apart this word....

Homo - Same

Phobic - Fear

Fear of the same, though in a more contextual light it means fear of homosexuality. Anti simply means against and implies no fear.


This has been dealt with repeatedly during this thread. Homophobia, based on common understood usage, is better defined as a prejudice against homosexuals and homosexuality.

So anti-homophobia would mean against homosexual prejudice, much as anti-racism would mean against racial prejudice.

Please read the whole post before commenting on a part of it. Allowing the "Day of Silence" is disruptive in a number of ways:

1. It is an invitation for antigay groups to counter protest. This will happen, it has happened before, and it will happen again, unless all these demonstartions are dissallowed.

2. Learning is predicated on active student involvement, a student who refuses to interact with the class is not only hurting his own education but the education of everyone in the class. Many classrooms are now set up to hinge on group discussions, open class discussions and the like. The refusal to speak is contrary to the constructivist and behaviorists view of learning.


Regarding 1.: This smacks of "blaming the victim." If a peaceful demonstration's disruption to the complacency or willful denial of a social injustice's perpetrators, then you could as easily argue that Martin Luthor King deserved to be assassinated because he "provoked it." The fact that Person A would rather go on discriminating against and socially marginalising Person B does not give Person A liscence to spew hatred or turn the water cannons on Person B in response to a peaceful demonstration, the message of which is "please stop spewing hate and turning your water cannons on me."

Regarding 2.: If the silence of several students for one day out of the year is "disruptive" and wrong, then the silence of a smaller number of students day after day-- as a result of their being made to feel inferior by their homophobic classmates-- must also be regarded as "disruptive" and wrong. To the everyday-silent student at the least, and to the entire class at the most. Is it defensible every other day as long as it's "just" the gay students, and only indefensible when their straight supporters go silent as well to protest the mistreatment of their peers? If you value the participation of every student in order to foster a healthy learning environment, then you ought to feel a *duty* to support a protest that spends one day trying to correct an everyday indignity.

Not sure all of whats gone down in this thread since I just got here. But just from seeing the situation I think its way past wrong. These kids got suspended for wearing a t-shirt that said that homosexuality is a sin because it was disrupting. Well whos to say things such as happy bunny t-shirts that call everyone stupid are not disrupting? Or budweiser shirts. People can find anything to be disrupting no matter what it is. Some times you just have to ignore it. I would say the same is true with homosexuals. If they want to be treated like everyone else they need to take critisism like everyone else. I am a christian. And for that I take alot of heat in school, and sports. I see t-shirts all the time calling christians names I dont care to mention, and bashing things like that. I havent hired a lawyer so far. I am a conservative and I support Bush in most issues except the border. But thats another issue. When I see anti bush bumper stickers I dont hire a lawyer and say my rights are being trampled on. I dont care if you are a minority or not. You need to be able to take more opinions than your own. And I know what it is to be a minority. I am 75% jewish so I look middle eastern. I get crap for that too. In my opinion (Sorry if it pisses you off) the homosexuals need to grow up just like the black people, the mexicans, the middle easterns, Chirstians, muslims, and anyone else who thinks they are being treated unfair do. They have the right to express their opinion, but so do christians. If they want to wear anti-christian shirts they can do that. I wont care. But if they want to exercise a right they better let me exercise it too!

NN

Alot of things I've been saying. Well said and welcome to the boards my Brother in Christ :)

Not in school they don't.

Then why did they allow the day of silence? Its the same thing as wearing a Christian T-Shirt?

Not in school they don't.

Except that everything ever stated has been an opinion!

It's my opinion that water's wet. Does the fact that it's my opinion bring that idea into doubt? Of course not! But if I believe that water is wet, then it's my belief and my opinion. Everything stated in schools is an opinion!

Now if everything said in schools is an opinion, and schools are used to "edcuate" the younger generations about the world (I'm referring to high schools), then why ought students not be allowed to voice their opinions? Because some persons might be offended and even fewer actually are.

It doesn't matter if the idea-opinion-belief that I was spawned from some slop a billion years ago offends me. That idea is popular now. So it must be fact. The idea that homosexuals, bisexuals etc. are oppressed is popular now (no matter how many persons claim it's not). So it must be a fact.

And if it is a fact, then we must expose our students to it. Of course it's controversial, so we call it exposing our students to different lifestyles or to different ideas etc. But it doesn't matter that I have an idea. It might offend someone. Which translates to: "You don't folow the opinions-ideas-beliefs we think you ought to." Therefore, every day I am punished. Not necessarily by the administration, but by the society as well.

Then why did they allow the day of silence? Its the same thing as wearing a Christian T-Shirt?

No, it's not. Something similar would be wearing a T-shirt that was pro-christian. Chances are officials wouldn't have deemed that disruptive. These shirts where specifically anti-gay.

Except that everything ever stated has been an opinion!

It's my opinion that water's wet. Does the fact that it's my opinion bring that idea into doubt? Of course not! But if I believe that water is wet, then it's my belief and my opinion. Everything stated in schools is an opinion!

Now if everything said in schools is an opinion, and schools are used to "edcuate" the younger generations about the world (I'm referring to high schools), then why ought students not be allowed to voice their opinions? Because some persons might be offended and even fewer actually are.

It doesn't matter if the idea-opinion-belief that I was spawned from some slop a billion years ago offends me. That idea is popular now. So it must be fact. The idea that homosexuals, bisexuals etc. are oppressed is popular now (no matter how many persons claim it's not). So it must be a fact.

And if it is a fact, then we must expose our students to it. Of course it's controversial, so we call it exposing our students to different lifestyles or to different ideas etc. But it doesn't matter that I have an idea. It might offend someone. Which translates to: "You don't folow the opinions-ideas-beliefs we think you ought to." Therefore, every day I am punished. Not necessarily by the administration, but by the society as well.

Hear Hear.

*snip*

Didn't read it, probably missed the point anyways. School officials can restrict free speech on school grounds if it disrupts the mission of the school. Not every opinion is deemed disruptive.

No, it's not. Something similar would be wearing a T-shirt that was pro-christian. Chances are officials wouldn't have deemed that disruptive. These shirts where specifically anti-gay.

No it is really the same thing as having a day of silence is disruptive to the educational necessities.

Phobia: A strong fear, dislike, or aversion...

So, would you say that calling the Orthodox christian aversion to homosexuals isn't an aversion?
Interestingly, phobias are irrational. Would you say that the basis of the Biblical aversion to homosexuals is a rational one?

Again, someone equates homosexual with homosexuality!

And again, someone equates the claim to be a Christian with actually being one!

If someone says he or she is a Christian, interrogate him or her. If that person doesn't hold basic beliefs (like he or she doesn't agree with the Apostle's Creed or doesn't understand all of it) then he or she isn't an orthodox Christian.

Most true Christians affirm that overused saying: Love the sinner; hate the sin.

No it is really the same thing as having a day of silence is disruptive to the educational necessities.

The day of silence was not disruptive.

Then why did they allow the day of silence? Its the same thing as wearing a Christian T-Shirt?


No, it absolutely is not!

The Day of Silence said "we are against discrimination".

The t-shirts said "we discrimintate against...".

The two are diametrically opposed.

The day of silence was not disruptive.

Prove it!

No, it absolutely is not!

The Day of Silence said "we are against discrimination".

The t-shirts said "we discrimintate against...".

The two are diametrically opposed.

I believe homosexuality is sinful however, I do not discriminate. So tell me, do you believe that they are discriminate when you do not know anything about them? Yes it is precisely the samething as it caused this ruckus.

Nobody wants to silence your voice. Or the voices of the Christian students. The operative thing here, however is "given the opportunity". There are plenty of places where it is appropriate for you, and them, to express opinions, no matter how prejudiced they may be. In school, however, is not the place.

If in the school is where discrimination is taking place, then that's exactly where there should be protest. To demonstrate-- peacefully or otherwise-- in some cordoned-off, 'accepted' zone away from the problem allows the problem to continue unchallenged in the place where it's happening. Students protesting in their school for change, to right an indignity that they see every day? And there's *anyone* who'd say that they should instead keep their heads down, accept it, hope that someone else somewhere else will solve their problem for them? "Be quiet, get back to work not-learning how to read or do math or find your own country on a map, and wait for us to get our heads out of our asses and do something about it?" What kind of message is that? These young people are taking action to try and make the world around them more like the world they'd like to live in. That's what we should *want* to see in teenagers!

Prove it!

That's the school officials job, and they did not deem it disruptive. Most likely because it didn't interfere with the educational process.

That's the school officials job, and they did not deem it disruptive. Most likely because it didn't interfere with the educational process.

Despite the fact that this Day of Silence caused this ruckus sure sounds disrupted to me.

Didn't read it, probably missed the point anyways. School officials can restrict free speech on school grounds if it disrupts the mission of the school. Not every opinion is deemed disruptive.

Then who is to decide which opinion is disruptive? Any fool can see that all one needs to do is complain.

"Teacher! Teacher!"
"Yes, my dear A student."
"That boy has a shirt on it that says he's a Christian: I don't like it."
"Oh, I'll bet you can't concentrate, can you?"
"No!"
"Okay, I'll take care of it."

Is society to decide? Remember society has said that slavery is a good thing! Remember some societies promoted extermination of the Jews!

Despite the fact that this Day of Silence caused this ruckus sure sounds disrupted to me.

No, the anti-gay shirts caused it. Which is why they were restricted.

No it is really the same thing as having a day of silence is disruptive to the educational necessities.

Once again, your SAYING over and over that the silence was the cause of the disruptions that day does not make it any more true. The disruptions were caused by the students wearing t-shirts that proclaimed the folks asking for equality to be second class citizens.

The silent students did not disrupt the educational process, they did participate in class. Silence in the halls is not abusive, violent or hurtful. Anti-gay slogans on t-shirts are all of those things.

Then who is to decide which opinion is disruptive? Any fool can see that all one needs to do is complain.

"Teacher! Teacher!"
"Yes, my dear A student."
"That boy has a shirt on it that says he's a Christian: I don't like it."
"Oh, I'll bet you can't concentrate, can you?"
"No!"
"Okay, I'll take care of it."

Is society to decide? Remember society has said that slavery is a good thing! Remember some societies promoted extermination of the Jews!

School officials. Not necessarily teachers, usually the school board. And where exactly is the enslaving/extermination of Christians being supported?

No, it absolutely is not!

The Day of Silence said "we are against discrimination".

The t-shirts said "we discrimintate against...".

The two are diametrically opposed.

Actually the Day of Silence is also saying "We discriminate against those who would be against us."

And I discriminate against Nazism. Does that make me a horrible person? Some things are good to discriminate agianst.

Actually the Day of Silence is also saying "We discriminate against those who would be against us."

And I discriminate against Nazism. Does that make me a horrible person? Some things are good to discriminate agianst.

Uh-huh...Are we talking about the same Day of Silence?

School officials. Not necessarily teachers, usually the school board. And where exactly is the enslaving/extermination of Christians being supported?

Go into any "science" class where evolution is being "taught."

And I was using teachers as an example. It is the school officials that make the decisions, yes. But what makes you so sure they are any less apt to throw their own prejudices into the mix?

Uh-huh...Are we talking about the same Day of Silence?

As far as I'm aware. If you support something, are you not against those who do not support it? As far as in that situation, of course.

Go into any "science" class where evolution is being "taught."

And I was using teachers as an example. It is the school officials that make the decisions, yes. But what makes you so sure they are any less apt to throw their own prejudices into the mix?

Ah, right, because teaching science is extermiating Christians.

What makes you so sure you're not seeing everything through your own prejudices. (Inevitable response: What about your prejudices?) Yeah, I figured as much.

Go into any "science" class where evolution is being "taught."

And I was using teachers as an example. It is the school officials that make the decisions, yes. But what makes you so sure they are any less apt to throw their own prejudices into the mix?


Evolution is science, to say "God created it" is throwing your hands up and saying you refuse to even question. Science is all about questions, it even questions itself.


Suppose I work a shirt to school that said:

25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


Would ya'll agree that it's perfectly within my rights? What if I wore a shirt that said that to a majority black school? Would a pro-slavery biblical shirt be considered disruptive?

Hell what if blacks were the minority, would it be disruptive?

As far as I'm aware. If you support something, are you not against those who do not support it? As far as in that situation, of course.

Not inherently, no. obviously you don't agree with them, but you don't have to discriminate or be intolerant not to agree with someone...Damning people to eternal torment? That takes intolerance.

Then who is to decide which opinion is disruptive? Any fool can see that all one needs to do is complain.

"Teacher! Teacher!"
"Yes, my dear A student."
"That boy has a shirt on it that says he's a Christian: I don't like it."
"Oh, I'll bet you can't concentrate, can you?"
"No!"
"Okay, I'll take care of it."

Is society to decide? Remember society has said that slavery is a good thing! Remember some societies promoted extermination of the Jews!

The students in question were not wearing shirts simply saying "I am a Christian". If they had, this whole discussion would be moot. Of course they would be allowed to wear those. They were, however, wearing shirts which were saying "Homosexuality (and homosexuals by logical extension) is a sin (evil, wrong, should not be allowed to continue all being the implication here)", and thereby promoting prejudice against homosexuals.

Society did once say that slavery was a good thing, and used the Christian bible to back up their claims. Some societies did at one time promote the extermination of Jews, and some Christians (i.e. the Pope) supported that belief. Guess what? We now realize how wrong we were to be so prejudiced against blacks and Jews. Soon, hopefully, we will ALL make the same realization about prejudice against homosexuals.

If gays want to be left alone, why do they try so hard to get noticed ? They are pushy and irritating with thier ability to constantly end up in the news or other media. Never will you find them trying to reside peacefully in any given place... always the.. oh poor me... Im gay and I need special rights. Well I'm NOT gay... I want special rights and my name in bold letters everyday. I liked it whern gays stayed in the closet. Close the door and light a match for them. Dirty filthy habbits they promote. Backdoor trash. Baby rapers. Want to read MY T-shirt ?

Ah, right, because teaching science is extermiating Christians.

What makes you so sure you're not seeing everything through your own prejudices. (Inevitable response: What about your prejudices?) Yeah, I figured as much.

Is it not? Is it not saying that the Christian view of the world is false, therefore destroying that oh so prcious thing called separation of church and state? So while it is not going out and putting guns to Christians' heads, it is exterminating a culture.

You're catching on.

If gays want to be left alone, why do they try so hard to get noticed ? They are pushy and irritating with thier ability to constantly end up in the news or other media. Never will you find them trying to reside peacefully in any given place... always the.. oh poor me... Im gay and I need special rights. Well I'm NOT gay... I want special rights and my name in bold letters everyday. I liked it whern gays stayed in the closet. Close the door and light a match for them. Dirty filthy habbits they promote. Backdoor trash. Baby rapers. Want to read MY T-shirt ?


So, equal treatment is special rights. Nifty. You're really not worthy of an intelligent debate because you're plainly not capable of holding up your end. As such:


DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS

Is it not? Is it not saying that the Christian view of the world is false, therefore destroying that oh so prcious thing called separation of church and state? So while it is not going out and putting guns to Christians' heads, it is exterminating a culture.

You're catching on.

No, It's not. It's science, and say what science knows. If you think it means that your world veiw is false, and you're so sure it's true, certainly you could back up the belief in a scientific manner equal to evolution. Otherwise, I'd like to endorse a rational form of learning, stay out of my science classes.

Is it not? Is it not saying that the Christian view of the world is false, therefore destroying that oh so prcious thing called separation of church and state? So while it is not going out and putting guns to Christians' heads, it is exterminating a culture.

You're catching on.


So we should just not teach science? Biology and Chemistry both are tied very closely to evolution. Can we teach Physics? How about Astronomy? Or are the stars but holes in the cloth of the night?

Is it not? Is it not saying that the Christian view of the world is false,

Creationism is false. Well, almost certainly. No true scientist would rule it out completely, but they would say it is... well so unlikely and lacking in evidence that it should be regarded as false.


therefore destroying that oh so prcious thing called separation of church and state?

Erm... evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory.

So while it is not going out and putting guns to Christians' heads, it is exterminating a culture.

So... teaching rational science is exterminating a culture? Well, I guess Luther must have been right when he said something like "Rational thought is the enemy of faith". And if it is... good riddance to faith.

Evolution is science, to say "God created it" is throwing your hands up and saying you refuse to even question. Science is all about questions, it even questions itself.


Suppose I work a shirt to school that said:

25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


Would ya'll agree that it's perfectly within my rights? What if I wore a shirt that said that to a majority black school? Would a pro-slavery biblical shirt be considered disruptive?

Hell what if blacks were the minority, would it be disruptive?

If science is all about questions, then why does it try to answer so much?

You forget that Evolution denies Biblical creation. It's making a claim about God, saying God could not have done something in a certain way. Therefore it is a belief that cannot be proven. Therefore it is a doctrine of a religion. Not necessarily exclusive to one religion, but a doctrine none the less.

It is not wrong to wear those shirts, though it may not be proper.

And my point is that everything is going to be disruptive to someone. Whether it is disruptive or not does not matter. There are some things we need to put our foot down on: stripping down and burning someone alive during math class, for example. But most everything else is called disruptive because someone doesn't like it. But what does that matter? I don't like math, it disrupts my inner balance.

See the problem with basing the argument on whether something is diruptive? Or even worse, the claim that something is disruptive?

Not inherently, no. obviously you don't agree with them, but you don't have to discriminate or be intolerant not to agree with someone...Damning people to eternal torment? That takes intolerance.

What's your point? I'm pro intolerance, but against bigorty. Reread my first post on this thread.

I dont care if you are a minority or not. You need to be able to take more opinions than your own.

It is not the responsibility of people who are verbally harrassed, physically assaulted, castrated, and murdered all over the world every single day to "accept" the validity of the beliefs of those who would verbally harrass, physically assault, castrate or murder. To argue otherwise would be akin to saying that the polgroms were valid.

And I know what it is to be a minority. I am 75% jewish so I look middle eastern. I get crap for that too. In my opinion (Sorry if it pisses you off) the homosexuals need to grow up just like the black people, the mexicans, the middle easterns, Chirstians, muslims, and anyone else who thinks they are being treated unfair do.

"Grow up?" So Rosa Parks should have just grown up, shut her mouth, and gone to the back of the bus? Dr. King should have grown up, maybe picked some cotton? The Jews in the Warsaw ghettos should have grown up, perhaps just knitted for a while and wait for the trains? There is a difference between the homosexual, the African-American, the immigrant, the muslim and the WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant) all feeling discriminated against. Namely, the first four do not have the *power* to effectively victimise the last one day after day after day. Minorities can't "oppress" the majority because the majority has the power. As beseiged as the middle-class white Christian heterosexual male feels, he still enjoys all the privelages of being a middle-class white Christian heterosexual male. He only feels so overwhelmed because the many-coloured, many-speaking, many-worshipping, many-sexed minorities are *finally* pulling him down off his lofty pedastal to be *equal* to them, since he refused for so very long to voluntarily elevate them and show any respect. And this is coming from a middle-class white guy!

A lesson to be learned from "growing up?" Whenever the abused and disenfranchised say "no more of your abusive crap" it always sounds to the abuser like he's the one suffering.

You forget that Evolution denies Biblical creation. It's making a claim about God, saying God could not have done something in a certain way. Therefore it is a belief that cannot be proven. Therefore it is a doctrine of a religion. Not necessarily exclusive to one religion, but a doctrine none the less.

Evolution and science in general make no statments on religion, for that is outside the natural realm, where science (and apparently logic) apply. Evolution says that genetic variation and natural selection cause changes in living organisms over generations.
And my point is that everything is going to be disruptive to someone. Whether it is disruptive or not does not matter. There are some things we need to put our foot down on: stripping down and burning someone alive during math class, for example. But most everything else is called disruptive because someone doesn't like it. But what does that matter? I don't like math, it disrupts my inner balance.

Inner balance is not the mission of the school, and math does not disrupt the mission of the school

The students in question were not wearing shirts simply saying "I am a Christian". If they had, this whole discussion would be moot. Of course they would be allowed to wear those. They were, however, wearing shirts which were saying "Homosexuality (and homosexuals by logical extension) is a sin (evil, wrong, should not be allowed to continue all being the implication here)", and thereby promoting prejudice against homosexuals.

Society did once say that slavery was a good thing, and used the Christian bible to back up their claims. Some societies did at one time promote the extermination of Jews, and some Christians (i.e. the Pope) supported that belief. Guess what? We now realize how wrong we were to be so prejudiced against blacks and Jews. Soon, hopefully, we will ALL make the same realization about prejudice against homosexuals.

This was an oversimplified example.

Okay, so we changed our minds from something bad to good. Does that mean we cannot change our minds from good to bad? And my point was that societies do not determine morality.

If science is all about questions, then why does it try to answer so much? Because the point of a question is to figure out the answer.

You forget that Evolution denies Biblical creation. It's making a claim about God, saying God could not have done something in a certain way. Therefore it is a belief that cannot be proven. Therefore it is a doctrine of a religion. Not necessarily exclusive to one religion, but a doctrine none the less. Actually no it doesn't. Someone wasn't paying attention in science class. The origin of life is still unknown, no one is ruling out that the FSM created all life. It's possible, it's just so improbable as to be highly HIGHLY unlikely.

It is not wrong to wear those shirts, though it may not be proper. Precisely, it's improper to wear similar shirts attacking a different minority

And my point is that everything is going to be disruptive to someone. Whether it is disruptive or not does not matter. There are some things we need to put our foot down on: stripping down and burning someone alive during math class, for example. But most everything else is called disruptive because someone doesn't like it. But what does that matter? I don't like math, it disrupts my inner balance. Nice straw man, let me tear it apart for you. Disruptive is defined in this instance as promoting an atmosphere contrary to learning, or being contrary to learning. Math class is neither.

See the problem with basing the argument on whether something is diruptive? Or even worse, the claim that something is disruptive? No, but if you really follow that train of thought I'd suggest some exercises to become more adept at logical thought.

Actually the Day of Silence is also saying "We discriminate against those who would be against us."

And I discriminate against Nazism. Does that make me a horrible person? Some things are good to discriminate agianst.

Not so... perhaps it said "we will OPPOSE those who discriminate against us." which is not at all the same. The call for equal rights does not say "make it equal for us, but not equal for anybody who doesn't like us", it says "make it equal for everybody."

How do you discriminate against Nazism? Do you oppose it? Certainly and that is fine. Do you tell people that you think the Nazi ideals were wrong and injust? Of course, good for you. Do you stand between a Jew who is being harrassed and the Nazi harrassing him and say "please don't do that."? I would imagine so, any decent person would. Do you break into a private Nazi meeting and insist that they do not have the right to gather and speak their minds? Probably not, but if you did, I would have to oppose YOU on that one, as that WOULD be discrimination.

Would you, if you were the administrator of a school on a day where the Jews were showing solidarity by not eating lunch (for example), insist that someone wearing a "Jews are unclean and should be exterminated" shirt remove that shirt? I hope that you would. Would THIS be discrimination? No, it would be opposing discrimination. You would allow the student to wear that shirt up to the gates of the school, but on the grounds, the school rule would apply. Once the student left for the day, you would allow them to put the shirt back on (but not to actually BASH any of your Jewish students) because outside school grounds, free speech applies.

If science is all about questions, then why does it try to answer so much?

Its all about asking questions so you can learn more about the universe. To do that, just asking the questions without trying to answer them is... pointless.


You forget that Evolution denies Biblical creation.

As in 6 day creation.... I would say yes, but then some people interpret the Bible differently. And Evolution, as I notice someone said earlier, so I thought should add, does not make any judgement about how life started. Just how it got from its start to now. The actual beginning of life is a seperate issue from evolution.

It's making a claim about God

Actually, it is not making a claim about god at all. It has nothing to do with god. It doesnt say there should be a god, or there shouldnt.


Therefore it is a belief that cannot be proven.

Nothing can be proven. Your or my existance cannot be proven. There is a great deal of evidence for it though. And it is not a belief, it is a scientific theory. Based on the available evidence. Creationism is based on... a part of a book written thousands of years ago.


Therefore it is a doctrine of a religion.

You wibble. Big leap of ligic there. Nothing to do with religion. Nothing. It is a scientitific theory. There is no such religion as "evolutionism".

No, It's not. It's science, and say what science knows. If you think it means that your world veiw is false, and you're so sure it's true, certainly you could back up the belief in a scientific manner equal to evolution. Otherwise, I'd like to endorse a rational form of learning, stay out of my science classes.

Except that you have no proof for evolution! You are creating a theory based on what you know! No one has been able to prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that Darwinian Evolution is true!

I have a theory too! It's called Christianity. And I've based on what I know!

I would love to continue this conversation, but it's for another thread.

Except that you have no proof for evolution! You are creating a theory based on what you know! No one has been able to prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that Darwinian Evolution is true!

I have a theory too! It's called Christianity. And I've based on what I know!

I would love to continue this conversation, but it's for another thread.

There's no proof for anything but math. Prove you exist. Or better yet, prove god as described in your bible exists.

It's not a theory, it's a belief, with no reasonable evidence.

my $0.02:

i think that the school was 100% correct. The students being silent doesnt interfere with anyone learning anything, and it breaks no rules. But wearing shirts like that which are meant to provoke outrage and cause controversy (which, as seen in this thread, they have done...) DOES break most schools' policies, and warrants the students getting suspended. They have no right to provoke people like that, and it only shows the ignorance and hate that this country still has not overcome, nor shall it for a long, long time. How can we accuse other nations of hate crimes when things like this happen every day in out own country?

Except that you have no proof for evolution! You are creating a theory based on what you know! No one has been able to prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that Darwinian Evolution is true!

I have a theory too! It's called Christianity. And I've based on what I know!

I would love to continue this conversation, but it's for another thread.

And your "Theory" what evidence do you have? Have you seen God blink critters into existance? We've seen creatures over the last century or so differentiate into different species. You can watch in bacteria successive generations becoming more resistant to drugs. These things cannot be denied no matter how much you stick your head in the sand and blather on about gods.

Except that you have no proof for evolution! You are creating a theory based on what you know! No one has been able to prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that Darwinian Evolution is true!

As I said, you cannot prove anything beyond any doubt. It is a theory based on evidence, looked at in a scientific manner.


I have a theory too! It's called Christianity.

No, thats a religion. And christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive.


And I've based on what I know!

A several thousand year old book does not scientific evidence make.

There's no proof for anything but math. Prove you exist. Or better yet, prove god as described in your bible exists.

It's not a theory, it's a belief, with no reasonable evidence.


Eeek, now you're getting all Buddha on us, best not warp his fragile little mind with such expansive concepts.

Then why did they allow the day of silence? Its the same thing as wearing a Christian T-Shirt?


Tell me how, exactly, pray tell, is a school supposed to require someone to talk?

The rights of a school to limit a student's "speech" (using the term losely to include things other than the vocal) implies only to that which is disruptive.

If a student refuses to respond in class, that is disruptive, and can be punished. To what degree, in ANY degree, is a student's unwillingness to speak other than when required to, disruptive.

In other words, how do you NOT "allow" a day of silence? Would these boards be in some way disrupted if I chose not to post on them?

This was an oversimplified example.

Okay, so we changed our minds from something bad to good. Does that mean we cannot change our minds from good to bad? And my point was that societies do not determine morality.

But slavery and genocide were your examples in the first place.

We changed our minds from something bad to good... that is, we realized that prejudice against blacks and Jews was a bad thing and we try not to do it anymore.

Now you want us to go from a potentially positive belief (that homosexuals should be given equal treatment) to a bad one (that homosexuals should be discriminated against)? How is that a good morality?

Society does and must determine the LAW, which one can only hope is ethically based. And ethically the law should provide equality for all people, not just the ones who follow a certain religiously directed moral code.

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.
Should intolerance be tolerated? I don't know.

But hey, you're a Muslim. Your opinion on this doesn't surprise me.

;) :D

People are, not kids. Minors don't have free speech in school.
Undelia am I correct in thinking that you believe that free speech doesn't apply to teens in school, but that it does apply to people lying (perjury) in a court of law?

Eeek, now you're getting all Buddha on us, best not warp his fragile little mind with such expansive concepts.

Buddha? I thought I was getting solipsist.

If gays want to be left alone, why do they try so hard to get noticed ? They are pushy and irritating with thier ability to constantly end up in the news or other media. Never will you find them trying to reside peacefully in any given place... always the.. oh poor me... Im gay and I need special rights. Well I'm NOT gay... I want special rights and my name in bold letters everyday. I liked it whern gays stayed in the closet. Close the door and light a match for them. Dirty filthy habbits they promote. Backdoor trash. Baby rapers. Want to read MY T-shirt ?


And that would be disruptive.

Simply refusing to speak would not be. It appears to me that the ones who made this national attention were not those students who decided to peacefully go about their day in silence to respect the rights of others, but rather by the fundies who got upset by it.

There is no special rights here. The students chose not to speak. Christian students had the same ability, they could have chosen not to speak. Instead, they were disruptive, and rightfully got punished.

Zen Buddhism, it's fascinating for a psuedo-religion. More of a philosophy really. Really need a dedicated Buddhist to explain it properly. I've read some of their texts, it's interesting stuff, even if I at times can't make heads or tails of it. (Lots of footnotes explaining translations).

Except that you have no proof for evolution! You are creating a theory based on what you know! No one has been able to prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that Darwinian Evolution is true!

It is, however, the best explanation given the set of circumstances and evidence that has been observed.

It seems to me that the only people who claim Darwinian evolution is absolutly 100% TRUE in every detail are the people who don't believe in it. NO respectable scientist would ever state that it is the absolute truth with 100% certainty, they would only state as I just have, that it is the best explination given the facts that we currently have, and if another theory comes along that better explains it, than that shall be the prevailant one. However that has yet to occur.

If in the school is where discrimination is taking place, then that's exactly where there should be protest. To demonstrate-- peacefully or otherwise-- in some cordoned-off, 'accepted' zone away from the problem allows the problem to continue unchallenged in the place where it's happening. Students protesting in their school for change, to right an indignity that they see every day? And there's *anyone* who'd say that they should instead keep their heads down, accept it, hope that someone else somewhere else will solve their problem for them? "Be quiet, get back to work not-learning how to read or do math or find your own country on a map, and wait for us to get our heads out of our asses and do something about it?" What kind of message is that? These young people are taking action to try and make the world around them more like the world they'd like to live in. That's what we should *want* to see in teenagers!

Woops... we are on the same side here. Basically... I was responding to a poster speaking about reading his bible on school grounds.

I am fully in support of a positive protest, but understand that a negative one may be restricted in school. That is, the group with the Day of Silence was not saying "we are anti-Christians", but rather "we are in support of equality for homosexuals" which is NOT disruptive of the school environment.

The students wearing anti-homosexual t-shirts, however, were being disruptive. As such, it was not inappropriate for the school to stop them.

Free speech in schools is not COMPLETELY repressed, but in order to provide a supportive environment for as many as possible, it does get curtailed in specific and usually clearly published ways.

My post was refering to the fact that Christians cannot disrupt a class with the bible, but may freely speak their mind in other places. Likewise, if the supporters of homosexuality were to have a Day of Noise where they WERE being disruptive, that should not be allowed on school grounds either. The method of protest they chose, however, was respectful and powerful and supportive.

So, equal treatment is special rights. Nifty. You're really not worthy of an intelligent debate because you're plainly not capable of holding up your end. As such:


DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS


I think (hope) the poster is being satirical.

Is it not? Is it not saying that the Christian view of the world is false, therefore destroying that oh so prcious thing called separation of church and state? So while it is not going out and putting guns to Christians' heads, it is exterminating a culture.

You're catching on.


Sigh... no.

Science does not make any claims one way or the other about Christianity. Science does not deal with Christianity. It does not CARE about Christianity. Science deals with observable facts and attempts to put them in a logical order. Science makes no effort to disprove religion, as religion is not about observable facts.

If Christians see observable facts as being somehow opposed to their culture, that is, I am afraid, their lookout, and not the problem of a high school biology class.

This was an oversimplified example.

Okay, so we changed our minds from something bad to good. Does that mean we cannot change our minds from good to bad? And my point was that societies do not determine morality.

Morality is a stick with which we beat our neighbours, never ourselves.

There's no proof for anything but math. .

And then there are imaginary numbers...

And then there are imaginary numbers...

True...Wouldn't you have to prove they don't exist? I guess by showing negative square roots are impossible.

Undelia am I correct in thinking that you believe that free speech doesn't apply to teens in school, but that it does apply to people lying (perjury) in a court of law?

I am curious to see where you are going with that one?

Perjury is illegal. How does it become a free speech issue?

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.

Thanks, that's very kind of you. Perhaps we agree because I also reside in an open-minded community in eastern Canada, rather than western Canada (where I'm originally from) or the US (where my boyfriend lives).

Thanks, that's very kind of you. Perhaps we agree because I also reside in an open-minded community in eastern Canada, rather than western Canada (where I'm originally from) or the US (where my boyfriend lives).

Wait wait....another Canadian female? Or perhaps this topic happens to hit closer to home?

Don't forget "illegals".
Don't forget interracial marriage

Damn, how could I possibly forget "illegals"? They're the other bogeymen now!

And when I said "miscegnation" (which was how I misspelled "miscegenation"), I was referring to interracial marriage. It's amazing that the slope-browed, slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, right-wing dullards who don't like interracial marriage because the spouses are TOO DIFFERENT are the same slope-browed, slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, right-wing dullards who oppose equal marriage for gays because the spouses are NOT DIFFERENT ENOUGH.

I'm glad I live in sane, reasonable, laissez-faire Canada.

Wait wait....another Canadian female? Or perhaps this topic happens to hit closer to home?

No, and yes.

No, and yes.

Ah, figures. Anyhow...ummm...Welcome to NS, expect to see this topic again in a week.

Ah, figures. Anyhow...ummm...Welcome to NS, expect to see this topic again in a week.

Yes, along with all the threads on what we should call citizens of the United States. (Personally, I'd go with Usanians.)

Yes, along with all the threads on what we should call citizens of the United States. (Personally, I'd go with Usanians.)

Why not call us what we wanna be called?

Yes, along with all the threads on what we should call citizens of the United States. (Personally, I'd go with Usanians.)

Hey, I live in the US, and I am in favor of UnSanians.





Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! I didn't want to provoke anything... it was just a joke!!! :p

Why not call us what we wanna be called?

Because it is misleading and innacurrate?

Should British people be known as "European" and that be the general term for them, and rarely used for anything else?

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

Because it is misleading and innacurrate?

Should British people be known as "European" and that be the general term for them, and rarely used for anything else?

How is "misleading and innacurate"? It's accurate, the country is called "The United States of America" and we call it "America". Much like "The Federal Republic of Brazil", when's the last time you called them an "FRian"? As for misleading, there's these things....lot's of languages have them...They're called homonyms. Two words spelled the same with different meanings? Guess how we figure out the correct meaning. Context. If someone says "American countries", what do you think they mean by the word "American", eh?

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

This guy can come back and talk to me when he's left the black and white era.

How is "misleading and innacurate"? It's accurate, the country is called "The United States of America" and we call it "America". Much like "The Federal Republic of Brazil", when's the last time you called them an "FRian"?

But there is nowhere else you could call Brazil. Brazil always means Brazil. America is an entire continent. Just somehow the US ended up with the label. And the USA really refers to it being the states of America that are united, not that they are America, and have a united states political system, unlike FPB meaning it is Brazil, but has a federal and republican system.

But there is nowhere else you could call Brazil. Brazil always means Brazil. America is an entire continent. Just somehow the US ended up with the label.

So you can only understand a word if it only means one thing? Boy, hope you never have to deal with the word "present"

So you can only understand a word if it only means one thing? Boy, hope you never have to deal with the word "present"

Well, obviously I can.

Well, obviously I can.

And yet, you can't deal with "American"?

Proper noun

American (plural: Americans)

1. A person born in, or a citizen or inhabitant of, the United States of America.
2. An inhabitant of the Americas. More often this is specified as either North American or South American.

ZOMG TWO MEANINGS!

No, the anti-gay shirts caused it. Which is why they were restricted.

I guess you failed the cause and effect lesson in English?

And yet, you can't deal with "American"?

Proper noun

American (plural: Americans)

1. A person born in, or a citizen or inhabitant of, the United States of America.
2. An inhabitant of the Americas. More often this is specified as either North American or South American.

ZOMG TWO MEANINGS!

Well, obviously it has come to mean that with the use of it.

And I am really not actually that bothered, I was just presenting the argument for the other side. And it doesnt help the alternatives are lame or clumsy.

USians? Blerch
Citizens of the US? Who can be arsed saying that?
US citizen? Easier, but still not as handy as Americans.

It is not the responsibility of people who are verbally harrassed, physically assaulted, castrated, and murdered all over the world every single day to "accept" the validity of the beliefs of those who would verbally harrass, physically assault, castrate or murder. To argue otherwise would be akin to saying that the polgroms were valid.

Oh then I have a gripe because Christians are verbally harrassed, physically assaulted, and murdered all over the world every single day.

Oh then I have a gripe because Christians are verbally harrassed, physically assaulted, and murdered all over the world every single day.

Now, while in some places this is because of their religion, it is not so in the States. And this is talking about the states, no?

I guess you failed the cause and effect lesson in English?

Ah, so your thing goes something like. "Day of silence caused shirts, shirts caused disruption, so the Day of silence is to blame"? Well, then, what caused the day of silence? Intolerance towards gays, yes? And what causes that? Religion? Personal "ick" factors? What causes those? Is this how you proportion blame, keep going back till you can blame something you disagree with?

Now, while in some places this is because of their religion, it is not so in the States. And this is talking about the states, no?

Will the white middle-class Christians ever catch a break?

:(

Will the white middle-class Christians ever catch a break?

:(

Honestly, I mean, the white christians have had to be president every time.

Now, while in some places this is because of their religion, it is not so in the States. And this is talking about the states, no?

He mentioned all over the world. I was pointing out that homosexuals aren't the only ones to have that happen to them. I was going with what he said.

As to the United States, Christians are verbally harrassed, physically assaulted, and killed here too and most of it done by other christians who do not like that one particular sect. Sometimes it is done by people who just hate Christians. Just like this issue only the opposite. It is done by people who do not respect nor tolerate homosexuality. Frankly, I'm not in that crowd for I respect their choice in lifestyle. I may not agree with it but who am I to judge?

I participated in the Day of Silence, along with many others in my school. The main leaders of the protest actually asked out principal for permission to participate in the day, and at first out principal refused. After several more kids and one of our lesbian teachers asked again, she gave in.

Since the protest was not disrupting the school day and not violently forcing opinions on people, I don't understand why it was necessary for the kids in CA to be suspended. The first amendment not only protects our right to free speech, but our right to silent expression. Think about it: there are many deaf kids in my school, and they still go to classes and learn the material. They don't (can't) speak in class, but they're not suspended.

I participated in the Day of Silence, along with many others in my school. The main leaders of the protest actually asked out principal for permission to participate in the day, and at first out principal refused. After several more kids and one of our lesbian teachers asked again, she gave in.

Since the protest was not disrupting the school day and not violently forcing opinions on people, I don't understand why it was necessary for the kids in CA to be suspended. The first amendment not only protects our right to free speech, but our right to silent expression. Think about it: there are many deaf kids in my school, and they still go to classes and learn the material. They don't (can't) speak in class, but they're not suspended.

The students with anti-gay shirts were suspended, not the ones in the Day of Silence.

Oh then I have a gripe because Christians are verbally harrassed, physically assaulted, and murdered all over the world every single day.

And you have the right to protest that. However, if you protest it as a student in a public highschool you must do it in a way that is not disruptive to the learning enviornment of that school.

Pretty simple, no?

He mentioned all over the world. I was pointing out that homosexuals aren't the only ones to have that happen to them. I was going with what he said.

As to the United States, Christians are verbally harrassed, physically assaulted, and killed here too and most of it done by other christians who do not like that one particular sect. Sometimes it is done by people who just hate Christians. Just like this issue only the opposite. It is done by people who do not respect nor tolerate homosexuality. Frankly, I'm not in that crowd for I respect their choice in lifestyle. I may not agree with it but who am I to judge?

OK... so Christians harrass Christians... on a Day of Silence supporting the right of Christians not to be harrassed by Christians, when the opposing Christians wore "Christians are sinful" t-shirts, who would you support?

Before this devolves entirely into silliness, let me return to the point.



No one is claiming that homosexuals are the only oppressed group. It is more difficult, however, to be sympathetic to their oppressors when the oppressors, while crying "we get harassed too!", continue to be oppressive.

I don't see homosexuals shooting up Christian bars. I have not recently read a story about homosexuals protesting at the funerals of Christian ministers. I don't recall any stories about Christians being dragged behind trucks and tied to fences and left to die because they were Christians. No Christian friends of mine have every been beaten up in the West Village just for holding hands with another Christian. If you have examples of such, please provide them.

Certainly, I am not in support of Christians being harrassed and assaulted and killed. But I would hope that the Golden Rule might enter in here somewhere... do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

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


So does the freedom from offence you wish to posess (which is no where mentioned in any law) usurp the First Amendment?

So does the freedom from offence you wish to posess (which is no where mentioned in any law) usurp the First Amendment?

The first amendment is not absolute. In certain special places, officials can determine what speech is disruptive and restrict it.

I remember that. I was a jerk and got just about all of them to make noise and I called them gay. I mean, it is a disruption to the learning process when students don't speak. To make fun of it further, I had a day of silence of my own to protest for Christian rights.

OK... so Christians harrass Christians... on a Day of Silence supporting the right of Christians not to be harrassed by Christians, when the opposing Christians wore "Christians are sinful" t-shirts, who would you support?

Before this devolves entirely into silliness, let me return to the point.



No one is claiming that homosexuals are the only oppressed group. It is more difficult, however, to be sympathetic to their oppressors when the oppressors, while crying "we get harassed too!", continue to be oppressive.

I don't see homosexuals shooting up Christian bars. I have not recently read a story about homosexuals protesting at the funerals of Christian ministers. I don't recall any stories about Christians being dragged behind trucks and tied to fences and left to die because they were Christians. No Christian friends of mine have every been beaten up in the West Village just for holding hands with another Christian. If you have examples of such, please provide them.

Certainly, I am not in support of Christians being harrassed and assaulted and killed. But I would hope that the Golden Rule might enter in here somewhere... do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


I don't remember the specific book but somewhere in the Bible it also calls for harsh punishments for homosexuals.

Kreynoria']I don't remember the specific book but somewhere in the Bible it also calls for harsh punishments for homosexuals.

Yes... but then anyone who bases their attitude on that book is a moron.

Kreynoria']I don't remember the specific book but somewhere in the Bible it also calls for harsh punishments for homosexuals.

And?

If you are trying to say that this is what Christians believe should happen to homosexuals, then they should not complain when others do it to them, would be the point of the "do unto others" thing.

If you are trying to say that such punishments are somehow CORRECT, well, according to the laws we all live under in the USA, you are simply wrong.

Kreynoria']I remember that. I was a jerk


Nuff said.

So does the freedom from offence you wish to posess (which is no where mentioned in any law) usurp the First Amendment?


It has been discussed repeatedly in this thread that in schools the freedom of speech is curtailed when it is disruptive to the educational process. That includes when it is offensive to other students.

This is not the case OUTSIDE of such protective environs, where you free to be as offensive as you wish, so long as you neither perform nor incite actual violence.

Yes... but then anyone who bases their attitude on that book is a moron.

Lets leave the anti-religious rhetoric out of this debate.

Lets leave the anti-religious rhetoric out of this debate.

Well, now, it seemed an almost appropriate response to the anti-homosexual rhetoric that it was answering.

OK... so Christians harrass Christians... on a Day of Silence supporting the right of Christians not to be harrassed by Christians, when the opposing Christians wore "Christians are sinful" t-shirts, who would you support?

Before this devolves entirely into silliness, let me return to the point.

This makes more sense:

OK... so Catholics harrass Protestants... on a Day of Silence supporting the right of Protestants not to be harrassed by Catholics, when the opposing Catholics wore "Protestants are sinful" t-shirts, who would you support?

The Protestants of course!

I am curious to see where you are going with that one?

Perjury is illegal. How does it become a free speech issue?
I remember Undelia saying that perjury shouldn't be outlawed because that's a violation of free speech.

The difference between the two group's of protestors: One group targeted and humiliated an entire demographic, the other didn't. It's as simple as that.

I remember Undelia saying that perjury shouldn't be outlawed because that's a violation of free speech.

OK, I missed that one... but when you go into court, you take an oath to tell the truth. At that point, you have agreed to live by the rules of the court, which say that you MUST tell the truth. If you violate the rules, you pay the price. If you don't want to pay the price, don't violate the rules. If you don't want to play by the rules, don't take the oath. But if you don't take the oath, and agree to play by their rules, then they will not let you play at all, so you won't get freedom of speech anyway. As with the school issue, you can stand OUTSIDE the court and say anything you want, all day long and lie till you are blue in the face. But in certain situations, and where those rules are clearly, carefully and thoughtfully laid out, your freedom of speech is dependent upon playing by the rules.

Well, now, it seemed an almost appropriate response to the anti-homosexual rhetoric that it was answering.

Yea it was and I wish that would stop too.

This makes more sense:

OK... so Catholics harrass Protestants... on a Day of Silence supporting the right of Protestants not to be harrassed by Catholics, when the opposing Catholics wore "Protestants are sinful" t-shirts, who would you support?

The Protestants of course!


Well, my example was intended to point out that the previous post hadn't made sense.

But it all does come back to the same thing. One group looking not to be harrassed and the other ignoring that and continuing to harrass.

Yea it was and I wish that would stop too.


You know, so do I. I kind of wish, however, that you had SAID that when you posted the thing about anti-Christian rhetoric, because it comes from the same place as Christians feeling abused for not being allowed to be abusive.

I suggested that the Golden Rule might pertain (a positive way to look at things, I hoped), and the following poster suggested that the bible called for harsh punishments for homosexuality. Instead of dealing with that, you called the person who DID deal with it for being anti-Christian.

You know, so do I. I kind of wish, however, that you had SAID that when you posted the thing about anti-Christian rhetoric, because it comes from the same place as Christians feeling abused for not being allowed to be abusive.

Yea it does doesn't it?

I suggested that the Golden Rule might pertain (a positive way to look at things, I hoped), and the following poster suggested that the bible called for harsh punishments for homosexuality. Instead of dealing with that, you called the person who DID deal with it for being anti-Christian.

Yea I did. Heat of the moment. Sorry to Peveski for that.

Yea it does doesn't it?

Yea I did. Heat of the moment. Sorry to Peveski for that.


Thanks for saying so!

Thanks for saying so!

I am a christian man! I do admit my mistakes.

I am a christian man! I do admit my mistakes.

And I was genuinely glad to see that you could do that. It is so hard to do, sometimes, when one gets fired up in a debate, so I think it appropriate to compliment someone on being able to admit a mistake, and to thank them for a genuine apology.

And while we have disagreed here, I have not found you to be unreasonable or abusive, so thanks for that too!


EDIT: I don't know if this somehow sounds condescending, but I really mean it not to be.

And I was genuinely glad to see that you could do that. It is so hard to do, sometimes, when one gets fired up in a debate, so I think it appropriate to compliment someone on being able to admit a mistake, and to thank them for a genuine apology.

And while we have disagreed here, I have not found you to be unreasonable or abusive, so thanks for that too!


EDIT: I don't know if this somehow sounds condescending, but I really mean it not to be.

It isn't condescending at all in my book. I do try to be reasonable to people who are reasonable in return. I disagree with alot of what is said on these boards but if it is done respectfully, a good intelligent debate can ensue where both sides are presented and debated without insult.

I'm well aware fo this, I have stated so myself. I was speaking outside the context of this situation. So far all I have heard is a lot of rhetoric that gays dont want to be offended. You can not want to be offended all you want, that right you wish to posses does not usurp the Frist Amendment. We posses freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

If you aren't talking about this situation, are you really on-topic? Sure, in the public forum, you have far more freedom of speech. Although, it is still limited by restrictions such as time, place, and manner; obscenity; incitement to violence; and defamation. The first amendment has never been absolute.

It isn't condescending at all in my book. I do try to be reasonable to people who are reasonable in return. I disagree with alot of what is said on these boards but if it is done respectfully, a good intelligent debate can ensue where both sides are presented and debated without insult.


LOL... ok, so we are agreeing that we can disagree reasonably. This may be the end of NS General as we know it!

:)

LOL... ok, so we are agreeing that we can disagree reasonably. This may be the end of NS General as we know it!

:)

Not bloddy likely :D

He mentioned all over the world. I was pointing out that homosexuals aren't the only ones to have that happen to them. I was going with what he said.

As to the United States, Christians are verbally harrassed, physically assaulted, and killed here too and most of it done by other christians who do not like that one particular sect. Sometimes it is done by people who just hate Christians. Just like this issue only the opposite. It is done by people who do not respect nor tolerate homosexuality. Frankly, I'm not in that crowd for I respect their choice in lifestyle. I may not agree with it but who am I to judge?


Do tell, what is my lifestyle. Since you appear to be most educated as to what the gay "lifestyle" is. Feel free to enlighten me. Perhaps it's listed in the copy of the "Agenda" which I still have no received, obviously I need to talk to my recruiter to make certain my mailing address is correct.

Do tell, what is my lifestyle. Since you appear to be most educated as to what the gay "lifestyle" is. Feel free to enlighten me. Perhaps it's listed in the copy of the "Agenda" which I still have no received, obviously I need to talk to my recruiter to make certain my mailing address is correct.

:confused:

:confused:Hehe, I think you got that response because you stated that homosexuals persue a particular lifestyle.

Perhaps you're not quite foolish enough to honestly believe people's sexuality has something to do with lifestyles? - I mean, why else would his response confuse you?

Hehe, I think you got that response because you stated that homosexuals persue a particular lifestyle.

Perhaps you're not quite foolish enough to honestly believe people's sexuality has something to do with lifestyles? - I mean, why else would his response confuse you?

Sexual Lifestyle is what I ment. I thought people would be smart enough to figure that out.

Sexual Lifestyle is what I ment. I thought people would be smart enough to figure that out.

The thing is "sexual lifestyle" as a definition of homosexuality is meaningless too. Some homosexuals have many anonymous partners, but some heterosexuals do too. Some practice serial monogamy (one partner at a time, but perhaps more than one in a lifetime), and some are celibate. But there is no one defining "sexual lifestyle" for homosexuals, any more than there is for heterosexuals.

If you are implying that homosexuality itself is a "sexual lifestyle", you are incorrect. Calling it that implies that the person so living has a choice in the matter. Not true. You are either homosexual, or you are not. You cannot decide to be homosexual, any more than you can decide to be tall. You CAN decide to be celibate, but that is true of either homosexuals or heterosexuals.

You CAN decide to be celibate, but that is true of either homosexuals or heterosexuals.In an interesting twist, the same cannot be said for bisexuals.

.. Or something.

In an interesting twist, the same cannot be said for bisexuals.

.. Or something.


Err... well, no. Bisexuals can be celibate. They just get to be twice as celibate as everyone else.

And I speak from experience here.

:p

The thing is "sexual lifestyle" as a definition of homosexuality is meaningless too. Some homosexuals have many anonymous partners, but some heterosexuals do too. Some practice serial monogamy (one partner at a time, but perhaps more than one in a lifetime), and some are celibate. But there is no one defining "sexual lifestyle" for homosexuals, any more than there is for heterosexuals.

If you are implying that homosexuality itself is a "sexual lifestyle", you are incorrect. Calling it that implies that the person so living has a choice in the matter. Not true. You are either homosexual, or you are not. You cannot decide to be homosexual, any more than you can decide to be tall. You CAN decide to be celibate, but that is true of either homosexuals or heterosexuals.

To be honest, some of this can be argued but I'm not even going to bother. I will agree with you on many points you brought up however. The points I don't would actually hijack the thread and I do not want to do that.

Homo/bi/transsexuals creep me out. I don't like be around them...

... But I'll be damned if anyone is going to tell them that they can't get married, they are not as good as straight ppl, and that they are sinners and are going to hell.

So, I appluad those who participated in the Day 'o Silence thingy, and am dissappointed in those so-called 'Christians,' those who think that it is okay to opress and generally be intolerant of those who are different to you.

Homo/bi/transsexuals creep me out. I don't like be around them... May I ask why?

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

I wonder that, too. I personally think that kids should rise up and go coughjohncoughbrown on their asses.

May I ask why?

I don't really know, but that's not what matters. What matters is that they, or anyone of any race/religion/sexuality, has every right as a human being to be able to look like what they do, practice what system of beliefs they belive in, and sleep with who they want to!

I don't really know, but that's not what matters. What matters is that they, or anyone of any race/religion/sexuality, has every right as a human being to be able to look like what they do, practice what system of beliefs they belive in, and sleep with who they want to!I completely agree, and I wasn't trying to imply you had to like everyone. Transvestites tends to creep me out, for example. I was simply curious.

Why not call us what we wanna be called?

Doesn't really bother me one way or another, though it defies logic. I just like the sound of "Usanian", because it sounds like someone saying "USA" really fast and then adding "-nian" to it. I don't like "USian" if people mean it to be pronounced "Yoo-essian". I also like it because it's one letter away from "Uranian", which used to be an old term for gays.

By the way, if "synonym" is defined as "a word that has the same meaning as another word", "homonym" is defined "a word that has the same spelling as a differently pronounced word", and "patronym" is loosely defined as "a name sometimes additionally given to offspring to denote paternity", what is the term defined as "the linguistic form denoting someone from a place"? For instance, with Britain, the adjectival form is "British", but the "_________" form is "Briton". Or in the case of France, the adjective derived is "French", but the "_________" is "Frenchman". Or with Sweden, its adjective is "Swedish", but its "_________" is "Swede".

What is that word? Does such a word even exist to describe that concept? I thought it might be "toponym", but that seems to be something else.

Doesn't really bother me one way or another, though it defies logic. I just like the sound of "Usanian", because it sounds like someone saying "USA" really fast and then adding "-nian" to it. I don't like "USian" if people mean it to be pronounced "Yoo-essian". I also like it because it's one letter away from "Uranian", which used to be an old term for gays.

By the way, if "synonym" is defined as "a word that has the same meaning as another word", "homonym" is defined "a word that has the same spelling as a differently pronounced word", and "patronym" is loosely defined as "a name sometimes additionally given to offspring to denote paternity", what is the term defined as "the linguistic form denoting someone from a place"? For instance, with Britain, the adjectival form is "British", but the "_________" form is "Briton". Or in the case of France, the adjective derived is "French", but the "_________" is "Frenchman". Or with Sweden, its adjective is "Swedish", but its "_________" is "Swede".

What is that word? Does such a word even exist to describe that concept? I thought it might be "toponym", but that seems to be something else.

Called a demonym, as in 'demographic', not 'demon'. Err...Hold on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonym

Hmm. I agree that if all the shirts said was "Homosexuality is a Sin" it was unreasonable to ask that they were removed, especially in the face of pro-rights protest. However, another article I read said that the shirts in question had certain bible verses on them. If one of the verses was the one that says all Homosexuals should be killed, then the descision was entirely correct. Otherwise, the descision was completely wrong and in violation of prior supreme court rulings (the one about the students wearing Black Bands on their arms).

High School Students, whether or not adults are capable of beleiving it, have strong political beleifs of their own, and are not only controlled by "outside interests". Indeed, while many people complain of "Activism" on school grounds, the groups they complain about (primarily High School Liberals and High School Conservatives clubs) are the subject of complaints, but often are formed by students of their own free will, and if abolished would probably simply meet elsewhere to protest the abolishment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that minors do have first ammendmant rights, so the argument that "minors have no rights" is basically silly.

Called a demonym, as in 'demographic', not 'demon'. Err...Hold on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonym

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, it feels good to finally know that! Thanks. You have no idea how much that's bothered me. It's like you removed a thorn or something.

Except that everything ever stated has been an opinion!

It's my opinion that water's wet. Does the fact that it's my opinion bring that idea into doubt? Of course not! But if I believe that water is wet, then it's my belief and my opinion. Everything stated in schools is an opinion!

In other words, "I have to make a word completely useless to make my 'point'."

The word opinion really only makes sense in a context where what you are talking about cannot be measured or verified. "Purple is the prettiest color," is an opinion. "Prettiest" depends on subjectivity. "Water is wet," is not an opinion. It isn't even really a fact so much as a definition. "The udders of cows can produce milk," is not an opinion - it's a fact.

I believe homosexuality is sinful

What about menstruation? Is that sinful?

What about menstruation? Is that sinful?

Please tell me this is a rhetorical question.

Hmm. I agree that if all the shirts said was "Homosexuality is a Sin" it was unreasonable to ask that they were removed, especially in the face of pro-rights protest. However, another article I read said that the shirts in question had certain bible verses on them. If one of the verses was the one that says all Homosexuals should be killed, then the descision was entirely correct. Otherwise, the descision was completely wrong and in violation of prior supreme court rulings (the one about the students wearing Black Bands on their arms).

High School Students, whether or not adults are capable of beleiving it, have strong political beleifs of their own, and are not only controlled by "outside interests". Indeed, while many people complain of "Activism" on school grounds, the groups they complain about (primarily High School Liberals and High School Conservatives clubs) are the subject of complaints, but often are formed by students of their own free will, and if abolished would probably simply meet elsewhere to protest the abolishment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that minors do have first ammendmant rights, so the argument that "minors have no rights" is basically silly.


Nobody has been saying "minors have no rights", or at least not really. What has been said, and is quite correct, is that a minor's first amendment right while in public highschool has far greater limitations placed on it than otherwise.

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.

Actually, i believe, :eek: one is not entitled to express moronic opinions. Actually, one should be able to debate intelligently about an issue in order to express an opinion. The rule requires one to be able to present thoroughly at least two sides of an issue, then choose the side one is on. :headbang:

If science is all about questions, then why does it try to answer so much?

Questions have answers. The good thing about science is that, even once it has an answer, it continues to question that answer.

You forget that Evolution denies Biblical creation.

No, it doesn't.

It's making a claim about God, saying God could not have done something in a certain way.

No, it doesn't. At most, it makes a claim that God did not do it in a certain way.

Therefore it is a belief that cannot be proven.

Nothing in science can be proven. However, that does not make it a belief.

Therefore it is a doctrine of a religion.

You do have a way of making words entirely useless, do you?

Please tell me this is a rhetorical question.

Not at all. I have more control over whether or not I menstruate than I do over my sexuality. If you thnk that a given sexuality is, itself, sinful, you have no logical reason to state that menstruation is not sinful.

This is especially true since the OT pretty clearly states that when a woman is menstruating she is sinful and unclean. In fact, to have sex with her is an abomination before God, and she must not be allowed into any holy place.