lesbians need not apply

[Master Mason]

Some roads must be traveled in order to understand. You have not traveled that road therefore you can not understand and no one can explain it to you.

It is also obvious that you would rather argue in order to maintain your current knowledge set and preconceived notions rather than seek true enlightenment/true understanding of someone else's situation.

If that were the case, why would I ask the question? Also, I sincerly doubt you know or understand my "current knowledge or preconcieved notions".

 

[Master Mason]

Honey...he just argues for argues sake.

See you are starting to get me

 

[wonderlanne]

i've skipped some pages here, so i don't know if anybody figured out exactly what these girls were doing on school grounds which violated the rules.

i presume there is some way the school came to decide the girls were homosexuals engaged in a relationship, and that it didn't have anything to do with something seen during NON-school hours in a NON-school location?

if they violated rules, then as with anything else, the action taken was correct (there are public schools suspending students whose pants are hanging too low, for crying out loud). however, if it was heresay or something observed while the girls were not at school, i might say it wasn't right to expel them.

 

[Goofyluver]

#1. No they weren't. They were denied the right to attend one single Church based school. They are still quite able to receive an education from a plethora of other places. These girls will not grow up uneducated and illiterate because the Lutherans won't teach them. There is no need to over-dramatize the event.

#2. I'm actually in favor of Gay Marriage and Civil Unions. But regardless, anybody has the right to appoint a non family member as their Medical Power of Attorney and grant them those rights.

#3. Any Employer who wishes to grant same sex partner benefits has the right to do so.

#4. Same sex partners adopt children all the time.

1. They were not "denied an education", they were expelled from a conservative Christian school, which, as lesbians I doubt they were all that comfortable in anyway.

2. Wouldn't a medical power of attorney cover the hospital issue? I don't know-I'm just asking.

3. An employer has to make decisions that will keep his business viable. There are companies that are stopping coverage for everyone except the employee themselves just to stay in business. Not only gay people are affected by the high cost of health care.

4. The focus here is on what is best for the child, not what makes couples happy. There are many loving couples that cannot adopt because they don't make enough money or don't have the right type of job. It's not ONLY gay couples that are rejected as adoptive parents.

5. I assume you mean "Don't Ask, Don't tell". Well, sit down, but I agree with you there. I don't think we should ever refuse an otherwise qualified person who wants to serve his or her country because they are "out".

Geez.

1. I agree. The girls are entitled to an education elsewhere. That does not negate the fact that they were expelled from THIS school based on their "alleged" sexuality.

2. Do heterosexual couples have to do the same for their spouse?

3. What benefits are granted to heterosexual married couples?

4. There are adoption and state agencies that do not allow gay couples to adopt.



Do you find the need to justify all discrimination? To deny that it exists? Why? Because the truth hurts, or because you don't want it to be true.

 

[Cindy F]

Honey...he just argues for argues sake.

See you are starting to get me

If that were the case, why would I ask the question? Also, I sincerly doubt you know or understand my "current knowledge or preconcieved notions".

Why? You answered your own question above.

I never said I did know or understand your "current knowledge or preconceived notions."

There again, arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Goofyluver]

I do agree with you on the issues of most of the discriminations faced by GLBT, honestly i really really do, and I know you feel very passionatly about this, but truely those girls were NOT denied an education! We are losing sight of this point somehow.

They were denied an education in THAT school, becuase THAT school was a private entity, and disagreed with who they were and how they behaved and, in its eyes, saw that it had reason to expell them. As a private organization, THAT is their right! Do I think it was very nice of them, NO, do I agree with it, NO! But its NOT my decision!

They are perfectly free to go to any number of schools and receive a perfectly fine education, in fact, IMHO probably a BETTER education then they would have received in that school. An education that will not constantly wear down on their self-esteem and make them feel ashamed and sad about something they can't control. Isn't that better in the long run anyway?

As many other posters have said, I couldn't enroll in an Islamic school and then expect them to allow me to start preaching the bible. I couldn't enroll in my old church school and expect them to allow me to violate their rules of purity and dress code and all the other silly things I had to adhere to. They would boot me out. And would they be within their rights? You betcha! In fact, in my public high school, were I to have been caught half naked in the boys locker room playing tonsil hockey with my boyfriend, I would have disciplined there as well! What if I were to try to join an old fuddy-duddy men-only Water Buffalos club (Grand PoohBah here I come). They would say no. I am female. Could I scream and yell? Yup. But they are a private organization. Their rules, their business.

Everywhere, every organization, has rules. Some are fairer than others. Some are nicer than others. But when it comes down to it, whether I agree or not. Its their club. Their school. Their rules. And as long as they don't go asking my government for money or grants, or anything else, its their right to stay private and make their own rules. That's the way the happy old US of A works, guys.

Its good to be passionate for a cause. Its wonderful to have strong beliefs. But we need to stay reasonable. On both sides of the issue.

Signing out now.
Off to Costco.

I agree with you. The church had a right to expel these students.

I find their actions objectionable and hypocritical. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Goofyluver]

No they were not denied an education, they were denied the right to attend a private school.

Employers don't have to grant benifits to anyone, they don't have to offer them to any domestic partners if they don't want, gay or straight.

My girlfiend can not make such decisions for me either, unless I fill out a power of attorney.

I don't know enough about adoption laws to comment.

See my response below...

Geez.

1. I agree. The girls are entitled to an education elsewhere. That does not negate the fact that they were expelled from THIS school based on their "alleged" sexuality.

2. Do heterosexual couples have to do the same for their spouse?

3. What benefits are granted to heterosexual married couples?

4. There are adoption and state agencies that do not allow gay couples to adopt.



Do you find the need to justify all discrimination? To deny that it exists? Why? Because the truth hurts, or because you don't want it to be true.

See you are starting to get me

No. I don't get it. I think it's ridiculous to argue for something you don't believe in.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Geez.

1. I agree. The girls are entitled to an education elsewhere. That does not negate the fact that they were expelled from THIS school based on their "alleged" sexuality.

2. Do heterosexual couples have to do the same for their spouse?

3. What benefits are granted to heterosexual married couples?

4. There are adoption and state agencies that do not allow gay couples to adopt.



Do you find the need to justify all discrimination? To deny that it exists? Why? Because the truth hurts, or because you don't want it to be true.

Ok, so we agree-they weren't denied an education. I still say once they admitted the relationship it stopped being "alleged", however. If they had said to the Pastor, "we neither confirm or deny", they might have had a stronger case.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that there are many reasons why someone would choose to draw up a medical power of attorney that do not involve homosexuality.

In some companies NO benefits are granted anyone except the person who actually works for that company. It has to do with cost, not sexuality.

Yes, there are agencies that do not allow gay adoption. There are agencies that do not allow adoption for financial reasons, because of the type of work the prospective parents do and a myriad of other things.

Discrimination exists in those cases where that single class of folks are the only ones who are being excluded or affected. It's not "justifying discrimination" to point out that gays are not the only groups affected. It's not discrimination at all if the reason for the exclusion has a basis other than sexual orientation.

 

[legalsea]

I agree with you. The church had a right to expel these students.

I find their actions objectionable and hypocritical. It really is as simple as that.

Well, I'm speechless.

I mean, for pages and pages other posters have been stating that they believed the church school had the constitutional right to expell these girls, although virtually all condemned the action and noted that they would not be a member of such a church.

What response did many of these posters get? "You are hateful" or some equivalent slur. Many had to defend themselves against being called hateful or discriminatory.

Anyway, I agree (as I stated very early on) that the church had a right to expel these students. First Amendment and all that.

I find the church action "objectionable". I do object. However, I do defend the churches right to expell people who violate the churches rule. Simple as that.

I am not sure if I find the churches actions hypocritical. If a person or church acts in accordance with its beliefs, that, to my mind, is not hypocritical.

 

[Cindy F]

People are killed because they are gay
People are assaulted because they are gay
People are denied medical care because they are gay-even when they have domestic partner insurance because "we do not morally condone gay partnerships therefore we can not provide your medical care"
People are fired from jobs because they are gay
People are not allowed to adopt or even retain custody of their own children because they are gay.
Gay couples are denied tax/legal benefits provided to heterosexual married couples.

And the list goes on and on. Just because YOU are not impacted by this discrimination doesn't mean it does not exist. Just because it makes you feel better to think it doesn't exist or it occurs infrequently- doesn't mean it's true.

I no longer list cases and laws that shows blatant sexual orientation discrimination because people don't "get" what they don't want to "get". It's a waste of time--if people really wanted to know the truth, they would educate themselves. They don't, so they won't.

 

[Goofyluver]

Ok, so we agree-they weren't denied an education. I still say once they admitted the relationship it stopped being "alleged", however. If they had said to the Pastor, "we neither confirm or deny", they might have had a stronger case.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that there are many reasons why someone would choose to draw up a medical power of attorney that do not involve homosexuality.

In some companies NO benefits are granted anyone except the person who actually works for that company. It has to do with cost, not sexuality.

Yes, there are agencies that do not allow gay adoption. There are agencies that do not allow adoption for financial reasons, because of the type of work the prospective parents do and a myriad of other things.

Discrimination exists in those cases where that single class of folks are the only ones who are being excluded or affected. It's not "justifying discrimination" to point out that gays are not the only groups affected. It's not discrimination at all if the reason for the exclusion has a basis other than sexual orientation.

Discrimination against gays and lesbians is accepted as the norm in this country. To deny that this discrimination exists is laughable. When will gays and lesbians in this country be given equal protection and equal rights under the law?

We're not going to agree here. We could go 'round and 'round all day long.

Have a nice day. And enjoy the benefits and acceptance that comes with heterosexuality.

 

[Goofyluver]

Well, I'm speechless.

I mean, for pages and pages other posters have been stating that they believed the church school had the constitutional right to expell these girls, although virtually all condemned the action and noted that they would not be a member of such a church.

What response did many of these posters get? "You are hateful" or some equivalent slur. Many had to defend themselves against being called hateful or discriminatory.

Anyway, I agree (as I stated very early on) that the church had a right to expel these students. First Amendment and all that.

I find the church action "objectionable". I do object. However, I do defend the churches right to expell people who violate the churches rule. Simple as that.

I am not sure if I find the churches actions hypocritical. If a person or church acts in accordance with its beliefs, that, to my mind, is not hypocritical.

And I go back to my original point.

We must never be tolerant of intolerance. Have a nice day.

 

[Cindy F]

Discrimination against gays and lesbians is accepted as the norm in this country. To deny that this discrimination exists is laughable. When will gays and lesbians in this country be given equal protection and equal rights under the law?

We're not going to agree here. We could go 'round and 'round all day long.

Have a nice day. And enjoy the benefits and acceptance that comes with heterosexuality.

I'm sorry Goofy....it's harder to take some days than others isn't it?
One day, MLK's speech will include everyone.

 

[redrosesix]

In some ways that can be interpreted as a yes. If their religious position is intolerance, and pushes gay youth away, then those youth may well consider suicide (and be successful). So yes, in the sense that they contribute to the emotional distress that a gay teen experiences, and makes that stress worse, they can be seen as having some level of responsibility for the death of those youth who cannot make it to the level of self acceptance that any person needs to have to be considered emotionally healthy.

My husband's best friend in high school committed suicide because he was gay. This was a long time ago, but my husband has never gotten over that. Had his friend had more role models that could show him his life would still be worth living...

Although the school has a legal right to do what it did, I would rather my child go to a school that celebrates differences, so nobody will feel like they don't fit into this world. I went to a British style boarding school, with uniforms, church every morning, Sirs and Ma'ams, etc. But that didn't stop them from showing us all how important it was to be individuals. Probably because there were kids there from all over the world.

 

[CowboyCO]

People are killed because they are gay
People are assaulted because they are gay
There are laws against this -- Called Assault and Battery
People are denied medical care because they are gay-even when they have domestic partner insurance because "we do not morally condone gay partnerships therefore we can not provide your medical care"
Not buying this one, unless you are referring to a doctor not performing an abortion other procedure that is against their own beliefs. Gonna need a link
People are fired from jobs because they are gay
Anyone can be fired from a private job if their behavior negatively affects the organization they work for, whether they have tattoos covering their bodies, wear neo-nazi jewelry, dye their hair green, dress innappropriately, etc. Your private life is your private life until you wear it on your sleeve. If I was a swinger and made it known at my workplace - I would most assuredly be let go.
People are not allowed to adopt or even retain custody of their own children because they are gay.
Private adoption agencies (such as Catholic Services) can exclude people from adoption if they feel it is not in the best interest of the child, whether due to health, personality, economics, race, sexuality, background, etc. There should be a mechanism for gay couples to have equal parental rights over their shared children.
Gay couples are denied tax/legal benefits provided to heterosexual married couples.
This has been answered before. Gay people have the same access to marital and tax law benefits and drawbacks as any other person.

And the list goes on and on. Just because YOU are not impacted by this discrimination doesn't mean it does not exist. Just because it makes you feel better to think it doesn't exist or it occurs infrequently- doesn't mean it's true.

I no longer list cases and laws that shows blatant sexual orientation discrimination because people don't "get" what they don't want to "get". It's a waste of time--if people really wanted to know the truth, they would educate themselves. They don't, so they won't.

Discrimination in rampant in our society - based on race, ethnicity, creed, education, geography, mode of dress just to name a few. Discrimination based on race and creed and gender is illegal.

My DS(9) came home from school upset because he was wearing a tigger shirt and one of his classmates said to him, "Tigger is a -igger" (you fill in the blank. He was upset because he knew he was being teased, but he had to ask me what that word meant because he had never heard it before. The best way to combat discrimination is to teach your children how to treat PEOPLE, not how to treat different people.

 

[Master Mason]

Some roads must be traveled in order to understand. You have not traveled that road therefore you can not understand and no one can explain it to you.

It is also obvious that you would rather argue in order to maintain your current knowledge set and preconceived notions rather than seek true enlightenment/true understanding of someone else's situation.

Why? You answered your own question above.

I never said I did know or understand your "current knowledge or preconceived notions."

There again, arguing for the sake of arguing.

Yes you did state you knew my current status, by your statement I quoted for you above.

Yes I argue for the sake of the arguement. I'm not going to change your mind on the things you hold dearly. But when one side comes in and starts in on how evil others are for holding their beliefs, then I am going to get into the arguement based on their rights to hold those beliefs regardless of your feelings on the subject.

I ask question to get better understanding, and when I am proved wrong, I modify my beliefs accordingly. If I didn't live that way, I would be in the Klan myself, for that was how I was raised.

Debate is good and healthy, when entered into with a good and healthy attitude, even if you disagree with everything I have to say, if your reading the words and thinking about them, then it should help you to better understand and articulate your own beliefs and why you hold them.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Most inclusive list, thanks for postin' this:

People are killed because they are gay
People are assaulted because they are gay
People are denied medical care because they are gay-even when they have domestic partner insurance because "we do not morally condone gay partnerships therefore we can not provide your medical care"
People are fired from jobs because they are gay
People are not allowed to adopt or even retain custody of their own children because they are gay.
Gay couples are denied tax/legal benefits provided to heterosexual married couples.

And the list goes on and on. Just because YOU are not impacted by this discrimination doesn't mean it does not exist. Just because it makes you feel better to think it doesn't exist or it occurs infrequently- doesn't mean it's true.

I no longer list cases and laws that shows blatant sexual orientation discrimination because people don't "get" what they don't want to "get". It's a waste of time--if people really wanted to know the truth, they would educate themselves. They don't, so they won't.

Yep, that just about sez it.

 

[Master Mason]

See my response below...






No. I don't get it. I think it's ridiculous to argue for something you don't believe in.

First your comparing apples to oranges, your comparing Married people to unmarried people. A more accurate comparison would be a cohabitating couple of any sexual preference. What are the inequalities if any comparing those to situations.

I'm not arguing for something I don't believe in, I am arguing for someone right to hold those beliefs if they so choose. And when proper, such as in the case of these two girls to act on those beliefs.

Also, as I have explained, Debate forces one to think of their stance, why the believe as they do. If you can argue the other sides arguement, then you can understand it better, and also be better able to find any wholes in it if they exist. Sort of the same reason you learn your competitors products in the business world.

 

[Cindy F]

Master Mason, I repectfully decline to argue with you.

You do not know what you're talking about. You can site all the laws, opinions, and arguments you wish. No amount of arguing and blustering will negate the fact that you do not live this life therefore you can not knowledgably debate the discrimination contained within it.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Your private life is your private life until you wear it on your sleeve.

Easy to say when the assumption is we are all heterosexual, white male.