IBTG81 Posted September 23, 2005 Author Share Posted September 23, 2005 Now THIS is weird. In a post on this thread Ed said someting like: "The Dean is right" I was in the process of replying to Ed...to warn him of the dangers of making a statement like that and lo and behold...that post is gone! Either Ed, or SDS or an intelligent Mod decided to eliminate the post and save Ed the embarrassment of haveing to live with that statement. To whoever deleted Ed's post: Good Work! (intelligent Mod?????) 451687[/snapback] Yeah, what's up with that? Am I not allowed to agree with The Dean?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I say I'm the universal judge! Sorry...my bad. Seriously though, how about this scenario: A white girl is accpeted into a private school. They find out she is adopted by two black parents. They kick her out, because that to them is immoral. Is that OK? 451679[/snapback] Apples and oranges. Homosexuality is a highly sensitive issue within the religious structure because marriage and children are fundamental pillars of the religious belief system. Those in charge believe that homosexuality is a direct assault on those principles (and thus on religion itself), which is why you see such a hard fight to 'ban' gay marriage. Race or color has no such similar impact on religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I am defending this school's right to set forth its own curriculum and admission policy based upon its interpretation of religious texts. They put forth a set of reasonable guidelines and they were violated. I suggested a possible rationale for their decisions. I'm sure there are many other reasons behind their admission policy that I haven't thought about. Those women chose to ignore those policies plain and simple. I have always found it quite amusing how people who obviously don't subscribe to Christian teachings are hell bent on telling them how to conduct their business. 451685[/snapback] I think the disagreement here is on whether the guidelines were "reasonable". I don't thik they are...you do. To discriminate against a girl based on her parents lifestyle (not hers) is not reasonable, IMO. I would be REALLY MAD if they get any gov't assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted September 23, 2005 Author Share Posted September 23, 2005 Sorry...my bad. Apples and oranges. Homosexuality is a highly sensitive issue within the religious structure because marriage and children are fundamental pillars of the religious belief system. Those in charge believe that homosexuality is a direct assault on those principles (and thus on religion itself), which is why you see such a hard fight to 'ban' gay marriage. Race or color has no such similar impact on religion. 451690[/snapback] But it did 50 years ago. It's not apples and oranges, more like, oranges and tangerines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 So an openly discriminatory policy is OK, as long as it's a policy? Would it be OK if neither of the parents could be Black? Left-handed? Mac users? 451612[/snapback] It is absolutely OK for private entities to discriminate on membership and it should be as long as they don't accept public money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted September 23, 2005 Author Share Posted September 23, 2005 It is absolutely OK for private entities to discriminate on membership and it should be as long as they don't accept public money. 451697[/snapback] Now who asked you to get involved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of descrimination hiding behind a religeous subtext, to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 It is absolutely OK for private entities to discriminate on membership and it should be. 451697[/snapback] If you say so (I'm sure PRIVATE is the key here). But, do any schools deny membership to a person who's Father (for example) is Catholic, even if the wold-be member is not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted September 23, 2005 Author Share Posted September 23, 2005 Yeah, what's up with that? Am I not allowed to agree with The Dean?! 451689[/snapback] Seriously, why was that post deleted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Seriously, why was that post deleted? 451702[/snapback] Don't fight it...it's a good thing, Ed. You don't need that black mark on your record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 For those of you who didn't RTFA: Stob wrote that school policy requires that at least one parent may not engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship," The Los Angeles Times reported in Friday's edition. Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted September 23, 2005 Author Share Posted September 23, 2005 For those of you who didn't RTFA:Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences. 451706[/snapback] Blinded by the "Christian Light", huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 For those of you who didn't RTFA:Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences. 451706[/snapback] Well, the girl's court case should be a doozy. Imagine if/when she gets a PI to dig up all the adultory dirt on parents whose children are in the school (perhaps the valedictorian) and those involved with the school admin. Then her laywers show how the school did nothing to investigate hetero-parents. (Of course, this is all speculation.) I smell big ratings for Court TV! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Well, the girl's court case should be a doozy. Imagine if/when she gets a PI to dig up all the adultory dirt on parents whose children are in the school (perhaps the valedictorian) and those involved with the school admin. Then her laywers show how the school did nothing to investigate hetero-parents. (Of course, this is all speculation.) I smell big ratings for Court TV! 451711[/snapback] I'm pretty sure the policy DOES NOT say that one parent must be without sin.... Pursuing a lifestyle that is in direct conflict with the church teachings is totally different. Even then, they only require one parent to not be engaged in these activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I'm pretty sure the policy DOES NOT say that one parent must be without sin.... Pursuing a lifestyle that is in direct conflict with the church teachings is totally different. Even then, they only require one parent to not be engaged in these activities. 451726[/snapback] I'm dumbfounded (please notice "founded" after "dumb"). didn't you just post: "Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences." ????????????????? THAT is in direct conflict, or so their policy states. Track the adultorers down. BURN the WITCH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of descrimination hiding behind a religeous subtext, to me. 451699[/snapback] If it was a gov't funded school, then yes. In this case, that would be a big NO. THey are a private org. They can discriminate if they want to. I also think the article said they would not be appealing or taking anyone to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I'm dumbfounded (please notice "founded" after "dumb"). didn't you just post: "Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences." ????????????????? THAT is in direct conflict, or so their policy states. Track the adultorers down. BURN the WITCH! 451733[/snapback] I would say that they could expel someone based on this if they chose too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I'm dumbfounded (please notice "founded" after "dumb"). didn't you just post: "Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences." ????????????????? THAT is in direct conflict, or so their policy states. Track the adultorers down. BURN the WITCH! 451733[/snapback] Meaning cohabitation w/o being married. The rest of your comments just indicate the level of hostility you have towards this subject. Clearly, they should listen to YOU as they decide how to conduct their business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I would say that they could expel someone based on this if they chose too... 451737[/snapback] My point was, if the girls family decided to fight this they just might find that some (MANY?) of their very holy heterosexual parents (and/or administrators) do indeed violate the policy. They also might find the school does little (nothing?) to find out if that is the case. IMO, that would make for fun viewing on Court TV...or just plain fun to follow in the papers. (In the above "might" = "undoubtedly would") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Meaning cohabitation w/o being married. The rest of your comments just indicate the level of hostility you have towards this subject. Clearly, they should listen to YOU as they decide how to conduct their business. 451739[/snapback] I think it's clear this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with morality. It is the simpliest form of discrimination...plain and simple. It's hate mongering at its most primal and basic. They may have the right to be pin-headed, homo-hating, hiding-behind-religion bigots. And I have a right (nay, a NEED) to point it out and laugh at them and uncover their hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I think it's clear this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with morality. It is the simpliest form of discrimination...plain and simple. It's hate mongering at its most primal and basic. They may have the right to be pin-headed, homo-hating, hiding-behind-religion bigots. And I have a right (nay, a NEED) to point it out and laugh at them and uncover their hypocrisy. 451747[/snapback] Wow, that was eloquent. I think I know enough about "The Dean" to know that it would be best to receive spiritual guidance from another source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Wow, that was eloquent. I think I know enough about "The Dean" to know that it would be best to receive spiritual guidance from another source. 451753[/snapback] Good point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Sorry...my bad. Apples and oranges. Homosexuality is a highly sensitive issue within the religious structure because marriage and children are fundamental pillars of the religious belief system. Those in charge believe that homosexuality is a direct assault on those principles (and thus on religion itself), which is why you see such a hard fight to 'ban' gay marriage. Race or color has no such similar impact on religion. 451690[/snapback] Your history lacks, Ed... Throughout civilazition, it was known that excess sexual activity was a vector of disease. Homosexual, heterosexual, whatever. The sad fact is that the homosexual so-called "lifestyle" is sexually active. Any heterosexual that approaches the number of yearly sexual liasons as seems evident among homosexuals is also a public health menace. The more you do, the more you get...it. Veneral disease is a fact, although we now have the innocent term STD these days. Long before our feet beat upon this continent, societies figured that out, and folded that fact into the obvious fact that monogamous marriage not only produced the young to keep the whole thing going, but also went a long way to inhibit herd mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Your history lacks, Ed... Throughout civilazition, it was known that excess sexual activity was a vector of disease. Homosexual, heterosexual, whatever. The sad fact is that the homosexual so-called "lifestyle" is sexually active. Any heterosexual that approaches the number of yearly sexual liasons as seems evident among homosexuals is also a public health menace. The more you do, the more you get...it. Veneral disease is a fact, although we now have the innocent term STD these days. Long before our feet beat upon this continent, societies figured that out, and folded that fact into the obvious fact that monogamous marriage not only produced the young to keep the whole thing going, but also went a long way to ionhibit herd mentality. 451772[/snapback] You can't be serious. There are just as many monogomous homosexual relationships as there are heterosexual ones, and to presume that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals is completely false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 So, the fact that the school had set up guidelines for admission - and that the fact that Shay's two mommies decided those guidlelines did not apply to them means that the Church is wrong? When they applied for admission - did they tell bold-faced lies? Did they sign papers knowingly that they were in violation of a simple set of rules? Gotta love the Church for enforcing their admission policies. It's too bad that people think rules are for others... 451595[/snapback] Agreed. I don't necessarily agree with the policy, but the school as a private school has a right to write and enforce their own admissions policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 If you say so (I'm sure PRIVATE is the key here). But, do any schools deny membership to a person who's Father (for example) is Catholic, even if the wold-be member is not? 451700[/snapback] No clue and not sure how successful such an entity would be. I don't know what the big problem is with private entities doing things as they see fit. How the hell would the "He Man Women Haters" be a great hangout if they had to allow split tails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 You can't be serious. There are just as many monogomous homosexual relationships as there are heterosexual ones, and to presume that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals is completely false. 451817[/snapback] I'm not sure it's possible for there to be "just as many" monogamous homosexual relationships when that group is supposedly only 10% of the population. Are we talking percentage wise? I've never seen any scientific data in either direction, nor would I believe any of it. I don't like homosexuality but I really don't care if they want to marry each other. Divorce lawyers need another revenue stream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I'm not sure it's possible for there to be "just as many" monogamous homosexual relationships when that group is supposedly only 10% of the population. Are we talking percentage wise? I've never seen any scientific data in either direction, nor would I believe any of it. I don't like homosexuality but I really don't care if they want to marry each other. Divorce lawyers need another revenue stream. 451829[/snapback] You're making the assumption that all heterosexuals that are in relationships are monogomous and not promiscuous. As a percentage of each group, I would say that they are about the same, meaning the likelihood of two homosexuals entering a monogomous relationship is probably equal to the likelihood of two heterosexuals entering one. Like you, though, I only have observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 You can't be serious. There are just as many monogomous homosexual relationships as there are heterosexual ones, and to presume that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals is completely false. 451817[/snapback] Not completely. In recent history (i.e. pre-AIDS), the homosexual culture fostered the attitude in the interest of gay rights that, if being "out" was "good", than being "more out" was even better. That led to situations in larger gay communities were rates and levels of promiscuity were much higher than you'd find in heterosexual communities. That's where there was the big stink in the mid-'80s in San Fransisco about closing the bathhouses in Castro; the gay community saw it as anti-gay in taking away their "right" to anonymous promiscuity. Where stuckincincy is really wrong is in assuming a cultural tendency is in fact a universal biological truth: while it is correct to say that certain portions of the gay community (the most activist ones in particular) valued promiscuity as an expression of homosexuality, it is egregiously wrong to then generalize that to "homosexual = promiscuous". Homosexuals are hardly excluded from monogamy...these days, I suspect the gay community is actually more likely to encourage it above promiscuity, given the immense paradigm shift AIDS caused them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasoninMT Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 I don't want to feed this whole religion/moral thing... But, the school could be in trouble... they said "1 parent" must lead a "straight" lifestyle and not be living in sin... we don't know who the father is here, but if he's a straight married guy, then 1 of her parents does lead the lifestyle. This is a pointless arguement however, it is a private school and they can set their policies however they want... it's private. You don't have the right to a private education... You have a right to freely choose your religion, but if your religion doesn't want you... well, there really isn't anything you can do about it. A gay man may say he is a devout catholic, that doesn't mean the catholic church has to agree or admit him. This begs the question of their tax free status... If you don't have an open door "public" policy, why shouldn't you pay taxes? (and no, I am not going to embroil myself in this debate today). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCal Aaron Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Not completely. In recent history (i.e. pre-AIDS), the homosexual culture fostered the attitude in the interest of gay rights that, if being "out" was "good", than being "more out" was even better. That led to situations in larger gay communities were rates and levels of promiscuity were much higher than you'd find in heterosexual communities. That's where there was the big stink in the mid-'80s in San Fransisco about closing the bathhouses in Castro; the gay community saw it as anti-gay in taking away their "right" to anonymous promiscuity. 451841[/snapback] Actually, the gay population in Sf was more splintered than you suggest. The Folsom street area in the SOMA district (a rough warehouse area traditionally home to sailors and tradesman) of SF was the sex center of the gay community here, not the Castro. The bulk of sex clubs and bath houses were located in an area largely inhabited and frequented by the Leather SM subculture, who were vilified by both heteros and more genteel gays as being responsible for the rise in the transmission of HIV (see fisting and other boundary stretching practices). It was less a matter of gays feeling their right to promiscuity was being violated, and more a belief that the city was excessive in their intrusion on the practices of consenting adults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 You're making the assumption that all heterosexuals that are in relationships are monogomous and not promiscuous. Not really. It just stands to reason that because there are so many more heterosexuals that there would be many more in monogamous relationships. Again, we're not talking percentages here. Just sheer numbers. As a percentage of each group, I would say that they are about the same, meaning the likelihood of two homosexuals entering a monogomous relationship is probably equal to the likelihood of two heterosexuals entering one. Like you, though, I only have observations. 451837[/snapback] As I said, I have no data. I lived in the South Bay for 5 years and didn't see much difference between the homosexual and hetero couples I knew on most subjects (though I will say that in my experience same sex couples are FAR more likely to screw up their kids. NOTE: I said in MY EXPERIENCE. Others may be far different. To them, I offer up Ed as an example ). Of course, I've pretty much tossed my religious upbringing in the river because if there is a God, I'm quite sure HE/SHE wouldn't identify with any of the bastardizations that have matriculated in HIS/HER name and currently exist mostly to expand their revenue base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Your history lacks, Ed... Throughout civilazition, it was known that excess sexual activity was a vector of disease. Homosexual, heterosexual, whatever. The sad fact is that the homosexual so-called "lifestyle" is sexually active. Any heterosexual that approaches the number of yearly sexual liasons as seems evident among homosexuals is also a public health menace. The more you do, the more you get...it. Veneral disease is a fact, although we now have the innocent term STD these days. Long before our feet beat upon this continent, societies figured that out, and folded that fact into the obvious fact that monogamous marriage not only produced the young to keep the whole thing going, but also went a long way to ionhibit herd mentality. 451772[/snapback] The crusade of ignorance is in good hands, I see. This is just too freakin' stupid to respond to. (And, yet I just did.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 The crusade of ignorance is in good hands, I see. This is just too freakin' stupid to respond to. (And, yet I just did.) 451934[/snapback] Discretion is the better part of valor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 The crusade of ignorance is in good hands, I see. This is just too freakin' stupid to respond to. (And, yet I just did.) 451934[/snapback] What a weak response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Let's battle tomorrow, Dean - My wife just got home home so supper etc. stuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Let's battle tomorrow, Dean - My wife just got home home so supper etc. stuck. 451958[/snapback] Go with God! (damn, did I just say that?) I'll be back on Monday to celebrate the Bills victory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 its a private school, they can do what they want. but this is just one reason i do not believe in organized religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Your history lacks, Ed... Throughout civilazition, it was known that excess sexual activity was a vector of disease. Homosexual, heterosexual, whatever. The sad fact is that the homosexual so-called "lifestyle" is sexually active. Any heterosexual that approaches the number of yearly sexual liasons as seems evident among homosexuals is also a public health menace. The more you do, the more you get...it. Veneral disease is a fact, although we now have the innocent term STD these days. Long before our feet beat upon this continent, societies figured that out, and folded that fact into the obvious fact that monogamous marriage not only produced the young to keep the whole thing going, but also went a long way to inhibit herd mentality. 451772[/snapback] so your not arguing the point that homosexuals are more sexualy active. but that their sexual "liasons" are a public health "menace". at this point in history, do you really think that if the "church" accepts gay marrage, that the burth rates will drop to zero, and we will die out as a species??? come on, thats just asinine. and trust me, if you say someone has a "STD" its not "innocent sounding". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts