NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, thats a bit of an exaggeration. But basically, Anglican Private School in Queensland is saying no to guys taking guys to their formal. Apparently it's a time for a guy and a girl to have a good time. Even if they are just friends.

Linky. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/14/2216379.htm?section=australia)

Whadda ya think? Should the school, as a private educational facility, have the right to discriminate at a formal against which dates their boys bring? Or is it discriminatory?

I think I've made my position pretty clear...

If it's a private school, they can do what they like I guess. So long as they aren't taking public money.

this isn't an attack on gays its an attack on us Nerds! :mad:

If it's a private school, they can do what they like I guess. So long as they aren't taking public money.

considering private schools admission has shot up since the Harry Potter movies came out and said fictional adventure is the apparently the number one reason for shipping your kid off to some hell hole, I have to wonder

If it's a private school, they can do what they like I guess. So long as they aren't taking public money.

Well, actually, thats an interesting story... private schools receive a heck of a lot of public funding. I'll try to find the data now...

If it's a private school, they can do what they like I guess. So long as they aren't taking public money.
That's hardly a valid excuse, on that topic religions could start up private torture chambers only if don't use public money, they are still discriminating. This is in clear violation of the federal anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity act.

Yeah, here's some of that data. Page 2 (http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Debates/Respfacts.pdf)

That's hardly a valid excuse, on that topic religions could start up private torture chambers only if don't use public money, they are still discriminating. This is in clear violation of the federal anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity act.

Yarp, that's what I and the anti-discrimination commission think.

EDIT: Whoo! 1,000! Geez, I took my time about it...

That's hardly a valid excuse, on that topic religions could start up private torture chambers only if don't use public money, they are still discriminating. This is in clear violation of the federal anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity act.

Torturing some violates more than one of their basic rights, which exclusion from what is essentially a private club doesn't, don't you think? The Masters Tournament (golf) is a good example of the principle at work with what would be called discrimination if it were in a workplace environment. However, like Svalbard was saying, if the schools are getting public money, then that changes things, at least here.

Torturing some violates more than one of their basic rights, which exclusion from what is essentially a private club doesn't, don't you think? The Masters Tournament (golf) is a good example of the principle at work with what would be called discrimination if it were in a workplace environment. However, like Svalbard was saying, if the schools are getting public money, then that changes things, at least here.

I can see where you're coming from, and to a certain extent, I can see why you'd think that. The problem I have with that is that you could make the same argument for a school that only let white kids go to the formal. There'd be an anti-discrimination war about it. I fail to see how this is any different.

Plus, they ARE getting public funding, as my previous post proves.

I can see where you're coming from, and to a certain extent, I can see why you'd think that. The problem I have with that is that you could make the same argument for a school that only let white kids go to the formal. There'd be an anti-discrimination war about it. I fail to see how this is any different.

Plus, they ARE getting public funding, as my previous post proves.

There's a lot of room for that kind of discrimination over here at least. I've seen clubs that discriminated by gender or religion, and there are probably race-based groups out there as well. Schools probably are under more restrictions, however. I'm not really up to speed on that. But if they're getting public money, the discrimination has to stop, given that every taxpayer needs to be considered equally if that is the case.

Wow. Irony. The same Archbishop who supports the schools decision has also called for tolerance.

I read about this in the paper today. Amusingly, numerous students seem to be trying to do this and are threatening to boycott the formal. One of the heads apparently told them that they would be allowed if they were quiet about it. Obviously, this hasn't happened, but based on this it looks like the school is going to be very embarassed.

Here (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23534164-662,00.html?from=public_rss) it is.

I read about this in the paper today. Amusingly, numerous students seem to be trying to do this and are threatening to boycott the formal. One of the heads apparently told them that they would be allowed if they were quiet about it. Obviously, this hasn't happened, but based on this it looks like the school is going to be very embarassed.

Here (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23534164-662,00.html?from=public_rss) it is.

I'd say embarrassment doesn't quite cover it. I reckon the kids should just take their boyfriends anyway. See how the school reacts :p.

So a private Christain school is saying no to boys taking boys to the prom? No big supprise there, and I guess they can do that as homosexuality is against Christianities teachings.

So a private Christain school is saying no to boys taking boys to the prom? No big supprise there, and I guess they can do that as homosexuality is against Christianities teachings.

What, you mean the school assumes that they will have sex on prom night?
And if not, then what is the problem with letting those boys go together?

What, you mean the school assumes that they will have sex on prom night?
And if not, then what is the problem with letting those boys go together?

Naa I have no idea what the school assumes, but I assume that traditionaly this type of things is a chance to get fruity?(I donno, we don't really do it in the UK).

Naa I have no idea what the school assumes, but I assume that traditionaly this type of things is a chance to get fruity?(I donno, we don't really do it in the UK).

Sure it is. I guess.... I mean, Germans don't go for that kind of thing either, so I don't know first hand. Anyway, wouldn't that be more cause of concern for a Christian school? ;)

Sure it is. I guess.... I mean, Germans don't go for that kind of thing either, so I don't know first hand. Anyway, wouldn't that be more cause of concern for a Christian school? ;)

Perhaps who can know the minds of Christian school governers! At any rate, even if they were worried about hetrosexual shinanigans, I guess thay may well say that 'at least it's natural';)

Naa I have no idea what the school assumes, but I assume that traditionaly this type of things is a chance to get fruity?(I donno, we don't really do it in the UK).

A chance to get drunk and do drunken things, but not really sex AFAIK, although there's always someone.

Question is, why were the kids so eager to be in Xtian school, if they knew their sexual orientation wouldn't be exactly popular?

Question is, why were the kids so eager to be in Xtian school, if they knew their sexual orientation wouldn't be exactly popular?

Mostly the kids get little say in the school they go to. I blame the parents!:D

Of course... who else could be to blame :D

Of course... who else could be to blame :D

Errr umm ohh ohh the Christians?;)

They don't know any better... parents on the other hand should :p

They don't know any better... parents on the other hand should :p

Hahah what are you saying here, forgive them lord, they know not what they do.

So a private Christain school is saying no to boys taking boys to the prom? No big supprise there, and I guess they can do that as homosexuality is against Christianities teachings.

I would suspect Christianity is not the only religion that would do this.

Yeah, as School they receive tax cuts and fundings and are in return expected to do education according to state rules.
Discriminating like that is out of questions then.

Yeah, as School they receive tax cuts and fundings and are in return expected to do education according to state rules.
Discriminating like that is out of questions then.

Umm so the chance to party likes it's umm 2008 comes under education?

It's a social, and has nowt to do with state rules or education.

Wow a triple negative in a thread title.

Umm so the chance to party likes it's umm 2008 comes under education?

It's a social, and has nowt to do with state rules or education.

It's a school event. State rules for School events apply.

If it were a private event, they could exclude whoever they want, no matter how not-2008 it is.

It's a school event. State rules for School events apply.

If it were a private event, they could exclude whoever they want, no matter how not-2008 it is.

Can you proove that one to me?

So a private Christain school is saying no to boys taking boys to the prom? No big supprise there, and I guess they can do that as homosexuality is against Christianities teachings.
I agree, Christianity is reactionary and should be purged completely, along with all religion, but I prefer one step at a time.;)

Can you proove that one to me?

:D you can exchange 'does' with 'should' and 'can' with 'should be able to' and then it will look more like the opinion it's supposed to be ;)

So why did they call it Queensland then?

This is clearly unacceptable, and the "it's a private school so they can do what they like" line is equally as unacceptable. This instance doesn't change the fact that discrimination based on innate sexuality is just as bigoted as discrimination based on innate ethnicity. In both instances it's unacceptable because you are discriminating based on something the person has no control over.

Gay people have as much right to go to these schools as heterosexuals and under Federal laws (and any moral way of treating people) the private managers of this school have no right to breach the rights of these individuals by discriminating on sexual grounds.

This case should be dealt with the same way it would be dealt with if it was a Black person or an Asian being told they couldn't go to the formal because they weren't Anglo.

Also, the whole "they can do it because it's private" line also doesn't work, and it has about as validity as the 'Cinema - Colored People Only' approach.

This is clearly unacceptable, and the "it's a private school so they can do what they like" line is equally as unacceptable. This instance doesn't change the fact that discrimination based on innate sexuality is just as bigoted as discrimination based on innate ethnicity. In both instances it's unacceptable because you are discriminating based on something the person has no control over.

Gay people have as much right to go to these schools as heterosexuals and under Federal laws (and any moral way of treating people) the private managers of this school have no right to breach the rights of these individuals by discriminating on sexual grounds.

This case should be dealt with the same way it would be dealt with if it was a Black person or an Asian being told they couldn't go to the formal because they weren't Anglo.

Also, the whole "they can do it because it's private" line also doesn't work, and it has about as validity as the 'Cinema - Colored People Only' approach.


How about this. You would not be supprised to be refused membership of the KKK, or the BNP, if you are a black skined man. Nor would you expect that the Catholic church would perform a gay wedding ceremony.

And although you are correct it is bigoted, and discrimonatory, it is right in the eyes of these institutions to act this way. To that end then it is no great supprise, and how else could they act on this manner.

Until Christianity gets rid of the predujices they have, then this will happen time and time again, indeed it is the only result one should expect.

So there are two ways of dealing with it, suck it up, or rial against it.

So there are two ways of dealing with it, suck it up, or rial against it.

Um, and what do you think people are doing now, exactly?

Assuming that means 'rail'.

How about this. You would not be supprised to be refused membership of the KKK, or the BNP, if you are a black skined man. Nor would you expect that the Catholic church would perform a gay wedding ceremony.

And although you are correct it is bigoted, and discrimonatory, it is right in the eyes of these institutions to act this way. To that end then it is no great supprise, and how else could they act on this manner.

Until Christianity gets rid of the predujices they have, then this will happen time and time again, indeed it is the only result one should expect.

So there are two ways of dealing with it, suck it up, or rial against it.
That example is failed, and on your part (and many others) comes down to a pithy and might I say dangerous attempt to be an apologist for said bigotry under the guise of 'realism'.

That example is failed because in Australia private education is pretty big, Howard criminally underfunded the states for public education and funneled millions into private education, as such public school is a joke and is infested with would-be lumpenproletariat, and private (in the case of me Catholic) was the only real way to get good enough to go into Uni.

As such your 'comparison' of such education to the KKK and BNP is false because it many cases private schools are the best way for people to get a really good education and make a better life than a plumber, so the issue of 'choice' is minimal and it's not exactly like the Catholic schools put NO GAYS ALLOWED on their front gates, do they?

Failed comparison is failed.

Um, and what do you think people are doing now, exactly?

Assuming that means 'rail'.

That is indeed what I meant, and how is that railing going, changing the Catholic church are we?

That is indeed what I meant, and how is that railing going, changing the Catholic church are we?

Ah, the old chestnut of 'your position is wrong because you're not accomplishing anything.' If that was legitimate NSG would not exist.

Incidentally, considering the school is called the 'Anglican Church Grammar School'...

That is indeed what I meant, and how is that railing going, changing the Catholic church are we?

That's what I meant, bigotry under the veil of 'your never going to change the system' is still bigotry, albeit in a more subtle face.

That example is failed, and on your part (and many others) comes down to a pithy and might I say dangerous attempt to be an apologist for said bigotry under the guise of 'realism'.

That example is failed because in Australia private education is pretty big, Howard criminally underfunded the states for public education and funneled millions into private education, as such public school is a joke and is infested with would-be lumpenproletariat, and private (in the case of me Catholic) was the only real way to get good enough to go into Uni.

As such your 'comparison' of such education to the KKK and BNP is false because it many cases private schools are the best way for people to get a really good education and make a better life than a plumber, so the issue of 'choice' is minimal and it's not exactly like the Catholic schools put NO GAYS ALLOWED on their front gates, do they?

Failed comparison is failed.

Meh whatever. I don't see the fail though. Are you saying beliving that Christianity is going to care about gay rights, is not the same as as beliving a black man can join the KKK?

Meh whatever. I don't see the fail though. Are you saying beliving that Christianity is going to care about gay rights, is not the same as as beliving a black man can join the KKK?

Damn, the Christians here are going to kick your ass.

*shines cross signal into sky*

Ah, the old chestnut of 'your position is wrong because you're not accomplishing anything.' If that was legitimate NSG would not exist.

Incidentally, considering the school is called the 'Anglican Church Grammar School'...

Bwhahah you lot really should read all of the words. It is not my opinion that these people are right, I do not support them, all I do say is are you supprised that a Christian school would not engourage homosexulaity?

And that according to their rules, they are only doing what they see is right, in addition their club their rules.

Meh whatever. I don't see the fail though. Are you saying beliving that Christianity is going to care about gay rights, is not the same as as beliving a black man can join the KKK?

To be honest, I don't care what the Church wants, I am just saying that their conduct in this matter is in clear violation of anti-discrimination legislation.

Again, your using the same tired old failed comparison, are you honestly saying the Church is a political organization which provides no other service other than intolerant views of sexuality? If so you are clearly deluded and fail to understand the nature of education in Australia.

That's what I meant, bigotry under the veil of 'your never going to change the system' is still bigotry, albeit in a more subtle face.

I do hope that you are not calling me a bigot here?

Damn, the Christians here are going to kick your ass.

*shines cross signal into sky*

Hey let the kicking commence!;)

I do hope that you are not calling me a bigot here?

Indeed I am, no one would defend such bigotry in such a pithy and insubstantial way as you are doing if they themselves were not just looking for an excuse to defend these bigoted actions indirectly.

Again Peep your subtle (not so much) defense of bigotry is beginning to annoy me, why not state your bigotry up front instead of arguing these semantics? Come on, I know you want too.

Bwhahah you lot really should read all of the words. It is not my opinion that these people are right, I do not support them, all I do say is are you supprised that a Christian school would not engourage homosexulaity?

And that according to their rules, they are only doing what they see is right, in addition their club their rules.

"Railing against the Church (i.e. "your position") is wrong because it doesn't accomplish anything," is what you are essentially saying.

Indeed I am, no one would defend such bigotry in such a pithy and insubstantial way as you are doing if they themselves were not just looking for an excuse to defend these bigoted actions indirectly.

Again Peep your subtle (not so much) defense of bigotry is beginning to annoy me, why not state your bigotry up front instead of arguing these semantics? Come on, I know you want too.

Bwahahahah then you don't know me at all.

"Railing against the Church (i.e. "your position") is wrong because it doesn't accomplish anything," is what you are essentially saying.

No no, I belive that it does not accomplish much, you have that right, but I never said it was wrong.

Ultimatly only the church can change the church, and that I belive will never happen, the churches own dogma, history and holy scriputre has really seen to that.

Myself I look forward to the death of the Christian church almost as much as I look forward to the death of Maggie Thatcher.

No no, I belive that it does not accomplish much, you have that right, but I never said it was wrong.

Ultimatly only the church can change the church, and that I belive will never happen, the churches own dogma, history and holy scriputre has really seen to that.

Myself I look forward to the death of the Christian church almost as much as I look forward to the death of Maggie Thatcher.
Oh well if that's your position then I recant my earlier statements, I just like having someone to argue.

So there are two ways of dealing with it, suck it up, or rial against it.

Um, and what do you think people are doing now, exactly?

That is indeed what I meant, and how is that railing going, changing the Catholic church are we?



No no, I belive that it does not accomplish much, you have that right, but I never said it was wrong.

Ultimatly only the church can change the church, and that I belive will never happen, the churches own dogma, history and holy scriputre has really seen to that.

Myself I look forward to the death of the Christian church almost as much as I look forward to the death of Maggie Thatcher.

Eh, it looks like it to me. Sounds like you're saying it's silly, anyway. I may just be deducing that something which is pointless is the wrong thing to do though.

Oh well if that's your position then I recant my earlier statements, I just like having someone to argue.

I guess what I am saying is that in a world of free speach, and of freedom of thought. Then telling an organisation that is known t be anti gay, that they should not be just don't really have any impact.

Yes, anti gay bigotry is wrong, but I say that from my subjective POV, if I was a Christian, I may say otherwise.

Then in that case it is perfectly fine for this school to take the stance they have, they are afterall only obeying the tennants of their faith; that I personaly find if obtectionable is of no account, they are perfectly within their rights to proclaim, 'our club, our rules' and in that they are 100% correct.

Eh, it looks like it to me. Sounds like you're saying it's silly, anyway. I may just be deducing that something which is pointless is the wrong thing to do though.

You must be, unless you can point out where I said 'it is wrong to rail against them'?

Well, thats a bit of an exaggeration. But basically, Anglican Private School in Queensland is saying no to guys taking guys to their formal. Apparently it's a time for a guy and a girl to have a good time. Even if they are just friends.

Linky. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/14/2216379.htm?section=australia)

Whadda ya think? Should the school, as a private educational facility, have the right to discriminate at a formal against which dates their boys bring? Or is it discriminatory?

I think I've made my position pretty clear...

Props to the school. APS, don't back down.

To be honest, I find myself unable to work up any high degree of concern over the policies of some private school way the hell over in Australia.

To my mind, I think an equally valid question on the topic would be: Unless you're a student at the school in question, or an Australian, what's it to you?

Well, thats a bit of an exaggeration. But basically, Anglican Private School in Queensland is saying no to guys taking guys to their formal. Apparently it's a time for a guy and a girl to have a good time. Even if they are just friends.

Linky. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/14/2216379.htm?section=australia)

Whadda ya think? Should the school, as a private educational facility, have the right to discriminate at a formal against which dates their boys bring? Or is it discriminatory?

I think I've made my position pretty clear...


The key word is private. Meaning since they get no government funds, they can do whatever they want.

The only thing will be when they try to justify how guys who go stag with a group of friends are a-ok but those filthy queers arent.

So what is all I had to say about it.

I would like to ask those people who are against this private school putting in its own policies, if it said that only students attending the school may attend, thus denying the possibility of students with long term partners who may not be attending the formal I suppose that is all right then.

Oh and I noticed at least one person here said prom well it is not a prom it is a formal. It may be semantics but so what we call it a formal, take your trashy American words away.

And can anyone show me where in the federal anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity act that prohibits the school from initiating such policy. I am not saying it isn't there I would just like to see it myself.

And I am a bit surprised it took this long to get on to NSG thought it may have been on here sooner.

Well, thats a bit of an exaggeration. But basically, Anglican Private School in Queensland is saying no to guys taking guys to their formal. Apparently it's a time for a guy and a girl to have a good time. Even if they are just friends.

Linky. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/14/2216379.htm?section=australia)

Whadda ya think? Should the school, as a private educational facility, have the right to discriminate at a formal against which dates their boys bring? Or is it discriminatory?

I think I've made my position pretty clear...

Parents of gay children are perfectly capable of putting up their own funds for their own private school.

There's a lot of room for that kind of discrimination over here at least. I've seen clubs that discriminated by gender or religion, and there are probably race-based groups out there as well. Schools probably are under more restrictions, however. I'm not really up to speed on that. But if they're getting public money, the discrimination has to stop, given that every taxpayer needs to be considered equally if that is the case.
This wouldn't be the case in the US. There are various forms of discrimination which are against the law (race etc.) but discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is fine.

Anglican Private School in Queensland

End of story. Private school. They make the rules.

End of story. Private school. They make the rules.
Well, in other countries any rules set up by private institutions must be constitutional nevertheless.

Whadda ya think? Should the school, as a private educational facility, have the right to discriminate at a formal against which dates their boys bring?
Since it is a private facility and one is not required to be there, yes, it should have the right to discriminate. Just as I have the right not to let people walk through my front door.
Or is it discriminatory?
Obviously it is still discriminatory though, since it discriminates and all that.

It's a private religious school for God's sake. Of course they won't allow homosexuality as that would be going against their religion. This is not a secular school. It's the same as nobody should be FORCING a church to marry gays if the church feels it's not acceptable.

Public marriage, that is secular legal marriage...is something totally different, obviously.

I'm guessing many leftist tools are just using this as an excuse to bitch and flame "the Christians".:rolleyes: Pathetic, but we've seen it before and we'll see it again....

The only person who can give us a clear answer is a lawyer to be honest, I just don't know the law enough to make a judgement on this situation.

I'm guessing many leftist tools are just using this as an excuse to bitch and flame "the Christians".:rolleyes: Pathetic, but we've seen it before and we'll see it again....


Erm...wanna read the thread? Nobody has done that.

Well, in other countries any rules set up by private institutions must be constitutional nevertheless.

What are you talking about? Or are you just trolling around, as usual?

Well, in other countries any rules set up by private institutions must be constitutional nevertheless.

Don't see how this could be construed as "unconstitutional" UB

Right to trial by jury - Section 80 creates a right to trial by jury for indictable offences against Commonwealth law. There are serious conceptual limitations to this right however, since the Commonwealth is free to make any offence, no matter how serious the punishment, triable otherwise than on indictment. As Justice Higgins said in R v Archdall & Roskruge; Ex parte Carrigan and Brown (1928) 41 CLR 128: "if there be an indictment, there must be a jury, but there is nothing to compel procedure by indictment". In practice, however, no major issue of abuse of this loophole has been raised.
Right to just compensation - Paragraph 51(xxxi) creates a right to just compensation for assets taken by the Commonwealth.
Right to freedom of religion - Section 116 creates a limited right to freedom of religion, by prohibiting the Commonwealth (but not the states) from "making any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion." This section is based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but is weaker in operation. As the states retain all powers they had as colonies before federation, except for those explicitly given to the Commonwealth, this section does not affect the states' powers to legislate on religion, and, in accordance with High Court interpretations, no Federal legislation on religion, short of establishing an official religion of Australia, would be limited by it either.
Right to freedom from discrimination against out-of-State residents -Section 117 prohibits disability or discrimination in one state against the resident of another state. This is interpreted widely (Street v Queensland Bar Association), but does not prohibit states from imposing residential requirements where they are required by the State's autonomy and its responsibility to its people.

End of story. Private school. They make the rules.

Sorry, we have already completely destroyed this line, please come back another day.

It's a private religious school for God's sake. Of course they won't allow homosexuality as that would be going against their religion. This is not a secular school. It's the same as nobody should be FORCING a church to marry gays if the church feels it's not acceptable.
Who's saying that they have to allow homosexuality?
I'm guessing many leftist tools are just using this as an excuse to bitch and flame "the Christians".:rolleyes: Pathetic, but we've seen it before and we'll see it again....
Feeling a bit defensive?

Sorry, we have already completely destroyed this line, please come back another day.

Its called 'the right to refuse service'. They might not have it in Australia, I suppose, but I personally consider it the right of any businessperson to deny service to anybody, for any reason they see fit.
Fourtunatly, in a capitolist economy, deny service is only bad for your business, and companies and businesses that discriminate for whatever reason will lose profits. Hence, why you dont see many places denying service for frivelous reasons.

Yes but in Australia we have something called 'Anti-Discrimination' legislation.

Yes but in Australia we have something called 'Anti-Discrimination' legislation.

And, here in the US, we have anti-discrimination legislation as well.

Of course, whether or not such legislation applies to private business rather depends on the wording, precident, and that sort of thing, doesnt it?
I'm not too familiar with Australias legal system, however. If you could provide the text of the legislation or a case setting the precident whereby private institutions arent allowed to refuse service.

this is a religious school, and if homosexuality is against their religion, they shouldn't have to let people bring gay prom dates.

Yes but in Australia we have something called 'Anti-Discrimination' legislation.

The government and essential services (water, heating, etc) has those as well in the states. Private owned businesses that provide non-essential services, well, its sketchy as far as I know if that applies.


Since this is in Austrailia (I think?) however though, its your laws that matter.

Since this is in Austrailia (I think?) however though, its your laws that matter.

Yes, it is Australia...

Thats really just a problem with so-called "Christian" Bigots dominating the church...

Private Schools ARE THE DEVIL! anyway, lol...gotta love teh irony there...

Well, in other countries any rules set up by private institutions must be constitutional nevertheless.

We aren't talking about other countries here we are talking about Australia and more specifically Queensland

We aren't talking about other countries here we are talking about Australia and more specifically Queensland

Well i would say that if you dont enforce a Constitution whats the point of having the Damn thing?...But what am i saying, i live in America, lol...the king of ignoring our own Constitution... ;)

Well i would say that if you dont enforce a Constitution whats the point of having the Damn thing?...But what am i saying, i live in America, lol...the king of ignoring our own Constitution... ;)

Well it isn't enshrined in our constitution. Australia will never give up the power of the people and the independence and sovereignty of our Parliament to hand it over to unelected court officials. But hey I don't want to divert the thread topic.

Well it isn't enshrined in our constitution. Australia will never give up the power of the people and the independence and sovereignty of our Parliament to hand it over to unelected court officials.

Psh, we have you beat ten fold, we dont even let our court officials wield power, we willing elect dictators every four years, lol...Actually we dont even do that, we suggest which dictators we prefer and let a few people in teh Electoral College pick who it will be...

and then we wonder why he doesnt do whats best for the people :rolleyes: lol...

Australia will never give up the power of the people and the independence and sovereignty of our Parliament to hand it over to unelected court officials. But hey I don't want to divert the thread topic.

:rolleyes:

Psh, we have you beat ten fold, we dont even let our court officials wield power, we willing elect dictators every four years, lol...Actually we dont even do that, we suggest which dictators we prefer and let a few people in teh Electoral College pick who it will be...

and then we wonder why he doesnt do whats best for the people :rolleyes: lol...


:rolleyes:

Psh, we have you beat ten fold, we dont even let our court officials wield power, we willing elect dictators every four years, lol...Actually we dont even do that, we suggest which dictators we prefer and let a few people in teh Electoral College pick who it will be...

and then we wonder why he doesnt do whats best for the people :rolleyes: lol...

lol

:rolleyes:

Don't you roll your eyes at me KOL I am just repeating the position of the present government, over the weekend the Attorney General stated that the Labor Government is taking this stance

Don't you roll your eyes at me KOL I am just repeating the position of the present government, over the weekend the Attorney General stated that the Labor Government is taking this stance

Oh, I thought you were implying that America lets its judges "legislate from the bench", which is what neo cons call it whenever the SCOTUS makes a decision they dont like. I only got that impression from the fact that you were discussing this stuff with an American. I probably acted too quickly.


Im sorry if I misread you. But my eye roll at the other guy still stands.

Oh, I thought you were implying that America lets its judges "legislate from the bench", which is what neo cons call it whenever the SCOTUS makes a decision they dont like. I only got that impression from the fact that you were discussing this stuff with an American. I probably acted too quickly.


Im sorry if I misread you. But my eye roll at the other guy still stands.

Thats perfectly alright. As for the other eyeroll that is up to Skalvia and your good self to work out

Thats perfectly alright. As for the other eyeroll that is up to Skalvia and your good self to work out

I was just taking an opportunity to complain about our shitty ass government, lol...

It makes our Great Country look Bad...:cool:

Ya' ,a private school. They won't have any of my business.

Ya' ,a private school. They won't have any of my business.

Well, just remember having your kid in private school gives you the best chance of ensuring that he or she is never exposed to any mentality other than the almost surgically narrow one that you want indoctrinated into their brain like leather tooling on a pair of medium-priced Italian dress shoes.

And that's what education is really about.

Well, just remember having your kid in private school gives you the best chance of ensuring that he or she is never exposed to any mentality other than the almost surgically narrow one that you want indoctrinated into their brain like leather tooling on a pair of medium-priced Italian dress shoes.

And that's what education is really about.

As opposed to public schooling, which ensures that your kid is never exposed to any mentality other than the almost surgically narrow one that the state wants indoctrinated into their brain like cheap dyes in a Chinese-made American flag.

Well, just remember having your kid in private school gives you the best chance of ensuring that he or she is never exposed to any mentality other than the almost surgically narrow one that you want indoctrinated into their brain like leather tooling on a pair of medium-priced Italian dress shoes.

And that's what education is really about.

:rolleyes:

Plenty of public schools also do this as well, not only teachers but also the school as a whole and the curriculum.

As opposed to public schooling, which ensures that your kid is never exposed to any mentality other than the almost surgically narrow one that the state wants indoctrinated into their brain like cheap dyes in a Chinese-made American flag.

As opposed to gulag schooling, which ensures your fellow countryman is never exposed to any mentality other than the surgically narrow bullethole that was just indoctrinated into his head like the casings in the Russian-made full metal jackets.

As opposed to public schooling, which ensures that your kid is never exposed to any mentality other than the almost surgically narrow one that the state wants indoctrinated into their brain like cheap dyes in a Chinese-made American flag.

For public schooling to be so precise in its inculcation, it would have to have a broadly coherent policy and the ability to actually consistently deliver information to students in a retainable way. I've taught in the public schools. They aren't that organized.

As for Chinese made American Flags, their dyes are only so resilient because they contain good old fashioned lead.

:rolleyes:

Plenty of public schools also do this as well, not only teachers but also the school as a whole and the curriculum.

I said best chance, not the only chance.

With a private school, you get at least some control over the generalized idealogy. With Public Schools, its a coin toss between the hardworking and genuinely caring liberal arts major and the hardworking and genuinely caring alcoholic liberal arts major.

As opposed to gulag schooling, which ensures your fellow countryman is never exposed to any mentality other than the surgically narrow bullethole that was just indoctrinated into his head like the casings in the Russian-made full metal jackets.

I am so fucking sick of people bad mouthing Wolf brand import practice ammo. Yes, they're not manufactured to such high tolerances as the high end Canadian stuff, but it serves its purpose down at the range.

Elitist!

I said best chance, not the only chance.

With a private school, you get at least some control over the generalized idealogy. With Public Schools, its a coin toss between the hardworking and genuinely caring liberal arts major and the hardworking and genuinely caring alcoholic liberal arts major.

Yeah, but you trade that off for a Homogenized atmosphere, in which the child has no interaction with other Races, Creeds, Economic Situations, usually Sex, etc. so they will not be prepared to encounter these in REAL LIFE sure the purely educational trade off can be considered positive, but, How many Kids are going to be Academics for the rest of their lives? not many, and in the real work force, professional or otherwise, they will need to have a much broader spectrum if they are to survive...

Yeah, but you trade that off for a Homogenized atmosphere, in which the child has no interaction with other Races, Creeds, Economic Situations, usually Sex, etc. so they will not be prepared to encounter these in REAL LIFE sure the purely educational trade off can be considered positive, but, How many Kids are going to be Academics for the rest of their lives? not many, and in the real work force, professional or otherwise, they will need to have a much broader spectrum if they are to survive...

See, that's why there is a growing body of research in the pedogoggic field that indicates that we should make it a mandatory aspect of graduate study to experience narcotics, sketchy fuckbuddys, and hanging out with ethnicities your parents warned you about.

So, the new process is this: undergraduate work, take the GRE, get 60 masters hours, fuck a bisexual Israeli chick you met at a craps game behind the local african art store while highballing coke and X, defend your thesis, get your license, and TEACH LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER!!!!

See, that's why there is a growing body of research in the pedogoggic field that indicates that we should make it a mandatory aspect of graduate study to experience narcotics, sketchy fuckbuddys, and hanging out with ethnicities your parents warned you about.

So, the new process is this: undergraduate work, take the GRE, get 60 masters hours, fuck a bisexual Israeli chick you met at a craps game behind the local african art store while highballing coke and X, defend your thesis, get your license, and TEACH LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER!!!!

Well, its a little extreme, but at least you get my point, lol :rolleyes:

I disagree with this because I had a male friend accompany me to my formal. I'm not homosexual, but my girlfriend was across the ocean and it just so happened that I had a good friend whom I wanted to show what his formal might be like the next year.

Elitist!

I would rise to the occassion and deal you a hefty riposte for that insult, if I weren't already above you.

Since it is a private facility and one is not required to be there,

The children's parents require them to be there.

I disagree with this because I had a male friend accompany me to my formal. I'm not homosexual, but my girlfriend was across the ocean and it just so happened that I had a good friend whom I wanted to show what his formal might be like the next year.

Psh, hetero males dont take guys to formal...thats just fricken crazy, lol...;)

The God man only sees in Black and White, lol

The children's parents require them to be there.

But it is a voluntary service, correct? The state does not enforce attendence at the institution and also provides alternatives, should the service prove unsatisfactory?

Psh, hetero males dont take guys to formal...thats just fricken crazy, lol...;)

The God man only sees in Black and White, lol

Well, if he had actually accompanied me, it might have been a bit more weird ^^ As it happened, he only got the invitation :p He did show up - we just didn't come at the same time. Omg, I can't write this up properly... I'm not gonna write anymore.

But yes, Black and White 2 was particularly good *nods* Although it lacked multiplayer. I guess they went monotheistic.

Well, its a little extreme, but at least you get my point, lol :rolleyes:

I don't get your point at all.

You imply, brazenly and without shame, that exposure to a broader range of people and the accompanying ability to interact productively with humanity as a whole would serve some purpose in the development of a person.

Other races, creeds, and (shudder) economic strata are beneath the notice of a good straight white child, and they exist only as cautionary example.

But fine, you go ahead and send your kid to a public school, and when he brings home a Puerto Rican girl in a wheel chair, have fun building the ramp.

I would rise to the occassion and deal you a hefty riposte for that insult, if I weren't already above you.

That's the problem with you ammo-racists. You think having the high ground gives you a tactical advantage.

Well, you're lucky you've already decided to walk away, because even my cheap ass russian made 7.62 x 39 that I bought off the internet from an inbred kentucky R4 can be compensated for drop by aiming high.

So there, ammo-racist!

But it is a voluntary service, correct? The state does not enforce attendence at the institution and also provides alternatives, should the service prove unsatisfactory?

It's not voluntary for those effected by it (i.e. the kids who go there).

But fine, you go ahead and send your kid to a public school, and when he brings home a Puerto Rican girl in a wheel chair, have fun building the ramp.
What if he brings home a nice blind Puerto Rican boy named Jesus?
That's the problem with you ammo-racists. You think having the high ground gives you a tactical advantage.

Well, you're lucky you've already decided to walk away, because even my cheap ass russian made 7.62 x 39 that I bought off the internet from an inbred kentucky R4 can be compensated for drop by aiming high.

So there, ammo-racist!
*stomps your face with capitalistic 1984esque bootheel*

I don't get your point at all.

You imply, brazenly and without shame, that exposure to a broader range of people and the accompanying ability to interact productively with humanity as a whole would serve some purpose in the development of a person.

Other races, creeds, and (shudder) economic strata are beneath the notice of a good straight white child, and they exist only as cautionary example.

But fine, you go ahead and send your kid to a public school, and when he brings home a Puerto Rican girl in a wheel chair, have fun building the ramp.

I damn well will, if thats what He or She desires, honestly, to suggest that a Puerto Rican girl in a wheel chair is somehow "below" a "Good Straight White Child" is purely Racist, and exactly proves my point about children needing a broader palate, if for no other reason than getting rid of that Bigot Attitude...

Just reading that post sickens me...

Psh, hetero males dont take guys to formal...thats just fricken crazy, lol...;)

The God man only sees in Black and White, lol

Hetero males know that the only reason to go to formal is that there is a 9.7% greater chance for a girl to greenlight a little "I really do love you, now pardon while I clumsily hump you".

Going with another guy is just pointless, unless your some pathetic latent fag who goes with a guy and then winds up having sex with him in the back of my 88 Hyundai and then we don't hang out anymore because I can't look him in the eye anymore.

It's not voluntary for those effected by it (i.e. the kids who go there).

I don't think that is relevant, because legally, they are under the 'command' and care of their parents anyway.

Private school is a bad decisions anyway, due to expenses.

I don't get your point at all.

You imply, brazenly and without shame, that exposure to a broader range of people and the accompanying ability to interact productively with humanity as a whole would serve some purpose in the development of a person.

Other races, creeds, and (shudder) economic strata are beneath the notice of a good straight white child, and they exist only as cautionary example.

But fine, you go ahead and send your kid to a public school, and when he brings home a Puerto Rican girl in a wheel chair, have fun building the ramp.

:D

Hetero males know that the only reason to go to formal is that there is a 9.7% greater chance for a girl to greenlight a little "I really do love you, now pardon while I clumsily hump you".

Going with another guy is just pointless, unless your some pathetic latent fag who goes with a guy and then winds up having sex with him in the back of my 88 Hyundai and then we don't hang out anymore because I can't look him in the eye anymore.

Formals aren't about sex, so...

Formals aren't about sex, so...

White text? Where is the white text!??!

I damn well will, if thats what He or She desires, honestly, to suggest that a Puerto Rican girl in a wheel chair is somehow "below" a "Good Straight White Child" is purely Racist, and exactly proves my point about children needing a broader palate, if for no other reason than getting rid of that Bigot Attitude...

Just reading that post sickens me...

Nonsense...if you expose kids to other races (and I use the term "expose" in the same perjorative sense that I would use it if we were talking about exposing them to a microbial pathogen like hepatitis or a gay man's spit) then they might have sufficient cultural context to detect things like sarcasm or satire.

Why would you want your kids to grow up like that, you pathetic satanist?

Formals aren't about sex, so...

Formals are about dating, dating is about getting close to somebody who isn't yourself so that you can do something other than pleasure yourself with the Sears underwear catalog, crying during pages 37-65 since that's the guy's section, but you just can't stop yourself...

Formals aren't about sex? Did you go with your aunt or something?

Nonsense...if you expose kids to other races (and I use the term "expose" in the same perjorative sense that I would use it if we were talking about exposing them to a microbial pathogen like hepatitis or a gay man's spit) then they might have sufficient cultural context to detect things like sarcasm or satire.

Why would you want your kids to grow up like that, you pathetic satanist?

Yeah...well, its hard to detect a higher function such as Sarcasm or Satire when you compare Gays to Hepatitis...

Or call me a Satanist for no apparent reason...:rolleyes:

White text? Where is the white text!??!

It's very well-hidden, that's where.

Formals are about dating, dating is about getting close to somebody who isn't yourself so that you can do something other than pleasure yourself with the Sears underwear catalog, crying during pages 37-65 since that's the guy's section, but you just can't stop yourself...

Formals aren't about sex? Did you go with your aunt or something?

Actually, I said who I went with, but you know what, I don't really care, because it was more about GRADUATING than trying to get into anyone's pants.

Cause, you know, celebrating is actually a possibility in this life.

Yeah...well, its hard to detect a higher function such as Sarcasm or Satire when you compare Gays to Hepatitis...

Or call me a Satanist for no apparent reason...:rolleyes:

I call you a Satanist because are one. You advocate tolerance for other creeds and races. That's exactly what got Lucifer kicked out of Heaven.

His exact words were "God, your Creation is blessed in its dazzling array of beautiful, meaningful differences, the breadth of which only brings an even richer harmony to the world!"

And God said, "I tried to make Black Angels, but they just wind up looking like photonegatives of the good white ones. Get out."

I call you a Satanist because are one. You advocate tolerance for other creeds and races. That's exactly what got Lucifer kicked out of Heaven.

His exact words were "God, your Creation is blessed in its dazzling array of beautiful, meaningful differences, the breadth of which only brings an even richer harmony to the world!"

And God said, "I tried to make Black Angels, but they just wind up looking like photonegatives of the good white ones. Get out."

Just because i dont Spread Bigotry and hatred, doesnt mean i worship Lucifer...

Honestly...But, hell, your insight has inspired me not to support your God anyway, he seems to be a douche...

Actually, I said who I went with, but you know what, I don't really care, because it was more about GRADUATING than trying to get into anyone's pants.

Cause, you know, celebrating is actually a possibility in this life.

Well, when you grow up a little bit, you'll learn that only thing worth celebrating in life is loveless sex with somebody for whom you hold no genuine caring.

If you go around taking pride in your actual accomplishments, you'll never learn the superlative value of poorly executed physical gratification with no more impetus than futily chasing after some culturally polluted image of what sexuality is supposed to be.

Grow the fuck up, kid.

Just because i dont Spread Bigotry and hatred, doesnt mean i worship Lucifer...

Honestly...But, hell, your insight has inspired me not to support your God anyway, he seems to be a douche...

As usual, your own absurdity only validates my premise.

A douche is something that cleans the filth out of a dirty, sinfully, slightly fish-smelling crevice.

So, yes, God is a douche.

The mostly holy, deep-cleansing, odor-eliminating douche in the Universe!

Well, when you grow up a little bit, you'll learn that only thing worth celebrating in life is loveless sex with somebody for whom you hold no genuine caring.

If you go around taking pride in your actual accomplishments, you'll never learn the superlative value of poorly executed physical gratification with no more impetus than futily chasing after some culturally polluted image of what sexuality is supposed to be.

Grow the fuck up, kid.

I must say that is the Most Christian thing ive ever heard :rolleyes: lol, and he calls me a Satanist, honestly...

Well, thats a bit of an exaggeration. But basically, Anglican Private School in Queensland is saying no to guys taking guys to their formal. Apparently it's a time for a guy and a girl to have a good time. Even if they are just friends.

Linky. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/14/2216379.htm?section=australia)

Whadda ya think? Should the school, as a private educational facility, have the right to discriminate at a formal against which dates their boys bring? Or is it discriminatory?

I think I've made my position pretty clear...

I don't know why the left must take every preservation of the past as some sort of belligerent action but.... preserving the past isn't an attack, it is preserving a link to where we came from. Things like this must be kept the way they were as long as they aren't unjust or immoral.

As usual, your own absurdity only validates my premise.

A douche is something that cleans the filth out of a dirty, sinfully, slightly fish-smelling crevice.

So, yes, God is a douche.

The mostly holy, deep-cleansing, odor-eliminating douche in the Universe!

And I thought i was the one who couldnt detect Sarcasm or Satire?...

Fine, i shall clarify, your God seems to me to be a Racist, Bigot...happy? is that clear enough for your Narrow Minded eyes?

I must say that is the Most Christian thing ive ever heard :rolleyes: lol, and he calls me a Satanist, honestly...

Hey man.. just live and let die. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK2hKzZss5Y)

I must say that is the Most Christian thing ive ever heard :rolleyes: lol, and he calls me a Satanist, honestly...

It was just Most Christian, it was Moist Christian, which is even more true.

Seriously, Skalvia, quit enabling the kid's naievete. The sooner he quits building his self-esteem through things like achievement and hard work, the sooner he can develop a much more sound internal achitecture based on a life of buying Axe brand body spray because you think it will make women jump on you like a cat with some kind of really fucked up hormonal disorder.

Jesus never graduated school and he never went to a formal. He spent that night behind an ox-cart smoking Egyptian hash and saying that being a carpenter is absurd, if you want to really get rich, you should found your own religion.

It was just Most Christian, it was Moist Christian, which is even more true.

Seriously, Skalvia, quit enabling the kid's naievete. The sooner he quits building his self-esteem through things like achievement and hard work, the sooner he can develop a much more sound internal achitecture based on a life of buying Axe brand body spray because you think it will make women jump on you like a cat with some kind of really fucked up hormonal disorder.

Jesus never graduated school and he never went to a formal. He spent that night behind an ox-cart smoking Egyptian hash and saying that being a carpenter is absurd, if you want to really get rich, you should found your own religion.

Yep, thatll definitely make the world a better place :headbang: lol...

Jhahannam, Skalvia, you two better be careful the mods will be on to you not to mention that we have gone way off topic here.

And I thought i was the one who couldnt detect Sarcasm or Satire?...

Dude, you're making this to easy for me. Saying you believed in God was your sarcasm, calling him a douche (the opposite premise) was just a ham handed attack.


Fine, i shall clarify, your God seems to me to be a Racist, Bigot...happy? is that clear enough for your Narrow Minded eyes?

So, even when the satire is clearly, starkly stipulated to, you still don't get it?

Okay, fine let's continue then.

Ahem, uh...lessee...ah, right, okay. Being a racist is just having sufficient awareness to know that atheist mud people are dangerous. If you don't love your own genetic information enough to keep it away from those nasty non-blushers, fine, but quit using the word Bigot like its an insult.

Boltzmann was just a bigot against unimaginative physics, and look what he accomplished!

Jhahannam, Skalvia, you two better be careful the mods will be on to you not to mention that we have gone way off topic here.

I trust that at least some of the mods will read my posts carefully enough to notice what I'm actually saying.

As for being off-topic, examining and exploring the often viciously uninclusive proclivities of some (not all) religious mentalities, even when done through satire actually approaches and illuminate a number of ideas central to the theme of the thread.

Dude, you're making this to easy for me. Saying you believed in God was your sarcasm, calling him a douche (the opposite premise) was just a ham handed attack.



So, even when the satire is clearly, starkly stipulated to, you still don't get it?

Okay, fine let's continue then.

Ahem, uh...lessee...ah, right, okay. Being a racist is just having sufficient awareness to know that atheist mud people are dangerous. If you don't love your own genetic information enough to keep it away from those nasty non-blushers, fine, but quit using the word Bigot like its an insult.

Boltzmann was just a bigot against unimaginative physics, and look what he accomplished!

The problem with this theory is that "Having sufficient awareness to know that atheist mud people are dangerous" is the very definition of Bigot

and to anyone with any sense it would be insulting to be told they held such a belief...

But i made the mistake of thinking i could find a Civilized person on an Internet forum, admittedly that was pretty stupid, lol...

Yep, thatll definitely make the world a better place :headbang: lol...

Of course it does. This world need as much divisiveness as can be summoned, since every means by which arbitrary and hurtful barriers can be raised between us and them makes it that much easier to dehumanize those dirty crippled 'Ricans.

The problem with this theory is that "Having sufficient awareness to know that atheist mud people are dangerous" is the very definition of Bigot

and to anyone with any sense it would be insulting to be told they held such a belief...

But i made the mistake of thinking i could find a Civilized person on an Internet forum, admittedly that was pretty stupid, lol...

Well, you needn't admit to stupidity, Skalvia. You have such a gift for language that you can see how genuinely racist I am, and you are so thoroughly Civilized yourself that literary techniques such as satire, even of the most obtuse and even blatantly obvious caliber, soar safely over your head.

Well, you needn't admit to stupidity, Skalvia. You have such a gift for language that you can see how genuinely racist I am, and you are so thoroughly Civilized yourself that literary techniques such as satire, even of the most obtuse and even blatantly obvious caliber, soar safely over your head.

Sorry, i was in the whole "I take this debate Seriously" mode...my bad...

Sorry, i was in the whole "I take this debate Seriously" mode...my bad...

Ah, so naturally, "serious" debate precludes the use of examples that clearly illustrate the absurdity of the opposing position by exposing the more egregious elements of it?

No, there is no historical precedent of Satire aiding "serious" discourse...

Question is, why were the kids so eager to be in Xtian school, if they knew their sexual orientation wouldn't be exactly popular?

most fags live to defy the norm

they just want the whole "look at me, im different" theme as if being open about it will somehow brainwash the hasses into accepting them

thankfully it wont happen, as the more they push for it, the more those with morals will fight them

most fags live to defy the norm

they just want the whole "look at me, im different" theme as if being open about it will somehow brainwash the hasses into accepting them

thankfully it wont happen, as the more they push for it, the more those with morals will fight them
: psy :

Yes, like people have a choice in their sexuality...:rolleyes:

most fags live to defy the norm

they just want the whole "look at me, im different" theme as if being open about it will somehow brainwash the hasses into accepting them

thankfully it wont happen, as the more they push for it, the more those with morals will fight them

Damn right.

The only possible conclusion for accepting your own nature is to "brainwash" everybody. Nail on the head.

The norm shoud never be defied, its so nice and safe for everybody!

You tell 'em!

most fags live to defy the norm

they just want the whole "look at me, im different" theme as if being open about it will somehow brainwash the hasses into accepting them

Oh, you're just jealous, you boring straight person. ;)

thankfully it wont happen, as the more they push for it, the more those with morals will fight them

Your desperate delusions are so cute.

: psy :

Yes, like people have a choice in their sexuality...:rolleyes:

Duh. Just like blacks choose their skin color.

Remember, this guy is the author of NSG's Great Jewish Conspericy.

Duh. Just like blacks choose their skin color.

Remember, this guy is the author of NSG's Great Jewish Conspericy.

First of all, blacks do choose their skin color. They do it at the hospital, where the parents (assuming they aren't off huffing crack through the inflation nozzle broken off the tire from a 1987 Cadillac Brougham) make the decision by counterbalancing the possibility of race-based scholarships with the offsetting issue of being followed around Wal-Mart by a mouthbreathing security guard who has lots of guns, but just at home.

Second of all, the Jews do have a conspiracy. Lunatic Goofballs just through an unleavened pie at me. It begins.

To get the thread back on topic (in many ways I'll be sad, it's been quite humourous)

I don't know why the left must take every preservation of the past as some sort of belligerent action but.... preserving the past isn't an attack, it is preserving a link to where we came from. Things like this must be kept the way they were as long as they aren't unjust or immoral.

Ok, please forgive me if this is satire... my sarcasm detector has been thrown COMPLETELY out of whack by Jhahannam, its like trying to detect a faint electrical current and then having someone blow a nuke up in your face...

Anyway. I would suggest that this IS immoral AND unjust, for a multitude of reasons.

1) These kids have no choice about their sexuality. Just like the race thing. It's been pointed out before, but it deserves being beaten into the skulls of those who seem oblivious. They HAVE NO CHOICE. Therefore, how is it fair to stop them attending the formal for reasons outside of their control, and which do not affect their ability to participate?

2) This institution is supposed to be a school. As such, it falls under a fairly large portion of government control. This is completely justified given the funding they receive from the government. They are NOT completely independent organisations, they in fact get a significant portion of their funding from taxpayers. Given that this is a secular country, I oppose government funding for religious schools anyway, but for them to initiate this ban, it brings them under government anti-discrimination legislation. Were they completely independent, receiving zero government support, I could accept that (although I wouldn't agree) but they are supported by the government, and therefore should abide by government laws.

3) This also impinges upon the right of guys to take their male friends to the formal. My mate took his best friend from America to his. It was great for shock value. He went in a dress. It was the highlight of the night. That would not be allowed here, not to mention all those guys who just take their straight friends without making a scene.

So, if you could answer those points, I would be happy.

Again, apologies if it was sarcasm



Oh, and the triple negative in the title was intended. I'm just cool like that.

Sorry, we have already completely destroyed this line, please come back another day.

Have we?

most fags live to defy the norm

they just want the whole "look at me, im different" theme as if being open about it will somehow brainwash the hasses into accepting them

thankfully it wont happen, as the more they push for it, the more those with morals will fight them

You are so strange, the way that little head of yours works, tell me do you actualy belive what you say?

You are so strange, the way that little head of yours works, tell me do you actualy belive what you say?

STOP QUESTIONING HIM, HOMOSEXUAL JEW-LIZARD!

STOP QUESTIONING HIM, HOMOSEXUAL JEW-LIZARD!

Are you shouting at me? I do hope that is an attempt at satire?

Well, thats a bit of an exaggeration. But basically, Anglican Private School in Queensland is saying no to guys taking guys to their formal. Apparently it's a time for a guy and a girl to have a good time. Even if they are just friends.

Linky. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/14/2216379.htm?section=australia)

Whadda ya think? Should the school, as a private educational facility, have the right to discriminate at a formal against which dates their boys bring? Or is it discriminatory?

I think I've made my position pretty clear...

Bahaha. This is hilarious. Are you from Brisbane?

Look, Kelvin Grove wouldn't let people bring dates from outside the school. I'm not sure whether Clayfield let girls bring girls, but I can't imagine they'd let them either. Formals are supposed to be traditional, but I can't see a problem with bringing a date of the same sex. It's a stupid rule, but in the end, there's lots of ridiculous rules in schools, and you just get over it.

All I know is despite the rule, there's always a little guy-on-guy action at the after parties. ;)

If it's a private school, they can do what they like I guess. So long as they aren't taking public money.

They take public money.

And just because they're a private school doesn't mean they can "do whatever they want". Do you think it would be okay for them to say "you can't bring Asians to the formal"?

So a private Christain school is saying no to boys taking boys to the prom? No big supprise there, and I guess they can do that as homosexuality is against Christianities teachings.

Hahaha, your spelling is terrible. Did you go to Churchie by any chance? ;)

Hahaha, your spelling is terrible. Did you go to Churchie by any chance? ;)

Hahahahah I'm dyslexic, and no churcies for me.

It's so funny that a thread about Churchie has so many replies.

Aaah, those popular Churchie boys... hahaha.

Hahahahah I'm dyslexic, and no churcies for me.

Lol, I'm sorry, I was just implying that Churchie guys can't spell.

STOP QUESTIONING HIM, HOMOSEXUAL JEW-LIZARD!

That would've been so funny if your name didn't belong on livejournal.com.

That would've been so funny if your name didn't belong on livejournal.com.

Ohh really?

Bahaha. This is hilarious. Are you from Brisbane?

Look, Kelvin Grove wouldn't let people bring dates from outside the school. I'm not sure whether Clayfield let girls bring girls, but I can't imagine they'd let them either. Formals are supposed to be traditional, but I can't see a problem with bringing a date of the same sex. It's a stupid rule, but in the end, there's lots of ridiculous rules in schools, and you just get over it.

All I know is despite the rule, there's always a little guy-on-guy action at the after parties. ;)

They take public money.

And just because they're a private school doesn't mean they can "do whatever they want". Do you think it would be okay for them to say "you can't bring Asians to the formal"?

Hahaha, your spelling is terrible. Did you go to Churchie by any chance? ;)

Nah, not a Brisbaneite. Been there once, for the 5 highs cricket comp. Strange place. Trains were... deceptive.

Anyhow, yeah, schools always enforce stupid rules. Doesn't stop this one being unfairly discriminatory.

And of course there's going to be guy-on-guy, same as there's going to be girl on girl. It's natural at these things. Gotta show off, of course :p. Actually, that's something I don't quite get... they (Churchie admin) MUST know that there'll be that sort of stuff going on at the after-party, with both guys and girls, so why are they even bothering to try to stop them? They have precisely zero chance. It seems strange to me.

Well, when you grow up a little bit, you'll learn that only thing worth celebrating in life is loveless sex with somebody for whom you hold no genuine caring.

If you go around taking pride in your actual accomplishments, you'll never learn the superlative value of poorly executed physical gratification with no more impetus than futily chasing after some culturally polluted image of what sexuality is supposed to be.

Grow the fuck up, kid.

You just broke my sarcasm meter. Doesn't matter if you were serious or not, it's still broken.

Also, you might just wanna be a tad bit careful with the last part, seeing as how it already seems like obvious trolling, flaming isn't exactly going to help.

You just broke my sarcasm meter. Doesn't matter if you were serious or not, it's still broken.

Also, you might just wanna be a tad bit careful with the last part, seeing as how it already seems like obvious trolling, flaming isn't exactly going to help.

I dunno, I think its so clearly sarcasm, in the same way ebola is clearly unpleasant...

STOP QUESTIONING HIM, HOMOSEXUAL JEW-LIZARD!

:):p:D
too much coffee eh Skinny?
try decaf

Nah, not a Brisbaneite. Been there once, for the 5 highs cricket comp. Strange place. Trains were... deceptive.

Anyhow, yeah, schools always enforce stupid rules. Doesn't stop this one being unfairly discriminatory.

And of course there's going to be guy-on-guy, same as there's going to be girl on girl. It's natural at these things. Gotta show off, of course :p. Actually, that's something I don't quite get... they (Churchie admin) MUST know that there'll be that sort of stuff going on at the after-party, with both guys and girls, so why are they even bothering to try to stop them? They have precisely zero chance. It seems strange to me.

Yes but the difference is that the after party is not a school sponsored event, that would be like allowing the kids to drink alcohol because they will be drinking it at the after party, do you support that move?

Gee that must have been some after party you went to, I remember girl-on-girl but I never saw any guy-on-guy

Have we?

Quite the opposite, really.
I can only assume that, since Andaras hasnt provided anything to the contrary, Australian law is rather similar to US law on this matter, meaning that whatever peoples morales dictate, its within its rights as a private institution.

Well, thats a bit of an exaggeration. But basically, Anglican Private School in Queensland is saying no to guys taking guys to their formal. Apparently it's a time for a guy and a girl to have a good time. Even if they are just friends.

Linky. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/14/2216379.htm?section=australia)

Whadda ya think? Should the school, as a private educational facility, have the right to discriminate at a formal against which dates their boys bring? Or is it discriminatory?

I think I've made my position pretty clear...

PRIVATE School. Need I say more?

Quite the opposite, really.
I can only assume that, since Andaras hasnt provided anything to the contrary, Australian law is rather similar to US law on this matter, meaning that whatever peoples morales dictate, its within its rights as a private institution.

Proof has been provided that said private schools take government money, however, and as such are not independent of it. The rest follows nicely.

And, here in the US, we have anti-discrimination legislation as well.
No we don't, not on the subject of sexual orientation.

If it's a private school, they can do what they like I guess. So long as they aren't taking public money.

Ah, but they do. Private schools take around 70-80% of government funding.

Australia is a secular nation, and to allow conservative Judeo-Christian values to overshadow the predominant national opinion and the rights of two people to be treated equally, regardless of the orientation of their birth, is just obscene.

Proof has been provided that said private schools take government money, however, and as such are not independent of it. The rest follows nicely.

Taking money from the government =/= part of the government

They're free to do as they like. And the government is free to cut off their funding as they like.

No we don't, not on the subject of sexual orientation.

Depends on which state your in. Some states do, some dont. I recall something about Maryland (I think? Maybe it was California) passing anti-sexual-orientation discrimination laws.

I call you a Satanist because are one. You advocate tolerance for other creeds and races. That's exactly what got Lucifer kicked out of Heaven.

His exact words were "God, your Creation is blessed in its dazzling array of beautiful, meaningful differences, the breadth of which only brings an even richer harmony to the world!"

And God said, "I tried to make Black Angels, but they just wind up looking like photonegatives of the good white ones. Get out."


I don't know, I thought this was funny. Made me laugh out loud at work, and then people started looking at me and I got a little lecture(from a man who spends most of his time on E-Bay, oh the irony) on how the Internet is a tool and not a toy.

Depends on which state your in. Some states do, some dont. I recall something about Maryland (I think? Maybe it was California) passing anti-sexual-orientation discrimination laws.
That's right, and there are more states than those two. But there is a widespread misconception that federal antidiscrimination law covers this, which it does not (the Employment Nondiscrimination Act or "ENDA" which would change this has been blocked by the GDC's for years).

That's right, and there are more states than those two. But there is a widespread misconception that federal antidiscrimination law covers this, which it does not (the Employment Nondiscrimination Act or "ENDA" which would change this has been blocked by the GDC's for years).

All of which means nothing as we are talking about Queensland which is not a US state, what you should be looking at is Federal Australian law if there is none concerning it then you look at State law. The fact of the matter is they are not breaking the law as a school they are allowed to dictate as they like.

I find it funny that the Victorian government came out and said they allow gays to go to their formals typical of Vics I suppose, can't be left out of anything oh look at us, we have a backwards dirty river that we use to make our shitty beer, we invented our 'national' sport aerial ping pong, the Murray darling basin is only a quarter ours so we will hold the rest of Australia to ransom. Yes Vics I am from NSW and I know how much you envy us.

Nah, not a Brisbaneite. Been there once, for the 5 highs cricket comp. Strange place. Trains were... deceptive.

Anyhow, yeah, schools always enforce stupid rules. Doesn't stop this one being unfairly discriminatory.

And of course there's going to be guy-on-guy, same as there's going to be girl on girl. It's natural at these things. Gotta show off, of course :p. Actually, that's something I don't quite get... they (Churchie admin) MUST know that there'll be that sort of stuff going on at the after-party, with both guys and girls, so why are they even bothering to try to stop them? They have precisely zero chance. It seems strange to me.

They don't know it's going on, really.
And like I said, it's "tradition".

Depends on which state your in. Some states do, some dont. I recall something about Maryland (I think? Maybe it was California) passing anti-sexual-orientation discrimination laws.

This is ridiculous. Eventually we won't be able to(legally) discriminate at all or in any manner. Probably just end up staring blankly at people with a fixed grin on our faces and waving, for fear of having some sort of discriminating thought, action, or appearance.

This is ridiculous. Eventually we won't be able to(legally) discriminate at all or in any manner. Probably just end up staring blankly at people with a fixed grin on our faces and waving, for fear of having some sort of discriminating thought, action, or appearance.

I've already been fine several hundreds of dollars for being discriminating when it comes to wines.

I've already been fine several hundreds of dollars for being discriminating when it comes to wines.

I feel your pain. I once stated I wasn't a fan of white wine and nearly got lynched. If you go gambling on any reservations, especially out west, don't even mention red wines..

This wouldnt happen in Canada. *smug look*

PRIVATE School. Need I say more?

Not to bang on about this... but they receive a huge portion of government funding, both state and federal. Therefore, surely you would think they come under the prerogatives of the state?

It's a private Christian school so they have the right to discriminate against gays.

It's a private Christian school so they have the right to discriminate against blacks.

I see little difference, that argument is founded on bigotry.

It's a private Christian school so they have the right to discriminate against gays.

It's a private Christian school so they have the right to discriminate against blacks.

I see little difference, that argument is founded on bigotry.

For once, I sincerely agree with you. Nicely succinct :)

How very different from English Public Schools where buggery is more or less compulsory.

It's a private Christian school so they have the right to discriminate against gays.

It's a private Christian school so they have the right to discriminate against blacks.

I see little difference, that argument is founded on bigotry.

Yes indeed, of course it is bigotry, but then we all know the Christainty does not like homosexuality. *shrug*

How very different from English Public Schools where buggery is more or less compulsory.

Bwahahah indeed, and where the word fag, does not mean gay nor cigerette.

How very different from English Public Schools where buggery is more or less compulsory.

lol, is this school a boarding school? anyone?

Remember Rambhutan Bugger means something completely different in Australia

lol, is this school a boarding school? anyone?

Remember Rambhutan Bugger means something completely different in Australia

What, what does it mean is Australia?

What, what does it mean is Australia?

It kind of means that you are exhausted or tired. It is also used as a term in place of damn or f*%k. I suppose it is a noun /adjective

For example

You saw that some one had been running for a lot and could see that they were tired and sore from it I would say "You look buggered."
or
After a hard days yakka(work) where you have worked your guts out, you might say "I am buggered"
or
The car has broken down on the highway kilometres from the nearest town and the repair man wont be able to come over and have a look at it for a few hours you would say "bugger"

It kind of means that you are exhausted or tired. It is also used as a term in place of damn or f*%k. I suppose it is a noun /adjective

For example

You saw that some one had been running for a lot and could see that they were tired and sore from it I would say "You look buggered."
or
After a hard days yakka(work) where you have worked your guts out, you might say "I am buggered"
or
The car has broken down on the highway kilometres from the nearest town and the repair man wont be able to come over and have a look at it for a few hours you would say "bugger"



Ahhhh yeah pretty much the same here in the UK.