OT: Gay High School

[CamEdwards]

I don't think this has been brought up here, but apparently New York City's going to open a full fledged high school for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered teens. (http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/1711.htm)

From what I've been able to tell, this is kind of a charter school run by a private organization, with both private and public money used to fund the school.

Also from what I can tell, the reasoning behind this school is that GLBT teens are harrassed and victimized in a traditional school setting.

If we're going to take this step, will the National Association for the Acceptance of Fat People also be able to open a school with public money?

What about the Role Playing Gamers of America?

I don't know if I'm being really insensitive here, but I just can't see this as a good idea. If it were a group of straight people trying to open a school for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered teens it would be considered discrimination. Does the good intention behind this make it all right?

I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I'm just curious as to whether or not anybody sees this as a good idea.

[Franklinnoble]

I was gonna post a link to this story yesterday, but I decided against it... I think this high school is a stupid idea, even if you're a gay rights advocate.

What's the over/under for how long it takes John Galt to check in here? ;)

[panerd]

I thought you loved the idea of alternative education. I can tell you where the NEA stands on this. :)

[Fidatelo]

That idea is totally gay.

[AZSpeechCoach]

When you believe that charter schools are good and that they shouldn't have to abide by the standards and laws of traditional public schools, as the current administration does, then you have to accept this. You can't pick and choose your charter schools based upon your personal tastes.

[MrBug708]

Vouchers!

[SplitPersonality1]

To keep this on the lighter side of things....

Just imagine if your high school played this school in football...and lost.

[CamEdwards]

Well, as far as I know charter schools can't discriminate based on sexual orientation.

As far as who's this hurting, I'd say it's hurting everybody. What would it hurt if we just put all the black students in a school so they wouldn't have to deal with racism?

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by AZSpeechCoach
When you believe that charter schools are good and that they shouldn't have to abide by the standards and laws of traditional public schools, as the current administration does, then you have to accept this. You can't pick and choose your charter schools based upon your personal tastes.

well said.

[CamEdwards]

again, are charter schools able to discriminate based on sex, color, religion, or sexual orientation?

EDIT: A quick Google search shows that charter schools cannot discriminate based on sex, race, religion, age, disability. Sexual orientation isn't covered, but I guarantee if a gay student were denied admission to a school because of their sexual orientation there'd be lawsuits a-plenty.

[Airhog]

Hmm, but dont Gays Lesbians And Bi-sexuals have a right to segregate themselves? I think it is one thing for Someone not of the group to declare segregation, Like the whole civil rights movement of the 60's. But I think it is okay if a group of like minded inviduals wish to segregate themselves from the rest of society.

[Bee]

Wouldn't this be similar to a Catholic High School?

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
again, are charter schools able to discriminate based on sex, color, religion, or sexual orientation?

EDIT: A quick Google search shows that charter schools cannot discriminate based on sex, race, religion, age, disability. Sexual orientation isn't covered, but I guarantee if a gay student were denied admission to a school because of their sexual orientation there'd be lawsuits a-plenty.

you're probably right about the last point. But what's to stop a straight kid from going to this school? If he wanted to he/she could probably also sue to get in.

I know charter schools have often been designed to target kids whos needs aren't being met by traditional public schooling. One could probably make a case that "gay" kids could have their needs better met in this (non-judgemental, non-homophobic) environment.

[Bee]

I think it's a private run school with public/private funds (like many catholic schools).

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
again, are charter schools able to discriminate based on sex, color, religion, or sexual orientation?


I don't believe they can - but wouldn't this school be able to function according to its stated mission pretty effectively just by announcing their intentions? Say you're a school targeted for that crowd - and how many other kids will apply, or want to?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Airhog
Hmm, but dont Gays Lesbians And Bi-sexuals have a right to segregate themselves? I think it is one thing for Someone not of the group to declare segregation, Like the whole civil rights movement of the 60's. But I think it is okay if a group of like minded inviduals wish to segregate themselves from the rest of society.

Sure they do... Just like the KKK has the right to segregate themselves.

[AZSpeechCoach]

There are all male and all female charter schools.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by AZSpeechCoach
There are all male and all female charter schools.

Yeah, they're called gay and lesbian schools :p

[Bee]

There are also all-black charter schools.

[digamma]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
again, are charter schools able to discriminate based on sex, color, religion, or sexual orientation?

EDIT: A quick Google search shows that charter schools cannot discriminate based on sex, race, religion, age, disability. Sexual orientation isn't covered, but I guarantee if a gay student were denied admission to a school because of their sexual orientation there'd be lawsuits a-plenty.

I don't think there is Supreme Court precedent yet establishing sexual orientation as a suspect class which requires enhanced scrutiny by a court in viewing government action that treats the class differently from those not in the class.

This means the government action would just need to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Race and religion, for example, require strict scrutiny, which requires that government action be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.

[Kodos]

I don't see how it is a problem if they want to do this. Although it seems like having a school like this would run a high risk of hate crimes being committed against it.

[MIJB#19]

so who will be able to tell wheter the new kids (I presume around age 12 or so) can even know what their sexual interest are?

Freedom of sexual interest, sure, but teaching kids who don't know yet to choose a sexual interest sounds really stupid.

Doesn't a seperate school make it even more like the gay kids are not normal at all?
"So, Jake, you are gay, huh? Read this folder please, we can transfer you to a school better suited to your kind of people."

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by SplitPersonality1
To keep this on the lighter side of things....

Just imagine if your high school played this school in football...and lost.

the only interesting post in this thread

[Easy Mac]

I wonder if there will be TCY recruits from this team.

[digamma]

I should add that many states and localities probably have laws preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Bee]

Good post RD2.

[Butter]

As cthomer said, I betcha straight kids will be able to go to this school if they so choose.

My favorite part of the article:

"Is there a different way to teach homosexuals? Is there gay math? This is wrong. This makes absolutely no sense," Long said. "There's no reason these children should be treated separately."

Is there Christian math? Why should they get public money as well?

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Is there Christian math? Why should they get public money as well?

Yes, 7+3 = Jesus:p

[scooper]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
As cthomer said, I betcha straight kids will be able to go to this school if they so choose.

My favorite part of the article:



Is there Christian math? Why should they get public money as well?

Public money pays for auxillary services at some private schools such as speech therapists, tutors, etc. Those services are usually offered in trailers outside of the school building and are staffed by public employees. Public money does not pay for the day to day operations of the schoolssuch as teachers salaries, facilities, utilities, etc.

[Ksyrup]

Who cares...

If these people believe that segregating a certain type of individual from the "general population" will actually help them, then so be it. It's my opinion that a person's teenage years are precisely when adversity should be faced and dealt with, so that when that person joins the real world, they will understand and know how to deal with adversity. But I could be wrong. And they are entitled to prove me right.

[scooper]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Who cares...

If these people believe that segregating a certain type of individual from the "general population" will actually help them, then so be it. It's my opinion that a person's teenage years are precisely when adversity should be faced and dealt with, so that when that person joins the real world, they will understand and know how to deal with adversity. But I could be wrong. And they are entitled to prove me right.

I knew those swirlies I endured in high school would pay off someday. :D

[Samdari]

I've got Shorty's application half done. Would someone mind PM'ing me his address and phone number please?

[vtbub]

I'm on the fence on this one.

Judging from the harassment that the population is exposed to based on who they are or are not attracted too, I can see where a "safe" enviroment would be beneficial to learning and improve quality of life issues and self-esteem for kids who are having a very difficult time coming to grips that instead of thinking that Anna Kournikova is hot, her bf Sergi Federov, or whomever she's fooling around with, may be hotter.

I don't like the trend of gender, race, and orientation re-segregating themselves on the other hand. Many people have suffered to ensure that public schools allow all people of all different ilk to be in the same classroom together. This trend of black only, women only, whatever only schools is wrong. If seperate but equal was wrong 60 years ago, why is it right now?

Because it is New York, meaning a lot of people, and that homosexuals seem to draw more hatred to them at the moment than any other group, I'd like to see how this goes.

In the long run, we need to be more tolerant of our diverse nation and work to end the ignorance and bigotry that exists on all sides.

[sabotai]

I think it's a fine. I don't have a problem with this idea at all.

(Except for them using public money. And this goes for any and all private schools. Unless with what scooper says it only pays for those services and doesn't go directly to the school at all)

[panerd]

Originally posted by Samdari
I've got Shorty's application half done. Would someone mind PM'ing me his address and phone number please?

classic

[Bee]

Originally posted by Samdari
I've got Shorty's application half done. Would someone mind PM'ing me his address and phone number please?

It's a high school, not a junior high.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Airhog
But I think it is okay if a group of like minded inviduals wish to segregate themselves from the rest of society.

If you could get a court to agree with you on that point, I know an awful lot of upper-middle class folks who will be real happy to hear it.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Bee
It's a high school, not a junior high.

And they don't accept short gay people. Since they're segregating themselves, they've decided to be quite picky about it.

[JPhillips]

Speaking as a theatre professional, don't the performing arts schools already serve this purpose?

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
And they don't accept short gay people. Since they're segregating themselves, they've decided to be quite picky about it.

I'd think they want short gay people. I know I like short women for cetain "acts".

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Fritz
just think of all the exotic hookers you can have when you make more than $100 a week.

I think they're called wives.

[mrskippy]

I'm all for making sure that gays and lesbians are treated fairly and not having their civil rights violated. But this seems like its taking it too far.

On one hand, I clearly agree that gays and lesbians are discriminated against. And they may benefit from having a school of their own. But than I think back to my high school days.

A lot more people that homosexuals were made fun of. Based on the making fun of argument, you could create a school for the goths, the special ed kids, the different racial groups, the jocks, the cheerleaders, the stoners, the nerds, and so on.

The better move here is to severely punish students who make fun of other students.

What are we teaching students by segregating them? In my opinion, I think we only give them a skewed view on society. What becomes of these gay students when they graduate, attend college, and/or enter the workforce?

The Catholic school argument is different. We've had parochial schools for a long time. But they're a different ball of wax. They are private schools, funded by donors and through tuition dollars. In my town there are two well known church-funded schools (one Catholic, one non-denom/AoG). Both are well respected, but receive no public funding.

In this case we are talking about a charter school, which does receive public funds and typically has oversight from the local governing body for education.

If this were a private school, I'd have no problem with it at all. I firmly believe that a parent has the right to send their children to a school of choice, so long as they pay for it if it is a private school.

In summary --

gay charter (semi-public school) = no
gay private (non public school) = yes

As for school vouchers. That's a touchy subject. However, I believe there should be some form of rebate system for parents who send their kids to private school, but pay property taxes for the local school system.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Fritz
You think wives do anything exotic?

tehy buy plants and persian cats. Those are kind of exotic.

[Bee]

Originally posted by mrskippy
I'm all for making sure that gays and lesbians are treated fairly and not having their civil rights violated. But this seems like its taking it too far.

On one hand, I clearly agree that gays and lesbians are discriminated against. And they may benefit from having a school of their own. But than I think back to my high school days.

A lot more people that homosexuals were made fun of. Based on the making fun of argument, you could create a school for the goths, the special ed kids, the different racial groups, the jocks, the cheerleaders, the stoners, the nerds, and so on.

The better move here is to severely punish students who make fun of other students.

What are we teaching students by segregating them? In my opinion, I think we only give them a skewed view on society. What becomes of these gay students when they graduate, attend college, and/or enter the workforce?

The Catholic school argument is different. We've had parochial schools for a long time. But they're a different ball of wax. They are private schools, funded by donors and through tuition dollars. In my town there are two well known church-funded schools (one Catholic, one non-denom/AoG). Both are well respected, but receive no public funding.

In this case we are talking about a charter school, which does receive public funds and typically has oversight from the local governing body for education.

If this were a private school, I'd have no problem with it at all. I firmly believe that a parent has the right to send their children to a school of choice, so long as they pay for it if it is a private school.

In summary --

gay charter (semi-public school) = no
gay private (non public school) = yes

As for school vouchers. That's a touchy subject. However, I believe there should be some form of rebate system for parents who send their kids to private school, but pay property taxes for the local school system.

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I would just make two points. As RD2 said above, I don't think you can really compare the hatred that gay students face to making fun of cheerleaders, etc. IMO, it's closer to racism than anything else because of the degree of hatred that is involved.

The second point, there are Catholic charter schools (as well as all-black ones, all-male, all-female, etc). While there are plenty of private Catholic schools, there are also some Catholic charter schools. Just wanted to point that out as well.

After giving this a little thought, my personal thoughts are they have every right to do it but I think it's a mistake. Society doesn't progress by separation only through unity. This is a step in the wrong direction IMO, but it's a step that I think those involved have a right to make even if I disagree with it and think it's a step backward.

[cuervo72]

Hmm, I'm surprised nobody has yet made any references to the Boy Scouts and their exclusion of homosexuals. I know it's a different issue, but it was one of the first things that came to mind (the other was the movie But I'm a Cheerleader :) ).

I guess I would have to say such a school should be allowed, though I'd question the wisdom of it (and if it is allowed so should all-male military academies, etc.). Vouchers....now there's an issue I have to think about. I wouldn't exactly be gung ho for it, but how to justify - on a non-moral basis - not allowing vouchers for this but allowing them for private religious schools...

[mrskippy]

You're right, I believe there is huff in Sacramento about a public high school there being converted into a charter school, that I believe is Jesuit affiliated.

I don't think there should be any Catholic charter schools either. I don't think there should be any Baptist charter schools.

To me a charter school is supposed to fall under the same guidelines as a public school in terms of things like this. The difference is supposed to be in the method of instruction.

Some charter schools where I live are like this. They're appeal is for children who need a different pace of learning. The one I know about is geared more towards independent study, letting students work at their own pace. Others I know of stem heavily towards projects.

There also are more school-to-career oriented charter schools. I see nothing wrong with those either, since they are performing a valuable service. Same goes for college prep charter schools.

But when you start mixing religion or catering to homosexuals, different races, etc., it sort of defeats the purpose.

Honestly, one thing that school is supposed to teach you is tolerance and don't think this does that.

BTW ... It should be noted that private schools often have to follow the rules for things like discrimination and stuff. This is especially true on the collegiate level, if the school is to offer any student of financial aid. It's also required for accredidation purposes. This is why Bob Jones University and some high schools affiliated with it aren't accredited.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Samdari
I've got Shorty's application half done. Would someone mind PM'ing me his address and phone number please?

just look up his last name and Milford Ohio in google.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Fritz
You think wives do anything exotic?

Well, yours does, so that's one.

[John Galt]

I'm not going to get involved in this fight as I'm not a fan of the school and its efforts (but not for the reasons in this thread).

The one point I find interesting is that many of the people on this board who support intolerance (and the right to be intolerant) are actually complaining when people want to flee from that intolerance.

It is though they want the government to hold down the gay boy while they continue to slur and beat them (or at least create a culture where those things are more likely).

[Samdari]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I think they're called wives.
wives are noted for being exotic?

I missed a memo

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by John Galt

The one point I find interesting is that many of the people on this board who support intolerance (and the right to be intolerant) are actually complaining when people want to flee from that intolerance.

I hope you're not referring to me in anyway here. I'm not intolerant of homosexuals, have many homosexuals friends, and often consider them to be nicer and more pleasureable to be around than my straight friends.

And I have no problem with homosexuals forming their own school, if they feel it will help them. But, I believe it should be a private, rather than charter school.

My one problem with charter schools, is how it's being used to do more than what it was intended (like I stated above).

It's for these same reasons I DO NOT support religious charter schools. Religious private schools are perfectly acceptable.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm not going to get involved in this fight as I'm not a fan of the school and its efforts (but not for the reasons in this thread).

The one point I find interesting is that many of the people on this board who support intolerance (and the right to be intolerant) are actually complaining when people want to flee from that intolerance.

It is though they want the government to hold down the gay boy while they continue to slur and beat them (or at least create a culture where those things are more likely).

Generally speaking I would say that homosexuals are probably the most intolerated (is that even a word?) group in the U.S. right now, but that's just my opinion and definitely debateable. However, while I think there may be some justification for this school, I think its bad for a couple of reasons:

When these kids get out in the real world, they will not be prepared for what they are going to face. Yes, its true, they may face degredation in a regular high school, but I think they will be less prepared to face these hardships once they graduate. Being isolated amongst like-minded people during your most formative years cannot end in a good result down the road.

I can see this leading to the slippery-slope argument. Why stop here with segregating schools? Detroit's population is largely African-American. Should the few remaining white students be able to form a whites-only school because they may feel threatened/intimidated in a regular Detroit public school? This may seem like a silly argument now but I can only imagine the potential lawsuits brought up in court due to this.

I fully sympathize with the problems these kids are probably having in school right now, and definitely understand why they want to do this, but I don't think this will work as a long-term solution. When segregation was ended there was tough going for a very long time, hell, there still are many problems with racism, but there is no way you could make the argument that African-Americans would have been better off staying in segregated schools. I think the same principle applies here.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm not going to get involved in this fight as I'm not a fan of the school and its efforts (but not for the reasons in this thread).

The one point I find interesting is that many of the people on this board who support intolerance (and the right to be intolerant) are actually complaining when people want to flee from that intolerance.

It is though they want the government to hold down the gay boy while they continue to slur and beat them (or at least create a culture where those things are more likely).

First of all, I think it's highly irresponsible to expect high school aged children to have decided they're homosexual. I don't care if you believe homosexuality is something you're born with - the fact remains, it's absurd to categorize a child as "gay" when he or she is just old enough to menstruate or have an erection.

Second, even if you think your child is gay at that age, if tolerance is what you want for your kid, sending him or her to a school like this is ill advised. What happens when they graduate? Is there a gay college for them to attend? (insert UC-Berkley joke here) Is there a gay colony for them to live in? (insert San Francisco joke here) Realistically, they can't live sheltered lives forever.

The one point I find interesting is that the people who preach tolerance for gays would probably agree with me that a high school for all blacks or all whites would be a sad throwback to the "separate but equal" argument that was defeated in the civil rights movement of the '60s.

You can't have it both ways. Gays want to be a protected minority (which is already absurd, in my opinion). Then they ask for a publicly-funded segregated educational facility. If New York City spent $3.2 million refurbishing a school for whites or catholics or people with red hair, the ACLU would sue the city faster than you can bat an eyelash.

I would like to hope that this sort of hypocrisy is why our Mr. Galt objects to this school in the first place...

John, nobody's asking for the government to help them "hold down the gay boy." That's absurd. As a white conservative Christian, I get slurred just as much as you do - maybe more so given the leftist propensity of the media these days.

You don't want the government to endorse Christianity? Fine. Then stop asking it to endorse homosexuality.

[Anrhydeddu]

ice, that is clearly debatable. Try being a white conservative Christian in most places of the world and in popular culture.

[Easy Mac]

SO you're saying conservative Christian teens are picked on more than gays? We obviously grew up in very different places and in very different times. They're generally praised down here. Gays (or those thought to be gay) were tortured on a daily basis at my high school. I know one kid from Sweden quit as the JV soccer team b/c his teammates ridiculed him b/c he had slightly different customs and attire, which they saw as homosexual. I tried to talk to the kids calling him names to get them to back off, but they wouldn't. They'd call him horrible names and generally degraded the kid. He quit halfway through the season and eventually transferred schools.

[mrskippy]

Well said, Franklinnoble, well said.

Here's another way to look at this. Given the shear hate (though I'm not one of them) in this country for Arabs, Muslims, Hindus, East Indians, Sikhs, anyone who wears a turbin, etc., you could argue that they should give these people a school of their own too, so they could study without any distraction.

Jews also have been the target of hate crimes in recent years. Why not have a charter school for them too? And than have Israeli-trained security guards posted around the campus, for further protection from any possible hate crime.

In some California neighborhoods, Mexicans far outnumber whites. And I think you could find some white students who feel intimated by this. In some California neihborhoods, Asians outnumber all the other ethnic groups combined. And some could feel intimidated by this.

I think the correct course of action is to teach tolerance and make it a key component of our educational system.

What is being proposed in New York is, in every spirit of the word, segregation. And Lord knows, what that would lead to next.

And while this segregation is being encouraged by the segregated themselves, what's to eventually stop someone else from being the segregator. Someone could honestly use an argument like, "Wow those gay kids had their GPA's increased from a 2.5 to a 3.5. They are scoring high on their SATs, winning their respective athletic competitions. And they are getting into prestigious universities."

I think that this whole idea sets a dangerous precedent. I've no problem with them starting a "segregated" school, but I believe it should be completely private.

[Kodos]

After they graduate, they can all go to work in the steel mills, and keep reaching for that rainbow.

[Easy Mac]

I'm in the camp that if you want your own rules for your school, it should be completely private. If I want my kid to go to a Catholic high school, its not Joe Taxpayer's job to send my kid there. Same with this.

[John Galt]

The idea that Christian heterosexual white men suffer abuse on the same level as gays is laughable. It demonstrates that you are blind to the hundreds of privileges you experience everyday and have no understanding what is like to be an oppressed minority in this country.

I'm lucky because I'm "bi" (although I don't like that label) because I can "pass" for hetero. I can avoid most of the abuse and namecalling. Still, I've had my share. And the joke in this thread about what would happen if a gay team beat another football team is related to most of my experience. Being an athletic sort who also attended gay pride marches in high school led to more than a few incidents of violence and taunts of "faggot." And when someone at my school lost to the "fag" boy, then there was sure to be an ugly incident in the locker room.

Have you had school pictures taken with two black eyes because you were a Christian? Have you been repeatedly nailed in the crotch with a field hockey stick because of your religous beliefs? Have you felt afraid everyday entering the locker room because you didn't know if someone was waiting to beat the crap out of you?

I have and I'm a lucky one. I haven't suffered nearly as much as my gay friends.

And it isn't just the overt acts. The atmosphere of heterosexual norms and pressure put into everyday activities is more than most teenagers can handle. Being a teen in high school is hard enough. Being a gay teen in high school is almost impossible.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
SO you're saying conservative Christian teens are picked on more than gays? We obviously grew up in very different places and in very different times. They're generally praised down here. Gays (or those thought to be gay) were tortured on a daily basis at my high school. I know one kid from Sweden quit as the JV soccer team b/c his teammates ridiculed him b/c he had slightly different customs and attire, which they saw as homosexual. I tried to talk to the kids calling him names to get them to back off, but they wouldn't. They'd call him horrible names and generally degraded the kid. He quit halfway through the season and eventually transferred schools.

You're from Greenville, SC ... home of the most intolerant university in the country. You're from Greenville, SC ... stronghold for the fundamentalist Christian, Southern Baptists, and many other ultra-conservative evangelical Christian groups.

Franklinnoble is from Placerville, otherwise known as Hangtown, in the heart of California's Gold Country. Franklinnoble is from California, the most left-wing, progressive state in the country, a state with not one Republican holding an executive office.

Trust me, homosexuals rarely are victimized here in California. Yeah, sometimes, in our conservative areas they are, but with few exceptions California is mostly progressive. Biggest targets of hate crimes in recent years: Jews by far, followed by anyone wearing a turbin (post 9-11 especially), and Christians.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by John Galt
Have you felt afraid everyday entering the locker room because you didn't know if someone was waiting to beat the crap out of you?


I'm straighter than straight and I still hated the high school locker room, fearing that people would beat me up because they thought they could. And sometimes they did. And it was because I was ... well ... a dorky, nerdy kid.

At local high school's here in California there are gay clubs, lesbian clubs, etc, Gay Day, etc. There are Christian clubs, but they are often scoffed at and sent through the wringer when getting their charter from the ASB and school administrators.

[sabotai]

"Generally speaking I would say that homosexuals are probably the most intolerated (is that even a word?) group in the U.S. right now, but that's just my opinion and definitely debateable. "

This is 100% off topic, but I saw an interesting poll done a few years ago.

The poll was something like "If your party nominated a(n) _____ to run for president, would you vote for them?" In the blank was several different groups. I can only remember 4 or 5 of them, but it went something like:

African-American: 95+%
Woman: 95+%
Jew (I THINK this was one): 90+%
Homosexual: 59%
Atheist: 49%

I'll see if I can find that poll...

[Easy Mac]

exactly my point. Everyone is trying to pass judgement on something from entirely different parts of the country. To one person, this makes no sense because they don't see how horrible it is for some people. I don't know that I've ever seen a kid (I also lived in Illinois for a time) cry because kids called him "Christian".

[thealmighty]

There is already a school for gays, lesbians, etc... in the Dallas area, I do believe. There have been articles in the DMNews about it in the past.

[John Galt]

It is disappointing when the almighty visits a thread about gays that he/she does not finally reveal whether homosexual acts are sinful, but instead informs us about the happenings in Dallas. ;)

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
The idea that Christian heterosexual white men suffer abuse on the same level as gays is laughable. It demonstrates that you are blind to the hundreds of privileges you experience everyday and have no understanding what is like to be an oppressed minority in this country.

I'm lucky because I'm "bi" (although I don't like that label) because I can "pass" for hetero. I can avoid most of the abuse and namecalling. Still, I've had my share. And the joke in this thread about what would happen if a gay team beat another football team is related to most of my experience. Being an athletic sort who also attended gay pride marches in high school led to more than a few incidents of violence and taunts of "faggot." And when someone at my school lost to the "fag" boy, then there was sure to be an ugly incident in the locker room.

Have you had school pictures taken with two black eyes because you were a Christian? Have you been repeatedly nailed in the crotch with a field hockey stick because of your religous beliefs? Have you felt afraid everyday entering the locker room because you didn't know if someone was waiting to beat the crap out of you?

I have and I'm a lucky one. I haven't suffered nearly as much as my gay friends.

And it isn't just the overt acts. The atmosphere of heterosexual norms and pressure put into everyday activities is more than most teenagers can handle. Being a teen in high school is hard enough. Being a gay teen in high school is almost impossible.

Actually, I had a black eye and noticeable scarring on my forehead in my senior photo because I had just been in a car accident. I was punched in the crotch once in a club in Georgetown because I happened to be a white kid walking through a crowd of black kids. And my only fear in the locker room was knowing that I wasn't nearly as well-endowed as the other guys there and was bound to get ridiculed for it.

Is there a special school I could have gone to in order to avoid this?

Life's a bitch, John, regardless of your race or creed. Get used to it.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I don't know that I've ever seen a kid (I also lived in Illinois for a time) cry because kids called him "Christian".

I have, especially when the recipient is younger or less mature.

But, remember gays don't cry because their called "gay." They cry because their called "faggot" or "fucking faggot" or some other dergoatory word.

Call a Christian a "Christian" he's not gonna be offended. Start using derogatory words like "Bible thumper" or "Jesus Freak" or throw "fucking" in front of those or any other derogatory word and I think you'll see some tears.

Again, I think the important thing to do is teach tolerance. And, we need to get tougher on hate crimes. These are things we have failed to do a good job on in the past. Only recently have we started to raise the penalty for hate crime.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Life's a bitch, John, regardless of your race or creed. Get used to it.

And there you have it. Because intolerance is widespread, you shouldn't fight it and you shouldn't try to make the world a better place. Instead you should bark out at those who actually try to make things better.

And that you suffered abuse (or a freakin car accident) and have the nerve to equate that to the abuse suffered by gays is ridiculous. It is like (although not quite as bad) as saying you knew a guy who died once, so we shouldn't worry about genocide in Rwanda. Yeah, that makes sense.

[mrskippy]

Put it this way guys, back in fourth grade or so, I was having a hard time in school with being picked on, made fun of, etc. (And more by the teacher, than by fellow students). My parents almost enrolled me in previously mentioned private Christian school. But I guess I didn't show enough interest (as I later found out ... grrr), because I stayed in the public school.

I wouldn't have minded going to the private school, but why should I change my life around for the way that others treat me? I am who I am. Why can't others just accept that and move on?

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
ice, that is clearly debatable. Try being a white conservative Christian in most places of the world and in popular culture.

Well if I had to pick which one I thought would be 'easier' to be in this day and age, I would pick to be the conservative Christian any day of the week. Maybe I just am not remembering correctly but I can't think of too many times in the recent past that a conservative Christian has been the victim of a hate crime. Actually, I think you could sub 'gay' with just about any minority group/religion and end up with the answer being the same IMO.

[thealmighty]

Originally posted by John Galt
It is disappointing when the almighty visits a thread about gays that he/she does not finally reveal whether homosexual acts are sinful, but instead informs us about the happenings in Dallas.

That was a good one. :D

I will now spare your car and house from the hailstorm I had planned for thursday.

[mrskippy]

In California, Jews face more hate crimes than gays. Let's see synagouge burnings, shooting a Jewish Community Center, more synagouge burnings, and so forth. Not to mention frequent vandalism of Jewish buildings.

Since 9-11, Sikhs, Hindus, Arabs, Muslims, East Indians, etc., also probably have faced more ridicule than gays. I'm curious as to how high-school aged members of these groups have been treated by their fellow peers. Probably not very well, I'd imagine. These groups have been terrorized frequently with everything from vandalism to assault all the way up to murder. Temples have been ravaged, their businesses spray painted, burned, etc.

Come to think of it, will the creation of this high school help at all? How long before somebody torches it, spray paints it, or snipes it from a nearby building?

[Anrhydeddu]

Noticed I said "in most places of the world ". That would exclude most of the US for obvious reasons. I'm thinking of China, Indonesia, Middle East and even parts of Europe and South America.

From Listen Up - Faith Wars (http://www.crossroads.ca/listenup/programs/001102faithwars.htm)


More Christians were killed for their faith in the 20th century than were martyred in the total history of Christianity.
- The Voice of the Martyrs Inc. Canada
An estimated 165,000 Christians have been martyred in the last year.
- International Day Of Prayer
There are 450 Christians killed every day. That’s 1 in every 3 minutes.
- International Day Of Prayer
200,000,000 Christians live under the daily threat of imprisonment, torture, or death because of their faith in Jesus Christ.
- International Day Of Prayer
Nearly two thirds of all Christians alive in the world today suffer persecution in varying degrees, including the loss of freedom, discrimination, imprisonment, slavery, torture and even death.
- The Voice of the Martyrs
In 1998, 82% of those who were killed worldwide because of their religious convictions were Christians.
- International Day Of Prayer
The top ten countries where Christians are persecuted are India, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, China, North Korea, Vietnam.
- Concern Newsletter, September 2000
CHINA and TIBET
More Christians are in prison or under detention here than in any other country in the world. Yet the Church grows. An estimated 3,000 Chinese come to Christ each day. Approximately 80% of China's Christians endure great persecution, yet remains committed to the gospel.
- The Voice of the Martyrs
SUDAN
Christians compose 19 percent of the population. Since 1985, approximately two million have perished due to war and genocide.
- The Voice of the Martyrs
CHECHNYA (Russia)
Sixty-five-year-old Aleksandr Kulakov, leader of the Grozny Baptist Church, is reported to have been beheaded last year and his severed head displayed at a local market.
- The Voice of the Martyrs
Zhang Xiu ju (China), a house-church leader, was beaten to death by police in April 1996 because she refused to stop holding "illegal" services in her home and to stop evangelizing.
- International Christians Concern
Haik Hovsepian Mehr (Iran) was a pastor who refused to cease evangelizing and also spoke up in defense of Mehdi Dibaj. On January 20, 1994, he was abducted and later found stabbed to death.
- International Christians Concern
Lai Manping (China), a 22-year-old evangelist was beaten to death by the police during a raid on a house church in March 1993.
- International Christians Concern
Salamat Masih (Pakistan) was arrested in 1993 at the age of 12 for blasphemy and threatened with death. He was acquitted in 1995 as a result of international pressure. Extremists have placed a bounty on his life. He has fled his home and family and now lives in hiding.
- International Christians Concern
Soner Onder (Turkey), at the age of 17, was arrested following a Christmas service in 1991. He was beaten and is serving a life sentence.
- International Christians Concern
In China, only a fraction of the estimated 30 million to 70 million Christians belong to government-approved sects. Amnesty International reports cases of Christian women hung by their thumbs from wires, beaten with heavy rods, denied food and water and shocked with electric probes.
- International Christians Concern
Elsewhere in the world, Christians face other tortures and persecutions. In Egypt and Pakistan, Christians have been imprisoned and tortured merely for preaching their faith. Pakistan recently passed a blasphemy law that forbids speaking or acting against the prophet Mohammed. The punishment for violators is death.
- International Christians Concern


You may discount or minimize these but I don't. Obviously it doesn't happen in this country (where gays probably are more persecuted) but I was thinking more of a global view.

[Ksyrup]

I don't doubt that gays face much tougher formative years than others, and I think that trying to equate it to nearly any other separately identifiable group is pretty ridiculous. I just think that sheltering them from the realities of life at that age is doing nothing more than avoiding the inevitable. If there is a teen in crisis, then that person needs to be dealt with on an individual basis, away from the environment that is causing the crisis. But having a school where these kids essentially grow up in a sheltered environment may make turning 18 easier, but it hasn't prepared them for life outside that school.

[John Galt]

Skippy, you are just talking out of your buttocks again. Do you have any numbers to back it up?

According to the FBI crime statistics in 2000 (which usually woefully undercount gay hate crimes compared to race and religion because the victims rarely "out" themselves), gays suffered almost as many hate crimes as ALL religions combined (1299 for gays, 1472 for religion). And given that gays constitute a significantly smaller portion of the population than "religious" people, the problem is more disproportionally aimed at gays.

There are many groups who suffer in the United States because of hate including gays, jews, blacks, arabs, muslims, etc., but white heterosexual christians live pretty well.

[Cuckoo]

Originally posted by John Galt

It is though they want the government to hold down the gay boy while they continue to slur and beat them (or at least create a culture where those things are more likely).

Sometimes I can't believe you still post this kind of crap on here and get away with it.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Noticed I said "in most places of the world ". That would exclude most of the US for obvious reasons. I'm thinking of China, Indonesia, Middle East and even parts of Europe and South America.

From Listen Up - Faith Wars (http://www.crossroads.ca/listenup/programs/001102faithwars.htm)



You may discount or minimize these but I don't. Obviously it doesn't happen in this country (where gays probably are more persecuted) but I was thinking more of a global view.

If this is targetted at me, I wasn't aiming my post at you. I saw the "most places of the world" qualifier and was only referring to Franklinnoble. Sorry for the confusion.

[Subby]

It's ashame this wasn't available to Fritz and Dutch back when they were in high school...

[Anrhydeddu]

Gays have one of the highest household income of any demographics groups, so I guess that's living pretty well as long as you can avoid hate situations. Plus, I think gays on TV and in movies fare really well, esp. compared to the stereotypes of Christians.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Come to think of it, will the creation of this high school help at all? How long before somebody torches it, spray paints it, or snipes it from a nearby building? Ding ding ding! Mrskippy hits the button that pulls Ol' SkyDog into this thread. When I heard about this, my thoughts were pretty simple, and reading this thread hasn't done anything but confirm for me what I was already thinking:

1. If the community this school is in is tolerant of those who engage in homosexual behavior, then what is the point?

2. If the community this school is in is INtolerant of those who engage in homosexual behavior, then this is akin to painting a great big target on these kids' chests.

I don't get this one at all.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by John Galt
If this is targetted at me, I wasn't aiming my post at you. I saw the "most places of the world" qualifier and was only referring to Franklinnoble. Sorry for the confusion.

It was aimed at ice, sorry.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Cuckoo
Sometimes I can't believe you still post this kind of crap on here and get away with it.

And with that well thought out and thorough response, I'm sure to stop posting "crap" and getting "away with it." :rolleyes:

[Wolfpack]

I can see how high school forments a degree of intolerance towards homosexuals. After all, guys for the most part are busy asserting themselves as men finally instead of boys and girls are looking to attract the guys. With the negative feelings established throughout human history towards homosexuality, guys trying to prove their masculinity just don't want to think about other guys looking at them in such a fashion, which does lead to agression in response when someone is "outed", sending a message that "we definitely don't want you interested in us, even if you weren't before...don't start now". (Geez, horrible sentence structure and a muddle of thought...)

However, that all changes when you go to college and move into real life beyond. I am a conservative Christian living in Ann Arbor, and I can honestly tell you the vehement dislike for anyone like me has caused me to not speak up in political discussions I've heard around me because I know I am outgunned and have no realistic chance of changing opinion about someone like me. In a weird sense, I can sympathize with what gay people go through. To out myself as a conservative would likely cause most people look at me as if I've dropped in from Mars and would likely be greeted with not a little bit of pure hate from some of the more rabid mouth-breathers on campus. (Fortunately, I don't venture onto campus much anymore since my job moved from there to south of town) Intolerance is everywhere and it sure as hell isn't just from the right. Remember that Cal-Berkeley paper from a couple of days ago that essentially stereotyped a conservative as "intolerant", "fearful of change", etc.? If I were to say in general terms that homosexuals are "x", "y", and "z", which contain some negative connotation regarding said people, I would catch holy hell for it.

[Cuckoo]

Originally posted by John Galt
And with that well thought out and thorough response, I'm sure to stop posting "crap" and getting "away with it." :rolleyes:

Oh and you think that all of your posts are well thought out? Give me a break John. I've been reading your posts for quite some time and you mask your "thorough" responses as intelligent discussions when they're no less absurd than anyone else's opinions, just better written than most. The fact is that if you honestly feel that this board or the world for that matter is like that, I truly feel sorry for the life you must endure.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Gays have one of the highest household income of any demographics groups, so I guess that's living pretty well as long as you can avoid hate situations. Plus, I think gays on TV and in movies fare really well, esp. compared to the stereotypes of Christians.

That is actually a really good point (about income) and something that other minorities share (chiefly east Asians). Being gay, however, has a lot of drawbacks that money doesn't compensate for. And it isn't just hate, it is the inability to participate in mainstream culture (which is something more conservative Christians also feel).

As for TV and movies, I think gays may come off well, but gay actors are often very limited. Type-casting is more than a fear - it is a reality that often ends careers.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Ding ding ding! Mrskippy hits the button that pulls Ol' SkyDog into this thread. When I heard about this, my thoughts were pretty simple, and reading this thread hasn't done anything but confirm for me what I was already thinking:

1. If the community this school is in is tolerant of those who engage in homosexual behavior, then what is the point?

2. If the community this school is in is INtolerant of those who engage in homosexual behavior, then this is akin to painting a great big target on these kids' chests.

I don't get this one at all.

Again, I don't support the school, but I think this argument is dangerous.

Gays can't hide - that strategy has failed. It doesn't provide tolerance or equality. The strategy for dealing with intolerance is not to hide from it, but to create a safe area and then confront it. This school doesn't necessarily accomplish that goal, but I don't think it should runaway because of the fear of backlash. That fear would end every civil rights struggle before it started.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by John Galt
It is disappointing when the almighty visits a thread about gays that he/she does not finally reveal whether homosexual acts are sinful, but instead informs us about the happenings in Dallas. ;) Would you really want Him to drop by and clarify things?

Everyone: OK God, please settle this once and for all. Are gay acts a sin?
God: Yes they are!
Half the country: Woo-hoo! We win!
God: Just like all pre-marital sex.
Half the country: Um...
God: Sex is only for making babies. Anything else is a sin!
Everyone: Um...
God: And no trimming your beards!
Everyone: Yeah, that's great, thanks for stopping by.
God: And don't even get me started on the shellfish!
Everyone: Um, we have to go now.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by John Galt
As for TV and movies, I think gays may come off well


You know, I've wondered this for quite a while...are gays really proud to have a character like the guy from Will & Grace purporting to be "representative" of gays?

That show is applauded by gay activists, but it seems to me that his character is not only stereotyping, but even worse, a caricature. Is it just the fact that they've now got someone on TV who is gay, so they are willing to overlook the type of gay character he plays? I watched that show a couple of times, and each time, I felt embarrassed for gays.

That character is like the Carlton from Fresh Prince "Bryant Gumbel" preppy black kid character. It's really nothing to be proud of, and it fosters the same beliefs that many people have been trying to erase for years.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs

God: Sex is only for making babies. Anything else is a sin!
Everyone: Um...
God: And no trimming your beards!
Everyone: Yeah, that's great, thanks for stopping by.
God: And don't even get me started on the shellfish!
Everyone: Um, we have to go now.

Not accurate. You should re-read the book of Acts.

[mrskippy]

I won't dispute that gays are one of the most hated groups in America. But I think it depends what part of the country you're in as well. Here in California, homosexuality for the most part is a highly accepted lifestyle.

Does it mean there isn't gay bashing? Of course not.

I find it sad that gays face the torment they do. While I don't agree with the lifestyle, I think it's wrong that we rip on two guys for holding hands, two girls for kissing on the lips, or a gay couple checking into a motel room.

The only time I get really offended is if I see two guys or two girls commiting overt sexual acts in public. But than again, I get offended when I see a heterosexual couple doing this in public. So what's the difference?

Sadly, I think until people can come to accept people for who they are or who they choose to be, I think we'll continue to have hate in our society.

John Galt ... I only bring up the idea of the two other groups, because it just goes to show you that those two groups are frequent targets -- even when they have their own buildings (synagouges, temples, etc.) or their own businesses (I believe a few convenience stores have been targeted in recent years. And in history, Jewish businesses have been frequent targets of vandalism). That said I'm sure gay-owned businesses also have been targeted by hate crimes.

SkyDog took the words I was looking for. But I fear this school, if built, would be an open target for hate crimes. It's sad, but it just shows that it's not going to help them get away from the persecution they face on a daily basis. And it may only compound it with far more serious criminal acts.

Also, it should be noted that during World War II, while Jews were by far the biggest target of Hitler, he also targeted homosexuls and evangelical Christians who were opposed to him and who supported the Jews.

Sadly, until are government starts taking hate criminals and throwing them behind bars for life, things won't change.

[John Galt]

Not that I speak for the gay community, but I think there are a couple schools of thought on Will & Grace.

First off, gays are just happy to see gays on TV. People haven't fully reached the stage about being picky with game focused shows like Will & Grace.

Second, a lot of gay culture is flamboyant. Gays haven't been able to be themselves for a lot of time and as a result a subculture formed. This subculture, for many people, included cross-dressing, a certain way of speaking, and other "stereotypical" characteristics. If a show like the West Wing had a gay character like Jack from Will & Grace, you might see more people upset. If a show like Cheers had a character like Jack, you would definitely see people upset. Because Will & Grace reflects is well-meaning and because it has a variety of gay characters, it is forgiven and embraced. I hope that makes sense.

Third, don't feel embarassed for gays. The community is very diverse and I know many "Jacks." That stereotype shouldn't define gays and it shoudn't be used in perjorative jokes, but it is part of gay America.

Still, not everyone is happy with Will & Grace, but I would say an overwhelming majority is. Personally, I think the show has gotten stale and reuses a ton of jokes.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
Again, I don't support the school, but I think this argument is dangerous.

Gays can't hide - that strategy has failed. It doesn't provide tolerance or equality. The strategy for dealing with intolerance is not to hide from it, but to create a safe area and then confront it. This school doesn't necessarily accomplish that goal, but I don't think it should runaway because of the fear of backlash. That fear would end every civil rights struggle before it started. Dangerous??? Why???


"Civil rights"---Heh, civil rights are now extended for behaviors, eh??? Well, I'll indulge you on this one though, and go down that road.

I submit to you that the best way to deal with ANY intolerance is for kids to be face-to-face with those who are "different". I started grade school just 2 or 3 years after forced integration in my home town. Guess what forced integration did for the little white kids in my school??? It caused them to see very clearly that all black kids couldn't be categorized in any way. There were smart black kids, dumb black kids, "good" black kids and "bad" black kids, and the white kids got to see that close up, breaking down any chance they had to stereotype.

Moving on in life, I then went to a rather elite, both economically and academically (I was on scholarship.....) private high school where, by my Senior year, there were a grand total of FIVE black guys in the entire school, and before we came through, there had never been more than 1 black male at the school at any given time. Once again, the white kids at that school, most of whom had never been exposed close-up to any black people besides their domestic workers, got to know five VERY distinct black guys, and even with such a small number, we all had VERY different reputations:

John-->introvert, hardly talked to anyone except his small group of friends, who all kept to themselves as well, so-so student, one of VERY few males in my class who never earned a varsity letter (only 65 kids in my graduating class....)

Derek-->loud-mouth, always talking in graphic terms about sex, "big black stud" (6'4", 210 pounds as a freshman, would grow to 6'5", 235 by his senior year), liked to put on the "hoodlum" image, but was in all advanced classes and scored 1200+ on the SAT, a bit of a jerk, but could break up every guy in the locker room with one of his ridiculously exaggerated stories of sexual prowess, starred in football, basketball and track, into R&B, and unaccepting of any other kind of music, including rap

Reggie-->ended up being a National Merit Scholar, very bookish, quiet freshman

Ben-->super-smart (that was my image, ok....) National Merit Scholar, decent athlete, but not a stereotypical young stud black athlete, strongly opionated, very outgoing, quick wit and sense of humor, brash, into rap music almost exclusively

Mack-->humble, hard-working kid, not particularly gifted in the classroom, but a hard worker there, and on the playing field...did VERY well in both venues, and everyone knew it was because of his work ethic, not nearly as outgoing as Derek or Ben, but not nearly as quiet as John, would listen to whatever music was being played, non-confrontational


So there you have it. Our personalities, music preference and academic talent were all quite different, and the white sons and daughters of Columbus, GA's most elite families got to see that close up, and I'd like to think that they're better for it. Remove those five black guys from the Brookstone experience, and those kids could have comfortably kept their stereotypes. Instead, three of them ended up having Ol' SkyDog as as groosman, and therefore ended up confronting in-laws-to-be and a couple of elite Country Clubs over their racism.


Galt, if you take all the homosexuals out of the schools up there, and the stereotypes you bemoan will be allowed to persist in the minds of the kids at the increasingly gay-free schools in the district.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
And there you have it. Because intolerance is widespread, you shouldn't fight it and you shouldn't try to make the world a better place. Instead you should bark out at those who actually try to make things better.

And that you suffered abuse (or a freakin car accident) and have the nerve to equate that to the abuse suffered by gays is ridiculous. It is like (although not quite as bad) as saying you knew a guy who died once, so we shouldn't worry about genocide in Rwanda. Yeah, that makes sense.

First, I don't think making gays a protected minority makes things better. I especially don't think this high school makes things better.

Second, what difference does it make WHAT I suffered abuse for? Is your abuse worse just because you were abused for being gay? If somebody kicks my ass, I don't care if he does it because he thinks I'm queer or thinks I wear the wrong brand of sneakers - it sucks getting your ass kicked.

Your Rwanda analogy baffles me. I'm either too clever or not clever enough to understand it.

Anrhydeddu's post regarding the statistics for Christian persecution world-wide speak for themselves. As for statistics in this country, I'm sure a lot of it goes unreported - whether it's a hate crime against Jews, Christians, Gays, or people with trout in their rectums. I would even say most Christians are actually more than happy to be persecuted, and are less likely to complain about it.

Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

[mrskippy]

Speaking of television ... I hear a new show on Bravo tonight has the gay community up in arms. "Boy Meets Boy" is supposed to be a gay version of "The Bachelor."

But than they throw the twist in, some of the "bachelors" are actually straight.

The idea is (according to the show's Web site) to create "an interesting twist allowing for numerous avenues of heated on-air discussions and debates that challenge socially preconceived notions of what is considered gay and straight behavior."

But, from what I read awhile back, the guy doing the picking is not happy to see that some of the guys were straight and believes it is typically stereotyping, etc. We shall see.

I think that if the idea of the show is to be deceptive, than I think it's wrong.

Anway here's the Web site ...

http://www.bravotv.com/Boy_Meets_Boy/

[John Galt]

SD - I actually agree with you 100% about diversity (that is why I oppose the school). I sympathize with the desire to escape the dangers of high school for gays, but I think the benefits to "contact" are more important. BTW, that is also the most important argument for affirmative action - I think workplaces need to be diverse to increase tolerance. :)

[Noble_Platypus]

Originally posted by Airhog
Hmm, but dont Gays Lesbians And Bi-sexuals have a right to segregate themselves? I think it is one thing for Someone not of the group to declare segregation, Like the whole civil rights movement of the 60's. But I think it is okay if a group of like minded inviduals wish to segregate themselves from the rest of society.

Do you think if there were some straight students that wanted to atend the school they wouldnt try to block them? If they didnt it wouldnt be a gay/lesbian school. They said they wanted an atmosphere where no one would judge them, so letting straight student in would take that away. That being said its not alright to do this. If a number of straight students wanted a school where there were no gays do you think that would fly?

I think its a ridiculous concept. I dont think that blacks should get black colleges like Grambling and Southern and there not be all white colleges, or all oriental or whatever. If there were an all white anything or an all straight anything it would be called racism, but it can work the other way and not be. It should work both ways, or not at all.

[Anrhydeddu]

But diversity has come to mean limited things. In most companies (including ours), we have "protected classes" - those giving preferential treatment in apply, interviewing and getting the position. I argue that even a workforce of these "protected classes" is not nearly diverse enough but these are the groups that scream the loudest and has the lawyers behind them, at the expense of others. Insomuch that I believe that race should not be a fill-in-the-blank on any form, there certainly is no place for lifestyle fill-in-the-blanks either. I can't and won't chose my set of diversity.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
BTW, that is also the most important argument for affirmative action - I think workplaces need to be diverse to increase tolerance. :) John, John, John.....

That sounds nice, but it is impractical. I'll go back to my high school as an example. What I didn't mention is that the school had three different buildings on campus: Lower School, Middle School, Upper School. As I mentioned, the school was/is known for being academically elite. However, there is no entrance exam required for "lifers"--those who started there at Pre-K. In nearly every graduating class, there would be one or two lifers who everyone assumed would not have gotten in had they had to take an entrance exam in 6th or 9th grade. (John, mentioned above, was one of those. Reggie, Mack, Derek and I all started in 9th grade and had to take the exam.) Those lifers were whispered about throughout high school, and occasionally took some direct flack for lowering the average SAT score of the school, etc.

In the same way that I wouldn't want the stigma of being a "lifer"--someone who wasn't there on merit, I think it is horrible to set black folks up in the same way--to be the subject of whispered rumors that we're not there on merit.

[mrskippy]

SkyDog -- great, great story.

One thing that I enjoy studying is slavery, how blacks have been treated in the South through a good chunk of the 20th century and really even up to today. It's hard to believe that segregation isn't something that happened way back when, that my own parents remember it vividly.

It makes me absolutely sick when I see a true-to-life movie set in the South in the 40s, 50s, 60s and to think how blacks were once treated. And for what? The color of their skin.

I couldn't have lived in that era. I'd probably have fought with the blacks for their civil rights and quite likely died for it. But that's just the way I am.

Even on a recent trip back east, somebody told me "you wouldn't want to live in this neighborhood." And I asked ... "Why is that?" ... "Oh, its a black neighborhood?" And it was said in a racist way.

Having worked in Oakland, I had many black friends, colleagues, and frequently rode with them on the subway. Some of the nicest people I know are black.

And honestly, there are times I'd rather live in that black neighborhood, than in a mostly white neighborhood.

It pisses me off when people stereotype blacks.

To add to Franklinnoble's words. I think it is wrong for a Christian to hate someone because they're gay, get an abortion, smoke, do drugs, prostitute themselves, etc. As a college professor of mine said "Hate the sin, but always love the sinner." And not for the purpose of converting them, but just accepting them as fellow man and as God's creation.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by John Galt
Not that I speak for the gay community, but I think there are a couple schools of thought on Will & Grace.

First off, gays are just happy to see gays on TV. People haven't fully reached the stage about being picky with game focused shows like Will & Grace.

Second, a lot of gay culture is flamboyant. Gays haven't been able to be themselves for a lot of time and as a result a subculture formed. This subculture, for many people, including cross-dressing, a certain way of speaking, and other "stereotypical" characteristics. If a show like the West Wing had a gay character like Jack from Will & Grace, you might see more people upset. If a show like Cheers had a character like Jack, you would definitely see people upset. Because Will & Grace reflects is well-meaning and because it has a variety of gay characters, it is forgiven and embraced. I hope that makes sense.

Third, don't feel embarassed for gays. The community is very diverse and I know many "Jacks." That stereotype shouldn't define gays and it shoudn't be used in perjorative jokes, but it is part of gay America.

Thanks for the perspective. I guess I feel uneasy about such an openly stereotypical character, and it's hard for me to understand why most gays are not bothered by it.

However, since the show is a comedy, I suppose I can see where that would be more acceptable than if that character was portrayed on other types of shows. It just seems unfortunate to me that one of the more well-known gay characters "just happens" to be flamboyant. That has the effect of accentuating the differences between gays and heterosexuals, instead of showing how we are similar. It seems more productive to me to show similarities, which can then serve as a basis for introducing those aspects of the lifestyle that at least a portion of the population obviously finds offensive in some form or fashion. Not that it has to be accepted, but I thinnk it would serve as a way to increase the tolerance level for the gay lifestyle.

I mean, when the Falwell's of the world talk about gays derisively, they love to show the gay pride parades, with cross-dressing and all of that flamboyant stuff. And of course, that is a part of the lifestyle. But that is no doubt shown for effect. I doubt that if otherwise typical "professional" looking gays were shown, Falwell wouldn't get as big a rise out of his audience (no pun intended).

[mrskippy]

As for affirmative action ...

You should only be hired for a job or accepted into college based solely on experience, qualificiation and merit.

Of course, the kicker comes when you must pick one or the other. My belief is that if at all possible, you let both people in (especially in the case of college). Obviously this is harder with employment.

But I think at that point, you can make an exception for special circumstances and allow for affirmative action to kick in.

But to just hire the minority for the purpose of meeting a quota is wrong, especially if it means hiring a less qualified employee.

[JPhillips]

KSyrup: But there isn't a picture of gays just as there isn't a picture of blacks or women or Fritzs. When I directed Godspell I had one very openly flamboyent guy who told me he was "a delicate flower", one guy that was struggling with his sexuality and kept it all very hidden, and one guy who was gay, but claimed to be homophobic. I applaud Will and Grace for showing as many different facets of gay culture as they do. In a way showing all different types, and not hiding the less PC ones, makes it that much more real.

[STK]

I wonder if they'll have a wrestling team.

[Drake]

Originally posted by mrskippy
I think it is wrong for a Christian to hate someone because they're gay, get an abortion, smoke, do drugs, prostitute themselves, etc. As a college professor of mine said "Hate the sin, but always love the sinner." And not for the purpose of converting them, but just accepting them as fellow man and as God's creation.

What a fascinating list of sins. This is completely off-topic, but I'm constantly amazed by the things smoking gets lumped in with.

As a favor to me, please substitute "practicing freemasonry and/or worshipping the Baphometic head" for "smoke" in the list above.

Thanks!

[mrskippy]

Drake ..

I'm speaking in generalities of course.

gambling, drinking, and even dancing also can be added to that list.

Personally, I don't feel smoking is sin. Though I don't smoke and think it is gross.

I don't think gambling is a sin and love going to Las Vegas.

I don't think drinking is a sin and love a Heiniken every once and awhile.

I don't think dancing is a sin and love going to the club here and there.

Perhaps EasyMac can scam an electronic copy of BJU's rule book (the list of sins for us). I actually know where a similar one is online for Pensacola Christian College.

It absolutely amazes me what some Christians consider sinful.

College Dean: Hey there boy, don't hold her hand. You might be tempted to have sex with her. Than you'll go to hell.

Me: Yeah, I'll let God decide that. Thank you very much. In the meantime, she's hot, she wants me, I'm gonna score.

[Drake]

Okay, skippy. Thanks for clarifying for me.

I've decided to make it a personal crusade to stand up against the societal marginalization of smokers as second class citizens.

On the other hand, I'm encouraging the social marginalization of IE users and wouldn't mind seeing it lumped in with things like drugs, prostitution and blasphemy.

Everyone should be using Mozilla.
(Convert or die, infidels).

[mrskippy]

I've been using Netscape lately and Mozilla too. I only use IE, when the site requires it. Otherwise Netscape and Mozilla are much better browsers IMHO.

And smokers aren't second class citizens. My only thing against smoking is that it's gross.

Oh, and If I ever see a hot babe smoke, well she ain't a hot babe anymore. Instant turnoff.

[Anrhydeddu]

skippy, if would have used Scriptures, esp. from I Cor., then you wouldn't had to have clarified something you made up.

Folks get the wrong impression about "don't do this", "don't do that". It's not that way at all (even though some denominations loves the legalism crap), it's about "do this", "do that" which we then leave no room or no need "not" to do something. If that makes sense.

[clintl]

Why do conservative Christians never quote or cite Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31? That right there is the lesson you need regarding how to treat others, especially those who don't share your faith or values, and I think those are the two verses the hatemongers among conservatives Christians most consistently ignore.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
skippy, if would have used Scriptures, esp. from I Cor., then you wouldn't had to have clarified something you made up.


What do you mean?

I abhor legalism myself, but I think there are some Christians out there who classify everything from watching TV to mixed bathing (swimming) as a sin.

When people tell me I shouldn't gamble, that it's a sin, my response is this:

Gambling in itself is not a sin. When gambling consumes me than it is a sin. If I gamble for fun, taking $20 on a Saturday night or going to Vegas for a week with my vacation money, it isn't a sin. If I go on that trip and start selling personal possessions, mortgaging the house, maxing the credit cards and otherwise letting it become an addiction/consuming me than it might be considered sinful.

Otherwise, gambling is a hobby. It's recreation.

I've had people than say, well that $20 you take gambling, that is extra money you should give to God. I'm told its all about stewardship.

At which time I respond.

Shopping could be considered a sin too. If its about stewardship than you shouldn't waste your money on worldly possessions and you should buy the cheapest clothes money can buy. You should only buy basic staples to eat and never go out for dinner.

Shuts 'em up everytime.

In college (Christian college) the Resident Assistant wanted to get me kicked out of college for going to Reno on my 21st birthday.

It was a birthday gift from my parents. But before I left, the RA leaves a copy of the rule book with the gambling rule highlighted and a note saying I agreed to this policy.

Of course, the Resident Director (the level above the RA) said that it was a gift from my parents, that it's happening on a weekend, that it's happening off campus, etc.

[CamEdwards]

John,

Do you mind telling me (either publicly or in a PM) why exactly you object to the school? Thanks.

[Drake]

Please note that I did not intend to accuse skippy of legalism. My comment about smoking was made with tongue inserted firmly in cheek. I don't doubt that some denominations would classify smoking as a sin, but there's enough disagreement on all the things listed depending upon one's brand of Xianity that I accepted Skippy's list as "standard examples" of sins according to monolithic Xianity (whatever that might be) rather than a list of his personal beliefs.

Sorry for the confusion, Skippy.

[mrskippy]

I also don't think it is a sin for a guy and a girl to live together prior to marriage, even though the practice is more often than not referred to by Christians as "living in sin."

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Noticed I said "in most places of the world ".

Yes, I see that now, my bad. Also, I never said that what I was saying wasn't debateable; clearly, people of all groups and affiliations are persecuted around the world on a daily basis. Unfortunately it usually comes down to the majority having no tolerance for something other than what they believe or know. I think if there is one trait that people the world over share, it is fear and hatred of the unknown. I equate religious persecution in the Middle East and Africa on the same level I equate gay-bashing here, so I definitely understand where you're coming from. However I usually have no idea where I am coming from :D

[Drake]

Originally posted by clintl
Why do conservative Christians never quote or cite Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31? That right there is the lesson you need regarding how to treat others, especially those who don't share your faith or values, and I think those are the two verses the hatemongers among conservatives Christians most consistently ignore.

I prefer Romans 14:23 myself. ;)

[sterlingice]

Back to the original topic- how is this even legal? It recieves public funds and thus, doesn't it fall under Brown v Board of Ed? Separate but equal was declared bad quite a while ago. What makes this different than, say, The Citadel and the lawsuit brought by the girl who entered there?

SI

[mrskippy]

I think the key here is that ...

Even though it'd be a gay/lesbian charter school and can have an education catering to that group, it couldn't legally block a heterosexual from attending.

The same goes for the Catholic charter school. While it can have a Catholic curriculum, it can't legally bar a non-Catholic from attending.

This is one of the reasons why charter school's are such a big deal. The idea is that they can put the curriculum and style back in the hands of the teachers or parents, etc. They can cater it individually, rather than on a district wide level.

[AZSpeechCoach]

If you want to see a group of "Jacks," attend a college speech and debate tournament. There are a bunch of "Wills" there as well. I was definitely in the minority.

Charter schools may receive public money, but they do not have to uphold the same standards as other public schools. They are not subject to the same labeling as demanded by ESEA, and in some cases are exempt from the high stakes testing. They are fairly autonomous. The only group that they answer to is the state Charter board. Legally, they probably couldn't discriminate against non-gay students, but they can set policies in place that would create a safe, sheltered environment. Much like how private schools seek to create an environment centered on their belief/custom/ethnic-racial group.

[Anrhydeddu]

Drake, put it in context. :)

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
John,

Do you mind telling me (either publicly or in a PM) why exactly you object to the school? Thanks.

The primary reason is the one I gave in response to SD. I think diversity and the "contact hypothesis" are the best ways to combat hate, discrimination, sexism, racism, heterosexism, etc. Removing kids from other schools, even for well intenioned reasons does not offer a long term solution to the problems of high school. It represents a meaningful bandaid, but nothing approaching a real solution.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Drake, put it in context. :)

Shhh. That would be telling. :)

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
John, John, John.....

That sounds nice, but it is impractical. I'll go back to my high school as an example. What I didn't mention is that the school had three different buildings on campus: Lower School, Middle School, Upper School. As I mentioned, the school was/is known for being academically elite. However, there is no entrance exam required for "lifers"--those who started there at Pre-K. In nearly every graduating class, there would be one or two lifers who everyone assumed would not have gotten in had they had to take an entrance exam in 6th or 9th grade. (John, mentioned above, was one of those. Reggie, Mack, Derek and I all started in 9th grade and had to take the exam.) Those lifers were whispered about throughout high school, and occasionally took some direct flack for lowering the average SAT score of the school, etc.

In the same way that I wouldn't want the stigma of being a "lifer"--someone who wasn't there on merit, I think it is horrible to set black folks up in the same way--to be the subject of whispered rumors that we're not there on merit.

This is one of the classic affirmative action points of depature. The question I pose to you is: If the minority group gets labelled as products of affirmative action, is that the fault of affirmative action or the subconscious racism of those doing the labelling? When one looks at a black/gay/female student where they are in the minority and thinks "token"/"affirmative action baby"/"they don't belong," then one is thinking that the person could not have gotten their otherwise. That is a problem. And I think if we recognized that schools and workplaces aren't strictly composed of people based on merit (they aren't in so many ways) and instead recognized diversity as a goal, then that is the way to overcome the stigma problem. I think your argument is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

[vtbub]

I agree with John on this.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Second, what difference does it make WHAT I suffered abuse for? Is your abuse worse just because you were abused for being gay? If somebody kicks my ass, I don't care if he does it because he thinks I'm queer or thinks I wear the wrong brand of sneakers - it sucks getting your ass kicked.

Your Rwanda analogy baffles me. I'm either too clever or not clever enough to understand it.


My point is that "random" violence or things like a car accident are distinct from systemic hate or discrimination in the same way someone dying (or even being murdered) is different than genocide. The pattern matters.

[CamEdwards]

John,

Thanks. I appreciate your response. I'm having a couple of guests on tomorrow (one a professor from NYU, the other a member of the Safe Schools Coalition of New York State) to talk about this issue. Just trying to find out as much as I can before we talk.

Thanks again.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
This is one of the classic affirmative action points of depature. The question I pose to you is: If the minority group gets labelled as products of affirmative action, is that the fault of affirmative action or the subconscious racism of those doing the labelling? Well of course, it is partially due to those doing the labelling. We live in the real world, not a theoretical one. Just like you're saying that the school will do more harm than good, I say the same about A.A.

You often talk of being offended. Guess what? You've offended me tremendously and deeply, as does anyone who suggests that Affirmative Action is needed:

Liberal White Guy: Here you are, you poor little Negro. I know you can't get into college or get a job on your own merit, so here's a handout.
Affirmative Action Receiving Black Guy:Yassah boss. Thank ya boss. I's gwine vote Democrat in the next election boss, so's we can keep gittin' our handouts boss.
Non Affirmative Action Receiving Black Guy:Take your handout and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. I am a strong, proud intelligent black man, and I can get what I need on the basis of my merit.

Puh-leez. :mad:

[Butter]

Unfortunately, SkyDog, I think you're being incredibly naive to suggest that the real world is perfect enough to reward all people based on merit and ignore color. There is a lot of discrimination still going on (I have witnessed it at the hiring level, but kept my mouth shut at the risk of losing my job), and affirmative action can be both harmful and helpful at times, but overall I think has been a good idea.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Unfortunately, SkyDog, I think you're being incredibly naive to suggest that the real world is perfect enough to reward all people based on merit and ignore color. There is a lot of discrimination still going on (I have witnessed it at the hiring level, but kept my mouth shut at the risk of losing my job), and affirmative action can be both harmful and helpful at times, but overall I think has been a good idea. I'm not suggesting that the real world is perfect enough to reward all people based on merit. Daddy taught us from an early age that there were things we had to overcome, and in order to overcome them we needed to excel, not just get by...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by SkyDog I say the same about A.A.

You got something against Alcoholics Anonymous?

Or the American Association?

;)

[Butter]

Isn't that wrong, though? That black people have these obstacles to overcome? AA was put in place to try and help them overcome those obstacles. Whether or not it has been successful is another matter. Racism as a problem will likely never be overcome. But I think some program must be in place to help those who should be afforded advancement on merit, but will never get it because of their color. Simply having anti-discrimination policies aren't enough in my view, because covert racism is too rampant.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
You got something against Alcoholics Anonymous?

Or the American Association?

;)

Or is American Airlines now offering gay-only flights?

[Anrhydeddu]

Butter, but there are two misguided factors that work against this: 1) trying to make up for past wrongs and 2) using racism to overcome racism can only add fuel to the fire.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well of course, it is partially due to those doing the labelling. We live in the real world, not a theoretical one. Just like you're saying that the school will do more harm than good, I say the same about A.A.

You often talk of being offended. Guess what? You've offended me tremendously and deeply, as does anyone who suggests that Affirmative Action is needed:

Liberal White Guy: Here you are, you poor little Negro. I know you can't get into college or get a job on your own merit, so here's a handout.
Affirmative Action Receiving Black Guy:Yassah boss. Thank ya boss. I's gwine vote Democrat in the next election boss, so's we can keep gittin' our handouts boss.
Non Affirmative Action Receiving Black Guy:Take your handout and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. I am a strong, proud intelligent black man, and I can get what I need on the basis of my merit.

Puh-leez. :mad:

SD, I used to be very opposed to affirmative action largely based on those feelings. My position now, however, doesn't follow the hand-out type model which you seem to be opposed. I think the only sustainable justification for affirmative action is that diversity is a value to every school and workplace. It is not about ensuring that blacks/women/gays/hispanics/asians get a leg up in the big rat race. Instead I think workplaces and schools are better places when they are more diverse and when left to their own devices, people don't provide diversity.

I make no claims that affirmative action is needed because blacks need it - diversity is the goal.

And BTW, I never actually have claimed (that I remember) to be offended. I generally say something is "offensive," but to most people that might seem like silly semantics.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Isn't that wrong, though? That black people have these obstacles to overcome? Yup. And it is a bummer that people with impaired vision have to wear glasses or contacts, and will never become fighter pilots. And it is a bummer that people with less academic talent can't get into medical school. And it is a bummer that people with Down's Syndrome don't have the opportunity to become nuclear physicists and potentially win the Nobel Prize. And it is a bummer that those who are 5'9" can't defend in the paint against those who are 6'7". And it is a bummer that people who aren't fast will never have the chance to win an Olympic Gold Medal in the 100-meter dash. And it is a bummer that people who read slowly will not likely get into Law School.


We're all born with obstacles to overcome. We can choose to work around those obstacles ourselves, or expect other people to carry the load of those obstacles for us.

[Anrhydeddu]

SkyDog, you are being guilty of making too much sense and going against prevailing trends.

[KWhit]

Affirmative Action is racism, pure and simple.


From the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ....


So how can it be legal to give someone a job because he is black or hispanic (or insert any other race here) and in the process REFUSE TO HIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE HE IS WHITE?

[Fritz]

two thoughts from johns last post

1) Diverisity should not be a goal unto itself.

2) I hate it when people lump homosexuality in with gender and race. It always comes off as a cheap legitimacy through association tactic.

[clintl]

I am not convinced that affirmative action is making up for past wrongs. I remember a case we studied when I was in business school in which an experiment was conducted that went like this:

Two sets of equally qualified applicants (one white and one black) were observed being interviewed by prospective employers. What the observers concluded was that interviewers did not treat the black applicants the same as the white applicants. They tended to talk down to them, and were more skeptical in their treatment during the interviews. Not surprisingly, the blacks did not do well compared to the whites.

After this round, the whites were then subjected to a second round of interviews, during which they were treated intentionally the way the blacks were treated in the first round. And in the second round, the whites performed much like the blacks.

Based on this experiment, I think an argument can be made that affirmative action is really compensating for present wrongs. Whether it's the best way to do it is debatable, I think the case is very strong that blacks and other minorities are still getting a raw deal.

[Butter]

Nice examples, SD, except none of those obstacles you listed are man-made. They're all inherent. Of course short people can't play in the NBA... of course people who aren't fast can't win the 100-meters.

But is it apparently obvious that black men can't become head coaches in the NFL? No. It is only so because of the generalized belief of those in power. Either you change those in power (very unlikely), or you have to institute rules to make it easier for those who are denied access to the opportunity to prove themselves to make it possible for them to have at least an opportunity to demonstrate their abilities.

And Anrhasdioyuqw, I do also believe that AA is only making whites more sensitive to those who were hired as part of an AA program. But, I think John Galt hits it on the head when he questions why that is... likely because many whites still hold an underlying belief that the blacks who have achieved their status would never have done so before AA. So, what is the alternative? Just to let those in power be, and continue to be racist, and hope that over time attitudes will change? I don't believe so. Unfortunately, some societal change must be forced by the government, or those in any minority will always continue to be run over.

[Anrhydeddu]

AA means, in its pure non-political state, to engage in actions to the affirmative in regards to job opportunites and hiring practices. In most EEO/AA charters, it means that you take every opportunity to let as many folks know of job opportunities. For us, being a municipal utilities, we advertise in local and regional blacks and hispanics newspapers, talk to and post jobs in community centers, outreaches, etc., just so we can get applicants from all those that want to apply for a job. It is still merit base because everyone still have to meet the qualifications for the job but if everything being equal, we equally consider all factors, including racial diversity. It is not has ever been the sole factor because other criteria weighs just as or more heavily (like personality and technical abilities). I have over the years worked directly with the EEO/AA office on hiring practices and these are the guidelines and rules to follow. Is our staff of 60 GIS employees diverse? Sure it is, if you don't think the color of ones skin is the only or most important factor of diversity.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
2) I hate it when people lump homosexuality in with gender and race. It always comes off as a cheap legitimacy through association tactic.

What if the evidence becomes overwhelming that homosexuality is determined by biology? Doesn't it become exactly the same kind of issue at that point? Right now, recent scientific discoveries are pointing very strongly in that direction.

[Easy Mac]

Butter_of_69, you are being guilty of making too much sense and going against prevailing trends.

[Anrhydeddu]

Right now, recent politically-biased scientific discoveries are pointing very strongly in that direction (as with most all recent "scientific" discoveries or studies). Whatever your cause, you can find a "scientific" study to back it up.

Again, some of those believing in the Scriptures determine that being part of the gay lifestyle or actually being born gay is irrelevant. It is the act that is the focus, but no different than any other sinful acts.

[Butter]

What I never get is how many of those believing in the Scriptures are so quick to point out how science can be biased in whatever way you like, and then so eager to have science prove that the "Jesus Box" or the Shroud of Turin or that any number of other purportedly Biblical sites are legitimate.

[vtbub]

Sadly Affrimative Action is still needed.

Until certain segemts of the black population get a clue and stop the two prong stereotyping of "poor poor pitiful us." and "BoYz in the GangSta Rap-hood.", the playing field will not be equal in certain area such as college admissions.

To show that we aim to be a society that is accepting of all creeds and colors, we need to make sure that doors are open for all people to get the same opportunities.

Life experience shouldn't cout against anybody because they went to crappy schools.

Hopefully, the need for AA will go away.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Right now, recent politically-biased scientific discoveries are pointing very strongly in that direction (as with most all recent "scientific" discoveries or studies). Whatever your cause, you can find a "scientific" study to back it up.



I have not yet read of any that appear to be politically biased. One of the most convincing, involving brain structure comparison of heterosexuals and homosexuals, is something that would be very hard to fake for political purposes.

[Anrhydeddu]

clintl: It's easy, just consider the data that supports your claim and ignore the rest. I'm speaking generally but I think we can see evidence of this is in global warming and bad food studies.

What I never get is how many of those believing in the Scriptures are so quick to point out how science can be biased in whatever way you like, and then so eager to have science prove that the "Jesus Box" or the Shroud of Turin or that any number of other purportedly Biblical sites are legitimate.

Me neither. My faith is not based on icons or legalism.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
clintl: It's easy, just consider the data that supports your claim and ignore the rest. I'm speaking generally but I think we can see evidence of this is in global warming and bad food studies.





Really? Or are you just accepting the word of political commentators (most of whom have little to no scientific credentials) that share your political views that this is happening?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Nice examples, SD, except none of those obstacles you listed are man-made.Exactly. That was intentional. Everyone in those examples is born with an obstacle to overcome. Being born black is no different. Everyone has obstacles to overcome.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
What if the evidence becomes overwhelming that homosexuality is determined by biology? Doesn't it become exactly the same kind of issue at that point?

What if the evidence becomes overwhelming that polygamy is determined by biology? Doesn't it become exactly the same kind of issue at that point?

What if the evidence becomes overwhelming that incest is determined by biology? Doesn't it become exactly the same kind of issue at that point?

What if the evidence becomes overwhelming that pedophilia is determined by biology? Doesn't it become exactly the same kind of issue at that point?

What if the evidence becomes overwhelming that any criminal tendencies or anit-social behaviors are determined by biology?

hey, if it's natural baby!

Originally posted by clintl
Right now, recent scientific discoveries are pointing very strongly in that direction.

Last time I looked there were arguemnts on both sides. To be honest with you, I have little faith in the same science that brings you "don't eat eggs, eat eggs, don't eat egg, eat only the withe parts of eggs."

---

There is a school of thought that says society is man subverting his natural state.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Fritz
There is a school of thought that says society is man subverting his natural state.

I went to that school for awhile, but I couldn't figure out the rules, so they kicked me out.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Daddy taught us from an early age that there were things we had to overcome, and in order to overcome them we needed to excel, not just get by... ...and the proof is in the pudding. Let's see how that philosophy, instilled in his children, panned out.

Mama and Daddy were both raised in the Deep South, in poverty, in the 20's, and neither graduated from college. Very little hope for them and their offspring to participate in the American Dream, apart from sports or entertainment, right??? :rolleyes: WRONG!

The two of them pulled themselves up from poverty to being solidly middle class, Daddy having been drafted into the US Army for World War II, despite not being a citizen of the U.S.A., and being a college student (gee, he could have spent his life whining about that, huh????). He looked over the situation, and realized that the army was his best shot for the future, finished O.C.S. and went on to a successful military career, ending in retirement after 20 years serving a country where, by the time he retired, he still couldn't eat in many restaurants in his home town.
Did he whine about that??? Nope.

Instead, he entered civilian life, and set about the task of instilling his way into his children. Mama and Daddy reminded their children just about daily that the five of us had infinitely more opportunities than they ever had. Rather than encouraging us to ask for some affirmative action handout, they instilled in us a desire to work hard to overcome the obstacles put before us. Someone, these poor, uneducated, Deep South black folks managed to rear not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE college graduates. One of those five has a postgraduate degree, and three others are working in that direction. The 5th, our sister, isn't pursuing further education because she's working hard at the most honorable profession in the world--being a wife and mother :D. You'd better believe one thing too, knowing our test scores and GPA's, not a single one of us needed any special race-based considerations not get into schools or get jobs. Guess following Daddy's way worked after all, huh?

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by clintl
Really? Or are you just accepting the word of political commentators (most of whom have little to no scientific credentials) that share your political views that this is happening?

You are assuming only one side of the debate, I am speaking about both sides equally. One side (whether pro or con) can misuse, ignore or re-interpret data just as well as the other side, to support the evidence of those funding the studies. It is a cynical view but one that grew out of constant exposure to junk science and the media that feeds on it.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
What if the evidence becomes overwhelming that polygamy is determined by biology? Doesn't it become exactly the same kind of issue at that point?

What if the evidence becomes overwhelming that incest is determined by biology? Doesn't it become exactly the same kind of issue at that point?

What if the evidence becomes overwhelming that pedophilia is determined by biology? Doesn't it become exactly the same kind of issue at that point?

What if the evidence becomes overwhelming that any criminal tendencies or anit-social behaviors are determined by biology?

hey, if it's natural baby!


If someone is gay, does that hurt anyone else? No.

All of the conducts you listed above involve conduct that potentially deprives others of their rights, although polygamy may be an exception if everyone involved truly is consensual and not being manipulated. And we do have a legitimate interest in protecting unwilling victims, even if there is a biological basis for the conduct.

[KWhit]

All of the acts listed by Fritz are also illegal.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
You are assuming only one side of the debate, I am speaking about both sides equally. One side (whether pro or con) can misuse, ignore or re-interpret data just as well as the other side, to support the evidence of those funding the studies. It is a cynical view but one that grew out of constant exposure to junk science and the media that feeds on it.

That is true, but I blame the political commentators and politicians for this, not the scientists.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by KWhit
All of the acts listed by Fritz are also illegal.

So was sodomy in many states, until about a month ago.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by clintl
If someone is gay, does that hurt anyone else? No.

All of the conducts you listed above involve conduct that potentially deprives others of their rights, although polygamy may be an exception if everyone involved truly is consensual and not being manipulated. And we do have a legitimate interest in protecting unwilling victims, even if there is a biological basis for the conduct.

Why can't incest be consensual? If both parties are of the age of consent, maybe it should be legal to sleep with your siblings or offspring.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Why can't incest be consensual? If both parties are of the age of consent, maybe it should be legal to sleep with your siblings or offspring.

Incest should be illegal if they can produce offspring because of problems with small gene pools. I'm probably in the minority on this, but if incest is between two people who can't have children, then I don't know why there should be a law against it. There is actually a very good movie on this issue, but I won't name it because it would ruin the ending. For those who have seen it, I think it makes this point in a rather effective manner and is one of my ATF movies.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Fritz
two thoughts from johns last post

1) Diverisity should not be a goal unto itself.

2) I hate it when people lump homosexuality in with gender and race. It always comes off as a cheap legitimacy through association tactic.

I agree on both points.

America is already the most diverse nation on the planet. Some people are never frickin' happy. ;)

[John Galt]

And now our beloved president has decided to make "gay" issues a matter of national debate once again. This is really what America needs to focusing on in this day and age. :(

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
Incest should be illegal if they can produce offspring because of problems with small gene pools. I'm probably in the minority on this, but if incest is between two people who can't have children, then I don't know why there should be a law against it. There is actually a very good movie on this issue, but I won't name it because it would ruin the ending. For those who have seen it, I think it makes this point in a rather effective manner and is one of my ATF movies.

Just for clarification here, my post regarding consensual incest was meant to be rhetorical and sarcastic.

So what's your position on beastiality and/or necrophilia?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Just for clarification here, my post regarding consensual incest was meant to be rhetorical and sarcastic.

So what's your position on beastiality and/or necrophilia?

I'll take the bait once again. They should be illegal - no consent exists in either case.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
All of the conducts you listed above involve conduct that potentially deprives others of their rights, although polygamy may be an exception if everyone involved truly is consensual and not being manipulated. And we do have a legitimate interest in protecting unwilling victims, even if there is a biological basis for the conduct.


That has nothing to do with lumping homosexuality in with race and gender, which is all I was talking about. When I raised other (possibly) "natural" things you were quick to go "no no, there is a difference."

[Tekneek]

Who cares? You don't have to go unless you want to go, right? So, unless you are afraid you might want to go there, why would it matter to you whether it existed or not?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
And now our beloved president has decided to make "gay" issues a matter of national debate once again. This is really what America needs to focusing on in this day and age. :(

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html

Sorry, John, but I think President Bush's moral compass is a lot more in-line with the majority of his constituency than yours is.

The fact is, this is an issue that the public obviously cares about. You need look no further than this very board for proof of that... it seems like a debate like this comes along once a week, and it's always one of the most hotly argued threads on the board.

As for whether or not America needs to focus on this issue - well, I dare say if Bush were proposing an amendment to legalize gay marriage, you'd be on the first plane to Washington to kiss his ass. Sure, it's OK when the Supreme Court "focuses" on the issue when the decision goes your way, but if you don't like the side of the argument, then it's a waste of the government's time. Please.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by John Galt
And now our beloved president has decided to make "gay" issues a matter of national debate once again. This is really what America needs to focusing on in this day and age. :(

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/index.html


The question of gay marriage has moved to the foreground of American politics after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that struck down state laws banning sodomy. Canada courts also have recently recognized gay marriages. In addition, the Massachusetts high court is expected to issue a ruling soon on whether the state can allow gay marriages.


I hardly think that this issue had not been in the foreground, despite attempts to keep it under the radar. If one believes that marriage should only be hetereosexual, than it would be best to abide by that belief as a matter of principal. Shame on him for even to hold the same belief as a majority of citizens.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'll take the bait once again. They should be illegal - no consent exists in either case.

What if I write in my will that it's OK for someone to have sex with my corpse when I'm dead? Then should it be legal?

As for animal consent... well, that's debateable. I mean, we eat animals without their consent. I'm sure some sheep would prefer molestation over being made lamb chops.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Sorry, John, but I think President Bush's moral compass is a lot more in-line with the majority of his constituency than yours is.

The fact is, this is an issue that the public obviously cares about. You need look no further than this very board for proof of that... it seems like a debate like this comes along once a week, and it's always one of the most hotly argued threads on the board.

As for whether or not America needs to focus on this issue - well, I dare say if Bush were proposing an amendment to legalize gay marriage, you'd be on the first plane to Washington to kiss his ass. Sure, it's OK when the Supreme Court "focuses" on the issue when the decision goes your way, but if you don't like the side of the argument, then it's a waste of the government's time. Please.

The Supreme Court doesn't "focus" and certainly doesn't handle foreign policy. The president (especially at this time) has no business making this an issue. I'm opposed to a constitutional amendment either way - this is in NO way a constitutional issue.

And if this is really something the public cares about and believes it should be the center of a national debate, then America is in a crappy state right now. I like to think that isn't true.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I hardly think that this issue had not been in the foreground, despite attempts to keep it under the radar. If one believes that marriage should only be hetereosexual, than it would be best to abide by that belief as a matter of principal. Shame on him for even to hold the same belief as a majority of citizens.

There is a BIG difference between believing gay marriage should be illegal and calling for a constitutional amendment. Where are all the pro-states rights argumets now? People believe the states should have the right to regulate sodomy, but not marriage?!?!?!

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm opposed to a constitutional amendment either way - this is in NO way a constitutional issue.


I agree with this much

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
The Supreme Court doesn't "focus" and certainly doesn't handle foreign policy. The president (especially at this time) has no business making this an issue. I'm opposed to a constitutional amendment either way - this is in NO way a constitutional issue.

And if this is really something the public cares about and believes it should be the center of a national debate, then America is in a crappy state right now. I like to think that isn't true.

John, the Supreme Court only hears something like 2% of all the cases that are brought before it in a given year. If you don't call their sodomy decision "focus," then I don't know how else to define the term.

I'd like to think that Americans are tired of having their moral fabric used to wipe the ass of liberals who would like to legalize and legitimatize everything from drug use to rampant acts of sexual deviancy. That's why things like this are the center of a national debate.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
That has nothing to do with lumping homosexuality in with race and gender, which is all I was talking about. When I raised other (possibly) "natural" things you were quick to go "no no, there is a difference."

Sure it does. Being a woman or an African-American or a gay (assuming homosexuality is a natural biological variation) does not make one a threat to those who are different; yet, there are many people who are anti-woman, anti-African-American, or anti-gay, and think the differences are justification for discriminating against them. That is bigotry.

The things you mentioned are things where there is a potential threat to unwilling victims. That's where I'm drawing the line.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
There is a BIG difference between believing gay marriage should be illegal and calling for a constitutional amendment. Where are all the pro-states rights argumets now? People believe the states should have the right to regulate sodomy, but not marriage?!?!?!

Bingo!

Throw out the Federal sodomy law ruling, and Bush doesn't even bring this up.

The fact is, the Supreme Court set a BAD precedent with that ruling, and Bush is taking action to correct it.

I agree that states should be free to regulate both. The Supreme Court took that away. Don't blame Bush for taking action to compensate for their mistake.

[Anrhydeddu]

It is my understanding that the administration does not support a constitutional amendment, going against what Sen. Frist proposed. It should be up to individual states but as we have seen countless times, the federal branches have more power.

Galt, don't delude yourself in thinking that this is now THE national debate. There is no such thing, it's all what the media decides to highlight. A check of Foxnews just now does not even mention this but instead picked out the "We're on a hunt" part. You see things in the way you want to see them - just like the rest of us.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
The things you mentioned are things where there is a potential threat to unwilling victims. That's where I'm drawing the line.

There is no reasons, outside of the ones we have invented in society, why incest, sex with a minor, or polygamy are any more of a potential threat to unwilling victims than any other "sexual" state.

More importantly, sexual preference has nothing in common with gender or race.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
It is my understanding that the administration does not support a constitutional amendment, going against what Sen. Frist proposed. It should be up to individual states but as we have seen countless times, the federal branches have more power.

Galt, don't delude yourself in thinking that this is now THE national debate. There is no such thing, it's all what the media decides to highlight. A check of Foxnews just now does not even mention this but instead picked out the "We're on a hunt" part. You see things in the way you want to see them - just like the rest of us.

I agree that this will probably not trigger a national debate, but why the hell does Bush decide to hold a press conference about it right now? It just seems dumb and pointless (and perhaps a little mean-spirited).

[Anrhydeddu]

Galt, READ THIS.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93290,00.html

You can see that it was a press conference about many issues. :mad:

[Tekneek]

Yeah, there is a new terror alert, and our government is most interested in arguing about gay people. Yay! Probably going to smoke out those new plotters and capture like we did Osama bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Bingo!

Throw out the Federal sodomy law ruling, and Bush doesn't even bring this up.

The fact is, the Supreme Court set a BAD precedent with that ruling, and Bush is taking action to correct it.

I agree that states should be free to regulate both. The Supreme Court took that away. Don't blame Bush for taking action to compensate for their mistake.

Sodomy laws and anti-gay marriage laws are only united by homophobia - otherwise they are wholly separate issues.

Banning gay marriage does NOTHING to prevent gays from having sex.

Banning sodomy does NOTHING to prevent gays from marrying.

People can have opinions both ways on both issues.

I abhor sodomy laws on privacy grounds, I support gay marriage only because of the legal benefits it entails to couples (a civil union would be just fine with me). I belive sodomy is a constitutional issue, but don't believe marriage is (either way).

Yes, the Supreme Court ruling probably pushed Bush to do this, but it doesn't mean he isn't being stupid for making this an issue right now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Tekneek Yeah, there is a new terror alert, and our government is most interested in arguing about gay people. Yay!

I'd be far more upset if I thought our government wasn't capable of multi-tasking.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Galt, READ THIS.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93290,00.html

You can see that it was a press conference about many issues. :mad:

Fair enough. I appreciate the link. As it was a breaking story, I didn't check the rest. Looking over the Fox story, though, I'm still led to one painful conclusion: One of these issues is not like the others, one of these issues is not the same.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt

Yes, the Supreme Court ruling probably pushed Bush to do this, but it doesn't mean he isn't being stupid for making this an issue right now.

As you said, the Supreme Court ruling pushed this.

But, since you like the ruling, I don't suppose you'd call THEM stupid for making it an issue right now.:rolleyes:

[mrskippy]

Even in California, the voters have said marriage is between a man and a woman. I voted to support that measure, however I thought it'd be shot down.

Surprisingly the measure passed. I think it's fair to say that Bush will get more support for this idea than some people think.

The sodomy laws, as they stood, should have been repealed. My understanding of the sodomy laws were that they could be applied to a blow job (by a woman to a man), mutual masturbation, anal sex man to woman, a guy eating out a woman, etc.

Sodomy laws weren't exclusive to homosexuality. From what I've read, in some states, anything other than the missionary position (straight sex) could be construed as sodomy.

And that needed to be changed.

As for the incest laws, what about siblings who aren't related by blood? Step-siblings, adopted siblings, etc.? No blood relation and in some cases no true legal relation.

And even than, if the issue is having a messed up baby, doesn't the woman have the right to get an abortion?

Polygamy is another oddity. I think that the arguments for religious reasoning should be upheld and that the Mormon church should never have been forced to change this in order for Utah to become a state.

So long as the marriage is otherwise legal, that both parties (and the other wives) agree, etc., why shouldn't it be legal?

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by John Galt
Fair enough. I appreciate the link. As it was a breaking story, I didn't check the rest. Looking over the Fox story, though, I'm still led to one painful conclusion: One of these issues is not like the others, one of these issues is not the same.

I can agree with that.

But as long as one group pushes, there will be an equal and opposite reaction.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
More importantly, sexual preference has nothing in common with gender or race.

Fritz, I was staying out of your biology debate because I think it has been hashed out a few times before, but this last statement caught my eye. I can buy that sexual orientation is totally underrelated to race, but to gender? I don't see how you can separate the two.

First off, the courts hold discrimination in employment against gays to be illegal "gender" discrimination under Title VII precisely because you are discriminating against someone's sex vis-a-vis their partner's sex.

Second, sexual orientation is entirely bound up in gender. More than a small number (with ridiculous numbers as high as 10%) of Americans are born with hermaphrodite characteristics. These can range from having both sets of parts, to having traces of both sets, to having your chromosones not match your physical sex, and to having mixed secondary sexual characteristics. It is an issue most people don't like to talk about because many babies sex is determine at birth by a doctor who never says anything about it or by a parent who never tells their kid. In cases of mixed chromosomes, people may never know (excluding urban legends about Jamie Lee Curtis). Either way, it you were born with an XY but everyone thought you were a woman (and you were physically), does that mean you are gay if you like men or are you gay if you like women?

Admittedly, these issues don't effect all gays, but to say, gender and orientation have nothing in common seems to be an exaggeration.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
As you said, the Supreme Court ruling pushed this.

But, since you like the ruling, I don't suppose you'd call THEM stupid for making it an issue right now.:rolleyes:

The Supreme Court does hear only a small number of cases, but sodomy was an important issue because it was such an odd decision in the area of privacy law. They needed to fix the mess Bowers created. And unlike the president, the court doesn't have that many pressing issues to handle. Look at a Supreme Court docket in a given year and I bet you'll find that you don't even understand what is at issue in half the cases.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by SkyDog
...and the proof is in the pudding. Let's see how that philosophy, instilled in his children, panned out.

Mama and Daddy were both raised in the Deep South, in poverty, in the 20's, and neither graduated from college. Very little hope for them and their offspring to participate in the American Dream, apart from sports or entertainment, right??? :rolleyes: WRONG!

The two of them pulled themselves up from poverty to being solidly middle class, Daddy having been drafted into the US Army for World War II, despite not being a citizen of the U.S.A., and being a college student (gee, he could have spent his life whining about that, huh????). He looked over the situation, and realized that the army was his best shot for the future, finished O.C.S. and went on to a successful military career, ending in retirement after 20 years serving a country where, by the time he retired, he still couldn't eat in many restaurants in his home town.
Did he whine about that??? Nope.

Instead, he entered civilian life, and set about the task of instilling his way into his children. Mama and Daddy reminded their children just about daily that the five of us had infinitely more opportunities than they ever had. Rather than encouraging us to ask for some affirmative action handout, they instilled in us a desire to work hard to overcome the obstacles put before us. Someone, these poor, uneducated, Deep South black folks managed to rear not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE college graduates. One of those five has a postgraduate degree, and three others are working in that direction. The 5th, our sister, isn't pursuing further education because she's working hard at the most honorable profession in the world--being a wife and mother :D. You'd better believe one thing too, knowing our test scores and GPA's, not a single one of us needed any special race-based considerations not get into schools or get jobs. Guess following Daddy's way worked after all, huh? Good thing gay marriage became the hot topic, so that this post could be ignored....

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Good thing gay marriage became the hot topic, so that this post could be ignored....

Come SD, you know I can't stand not being the center of attention. ;)

I actually read the post and that it was good, but I stand by my position in response to Franklinnoble - just becauses life isn't fair and is hard, doesn't mean we should stop taking steps to make it better. Anecdotal success stories are good and important, but a lot of people don't "overcome" and I don't blame them for it.

[Anrhydeddu]

Ben, I can hear the arguments against your story. Some would say that it an exception rather than the rule, or that it should be an exception because that is not the way to correct past wrongs. Personally, I think it's a great example that should be shouted from the mountaintops.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
Anecdotal success stories are good and important, but a lot of people don't "overcome" and I don't blame them for it. ...and that probably points out a core difference between you and me. I say people are responsible for their own individual successes and failures.

[mrskippy]

John ...

Of course, that doesn't stop employers from discriminating gays/lesbians after they're hired.

The employer who laid me off doesn't offer domestic partner benefits, which is an odd, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area. The union is fighting for this in a new contract. Rival newspapers already offer it, yet this company makes a big deal about it. Nevermind the fact that the Denver-based owner is a big-time, right-wing, Texas-raised, Baptist-going, conservative ... since that is the demographic for newpaper owners and other newspapers offer those benefits.

And while I disagree with the lifestyle personally, I think it's fair to offer gay/lesbian couples domestic partner benefits. If they are living together and have a common-law marriage, than so be it.

Oh and domestic partner benefits also can apply to a heterosexual couple living together.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by SkyDog
...and that probably points out a core difference between you and me. I say people are responsible for their own individual successes and failures.

Can't get much more fundamental than that.

I also believe what SD said, as well. I was born with profound handicaps but I, with the love of my family and support of some teachers and friends, able to overcome that and have a very successful career (more than just a professional Internet poster :rolleyes: ).

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Good thing gay marriage became the hot topic, so that this post could be ignored....

I don't think it was ignored, 'Dog... I just don't think there's any counter-point to it. I agree with your Daddy's method 100%.

Granted, I can't say I faced obstacles like you and your siblings have, but my parents were similarly anti-entitlement. So far, I'm the only one who HASN'T finished college (I'm the oldest of 6) - I quit to go to work; I have one brother who's graduated from Virginia Tech and completed the ROTC program there, and is currently a 2nd. Leut. in the US Army Special Forces - presently based in Alabama while undergoing flight school. I have another brother in law school, a sister who's an undergrad at Liberty University, and the other two sibs are still in H.S., but are both likely to go on to college.

No government handouts, and no assistance other than scholarships they earned.

My hat's off to you and your folks - nobody can question the integrity of the accomplisments of a man who did it all under his own steam.

[mrskippy]

...and the proof is in the pudding. Let's see how that philosophy, instilled in his children, panned out.

Mama and Daddy were both raised in the Deep South, in poverty, in the 20's, and neither graduated from college. Very little hope for them and their offspring to participate in the American Dream, apart from sports or entertainment, right??? WRONG!

The two of them pulled themselves up from poverty to being solidly middle class, Daddy having been drafted into the US Army for World War II, despite not being a citizen of the U.S.A., and being a college student (gee, he could have spent his life whining about that, huh????). He looked over the situation, and realized that the army was his best shot for the future, finished O.C.S. and went on to a successful military career, ending in retirement after 20 years serving a country where, by the time he retired, he still couldn't eat in many restaurants in his home town.
Did he whine about that??? Nope.

Instead, he entered civilian life, and set about the task of instilling his way into his children. Mama and Daddy reminded their children just about daily that the five of us had infinitely more opportunities than they ever had. Rather than encouraging us to ask for some affirmative action handout, they instilled in us a desire to work hard to overcome the obstacles put before us. Someone, these poor, uneducated, Deep South black folks managed to rear not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE college graduates. One of those five has a postgraduate degree, and three others are working in that direction. The 5th, our sister, isn't pursuing further education because she's working hard at the most honorable profession in the world--being a wife and mother . You'd better believe one thing too, knowing our test scores and GPA's, not a single one of us needed any special race-based considerations not get into schools or get jobs. Guess following Daddy's way worked after all, huh?




Great story, SkyDog. :)

I agree with you 100 percent. No matter what your race, gender, socio-economic background, etc., each one of us has the ability to achieve great things without any handouts.

[Butter]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Exactly. That was intentional. Everyone in those examples is born with an obstacle to overcome. Being born black is no different. Everyone has obstacles to overcome.

I'm glad that you've accepted that being black is an obstacle.

Luckily, some people believe that it doesn't have to be that way, and it shouldn't be.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
I'm glad that you've accepted that being black is an obstacle.

Luckily, some people believe that it doesn't have to be that way, and it shouldn't be.

I got news for you - thanks to affirmative action, being white can be an obstacle when it comes time to apply for a scholarship these days.

[mrskippy]

Ding ding ding Franklinnoble wins.

As I said earlier ...

White guy and a black guy apply for a scholarship, a job, college, etc. ... both have the same qualifications, economic background ...

With the exception of skin color, they are equals in terms of qualification.

Guess who takes the cake?

[KWhit]

I'll re-post this, since it was ignored last time. Can anyone who supports AA please explain to me how it is legal when held up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?



(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ....


So how can it be legal to give someone a job because he is black or hispanic (or insert any other race here) and in the process REFUSE TO HIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE HE IS WHITE?

[John Galt]

And of course, the white male has no benefits in society. How did our President get into school again? And given the level of housing segregation in America, I assume it is no problem that black schools have less resources and perform worse than white schools.

And there is of course, no value in having a more diverse environment.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by KWhit
I'll re-post this, since it was ignored last time. Can anyone who supports AA please explain to me how it is legal when held up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?



(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ....


So how can it be legal to give someone a job because he is black or hispanic (or insert any other race here) and in the process REFUSE TO HIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE HE IS WHITE?

I think Title VII makes most affirmative action in employment illegal. There are people who disagree. I think this a reason why Title VII should be re-drafted to not be race-neutral.

[mrskippy]

Put my analogy in another light. Black guy and white guy are neighbor, their parents are both co-workers, working for the game company, both parents rake in $100,000/year, both kids went high school together, etc. As I said, everything but their skin color being equal, who gets it?

My belief is that when you have too equal candidates, you work even harder to whittle it down based on merit alone.

Be it through a second, third, fourth, fifth interview; a test; a deeper background check of the candidates, etc.

The problem with today's society is we just say, "Wow, we've got a minority applicant. Gotta meet our quota. You're hired."

"Gracias"

BTW ... I believe in the last census, in California, whites (non Hispanic) were either already a minority or quickly on the verge of becoming a minority. How does Affirmative Action work than, since it's supposed to deal with minorities?

[KWhit]

Originally posted by John Galt
And of course, the white male has no benefits in society. How did our President get into school again? And given the level of housing segregation in America, I assume it is no problem that black schools have less resources and perform worse than white schools.

And there is of course, no value in having a more diverse environment.

That's not the point.

The Civil Rights Act clearly states that race cannot be used as a factor when determining employment.

What AA supporters are really saying is "Racism is bad, except when it is against Honkeys. Then it's encouraged."

[Butter]

Excuse me while I go play the "White Man Blues" on my harmonica.

If anyone here can name an instance where they were discriminated against because they were white, I'd love to hear it. I believe it does happen, but not anywhere nearly as often as it happens to blacks and other minorities.

I've seen discrimination, and I'm tired of hearing white people talk about how they're the bigger victims of AA.

[Dutch]

In response to Skydog's post, which is not so unusual in military families, but refreshing nonetheless with all the stories of poor weak dumb Americans who can't make it.

I lived with my Mother, Father, and Sister in a mobile home in Mississippi where my father worked at a Kraft store. My mother was a German immigrant with but a basic understanding of English.

My father quit his job, then enlisted in the military. Sent my mother through school to get a degree. Then mom worked nights at the local hospital while my father goes to night school, gets his degree in Electrical Engineering, and becomes an officer.

My father (now retired) works in the D.C. area, my mother recently retired from her job as the head night nurse at a hospital in Northern Virginia.

They live in a 300,000 dollar home and have 2 BMW's parked out front.

They didn't have anything given to them, they had to fight for what they wanted. And along the way my dad happened to give 20 plus years of his life to the military and my mother delivered thousands of babies and took care of the sick ones for 25.

Sure cute stories don't apply to everyone, but not everyone has the vitality to make it. We may not all be equally free, but we are all equally capable to make the sacrifices neccessary to be successful.

And as for gay boys and girls having it too tough? Give me a break. Maybe they should just shut up about it and keep it behind closed doors where any sexuality belongs.

It amazes me that I am not known as a heterosexual man, but that John Galt believes he should be known as a homosexual man. Nobody gives a crap about you or your boyfriend, John. Get it through your skull and make something of your life by earning it without the hope of being labelled a minority. You are an individual like everybody else. Get over it, deal with it, and deal with adversity. Even straight white boys in Mississippi have some obstacles to climb.

[mrskippy]

In California:

Non-Whites (black, Hispanic, etc.): 51.3 %
Whites (non-Hispanic): 46.7 %
Other race/multi-race: 21.5 %

Obviously, this is more than 100 percent. But they have made a big deal of these numbers in California, because non-hispanic whites are losing their majority in the state.

32.4 percent is Hispanic/Latino. 10.9 percent Asian. And 6.7 percent Black.

Nationally, whites still hold a huge majority over Hispanic, Asians and Blacks.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Dutch
It amazes me that I am not known as a heterosexual man, but that John Galt believes he should be known as a homosexual man. Nobody gives a crap about you or your boyfriend, John. Get it through your skull and make something of your life by earning it without the hope of being labelled a minority. You are an individual like everybody else. Get over it, deal with it, and deal with adversity. Even straight white boys in Mississippi have some obstacles to climb.

I believe this is the first time I've levelled a personal attack at anyone on this board, but here it is:

Go to Hell.

You don't know anything about me or the way I live my life.

Now, move along and talk about something where you have a clue.

[mrskippy]

John ... I don't care how you live your personal life. It's your decision. This is America. Don't listen to what anyone else says.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by Dutch
It amazes me that I am not known as a heterosexual man, but that John Galt believes he should be known as a homosexual man. Nobody gives a crap about you or your boyfriend, John. Get it through your skull and make something of your life by earning it without the hope of being labelled a minority. You are an individual like everybody else. Get over it, deal with it, and deal with adversity. Even straight white boys in Mississippi have some obstacles to climb.

And the comical post of the day goes to.... Dutch.

SD, nice story. Its good to know people work hard in the world. But not everyone who busts their ass succeeds. I knew kids who busted their ass in high school, black and white. These kids weren't smart and they finished with GPA's in the 2's, they just couldn't do the stuff. Meanwhile, I don't even do anything in high school and breeze through with like a 3.9. The other kids are struggling through community college or low paying jobs. Meanwhile I go to one of the better schools in the state. Sometimes people need help every now and again in order to succeed. I agree that AA is sometimes stretched too far (esp. in the use of quotas), but a little bit is needed to ensure hard-working people have a better chance to succeed, because they deserve it more than I do.

Also, I think your post was originally ignored, b/c the thread actually ventured to being back on topic. I think it happens so rarely that we miss things we were talking about at the time.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by John Galt
I believe this is the first time I've levelled a personal attack at anyone on this board....



Not true... you called me a troll once. ;)



You don't know anything about me or the way I live my life.



Well, I agree with you there - but let's qualify - anybody here could say the same thing about anyone else. I don't know anything about what it's like to be a black kid growing up in the south, you don't know what it's like to be a straight Christian guy living in Northern California, and most of us don't know what it's like to be a gay man in Manhattan.

Unless we watch Will and Grace.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Franklinnoble
Not true... you called me a troll once. ;)

[B]

Well, I agree with you there - but let's qualify - anybody here could say the same thing about anyone else. I don't know anything about what it's like to be a black kid growing up in the south, you don't know what it's like to be a straight Christian guy living in Northern California, and most of us don't know what it's like to be a gay man in Manhattan.

Unless we watch Will and Grace.

I was referring to Dutch's mindless assumptions that I'm "out" in my life, that I have gained through having a minority status, and that I flaunt my sexuality. I was part of this community for a long time before I made it an issue and only because I thought a lot of gay-bashing and baiting was occurring. Not to mention, I've said earlier in this thread that I'm bi, so I can pass, and I've never said I have a boyfriend (I have said I live my girlfriend).

And the ridiculous idea that Dutch doesn't say he is hetero is analogous to being gay is the most ignorant part of the post. How many times have you heard a story of a hetero coming "out" and being shunned by family and friends or in extreme cases physically attacked and killed.

I don't pretend to know other people's experiences - Dutch pretended to know way too much and was a total dumbass about it.

[Ben E Lou]

Oh....and by the way on the gay marriage thing.... Having heard Dubya's remarks in full today, I find it interesting how the media boiled down a press conference that probably lasted a good 30-45 minutes, and decided that his 20-second-or-so answer to one single question should be the headline issue of all that the President Of The United States had to say.

I guess focusing on the hot-button item rather than the far more substantive things that he had to say improves ratings, huh? :rolleyes:

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
SD, nice story. Its good to know people work hard in the world. But not everyone who busts their ass succeeds. I knew kids who busted their ass in high school, black and white. These kids weren't smart and they finished with GPA's in the 2's, they just couldn't do the stuff. Meanwhile, I don't even do anything in high school and breeze through with like a 3.9. The other kids are struggling through community college or low paying jobs. Meanwhile I go to one of the better schools in the state. Sometimes people need help every now and again in order to succeed. I agree that AA is sometimes stretched too far (esp. in the use of quotas), but a little bit is needed to ensure hard-working people have a better chance to succeed, because they deserve it more than I do.


"All men are created equal." Brilliant wording by the FFs. It doesn't say that all men are equal. Some people, no matter how hard they work, are going to wind up on the short end of Life's stick. Sad but true. We are guaranteed the right to the pursuit of happiness, not the right to happiness.

You seem like a bright young man. Instead of feeling guilty, start a company where you can employ those less fortunate in the "luck" department than you and pay them high salaries. When you are ready, I have my resume in MS Word format.

It is easy to feel pity for the less fortunate. Pity, however, doesn't help them and, if anything, it can create a dangerous atmosphere where they start believing that they have no hope, or need hand outs to get ahead. SkyDog is living proof that this doesn't have to be the case. [edit: don't mean to equate SD to being less fortunate, but rather to the liberal view that a black man is less fortunate.]

On a side note, did you ever read the short story "Harrison Bergeron", by Vonnegut? I think it has come up before on the board, but it is worth another read.

http://penguinppc.org/~hollis/personal/bergeron.shtml

Obviously exaggerated, but this is the ultimate solution to all the problems discussed in this thread. This is a true, hard core, left of left wing, liberals dream.

[Ben E Lou]

BoneGavel:

Excellent post.

EasyMac:

In my family, three of us pretty much breezed through high school and college, and two had to work hard to make B's and C's. One of the two that struggled was the first in our family to hit the six-figure income bracket. He got it by climbing the corporate ladder too, in the Deep South, starting as a management trainee fresh out of college. Where is that glass ceiling that supposedly exists for minorities again??? My brother is still looking for it.... ;)

[mckerney]

Originally posted by mrskippy
The problem with today's society is we just say, "Wow, we've got a minority applicant. Gotta meet our quota. You're hired."

I had a teacher in high school who's mother was of japanese decent while his father was a white man. And while he did have to put up with harrassment because of his race when he was younger, he never wanted his race to have anything to do with getting a job, etc. Both he and his brother encountered it though when they got jobs, being told that they would help 'boost numbers', and after having put down race as caucasian having it changed to asain to reflect better on their 'diversity.'

[Easy Mac]

There isn't a glass ceiling. I'm saying that people occasionally need help to get where they may deserve to be, that they may not otherwise achieve in certain situations. I think that AA in its current incarnation is a complete waste of time, and I'd have no problems scrapping it. But I think there needs to be something to make people on the hiring or college acceptance end accountable )i.e. they don't hire certain racial or religious or sexual groups). Unfortunately, people tend to overcompensate, making the situation even worse than before.

[Cuckoo]

Originally posted by John Galt
I believe this is the first time I've levelled a personal attack at anyone on this board, but here it is:

Go to Hell.

You don't know anything about me or the way I live my life.

Now, move along and talk about something where you have a clue.

This absolutely has to be a joke. Just because you cloak your condecension with writing abilities doesn't make it any less intolerable, John. You're the first one to turn crybaby whenever anyone says something in a 'debate' that you deem to be an inflammatory comment or doesn't add a substantial point to the argument. Yet you do it all the time. You just make it a little harder to see, and it's about time a few people should call you on it.

It is probably no secret to you that I rarely agree with your opinions on political or social issues. Hell, I'd say we wouldn't agree on much at all. I will say that I respect you as an intelligent poster on this board, and I feel that you often do contribute heartily to the debates that I enjoy. I think, though, that your intelligence is what gets you into trouble. You think you're a level above some others because you don't reduce yourself to making blatantly egregious remarks.

This time you did and think it's your first. I have to call B.S. It's just the first time you've dispensed with the flowery prose and allowed others to see how you truly react.

I may or may not agree with the substance of Dutch's post, but at the very least, I respect him for having the guts to say what he feels and take responsibility for it. I've now seen you do the same, John. I just wish you'd quit pretending it's the first time you've done it.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by mckerney
having put down race as caucasian having it changed to asain to reflect better on their 'diversity.'

Yeah, in California (and probably elsewhere), you could look like a white dude through and through, but one drop of black, American Indian, Asian, or Hispanic blood in your system and guess what?

You're not considered "White/Caucasian" anymore.

My nephew had this when he started school. His father (my bro-in-law) is part Mexican.

He looks like a white boy, with blondish hair, fair skin, etc. He has no distinct features to make him appear Hispanic.

But, guess what?

According to the school. He's a Mexican.

It doesn't matter that he probably has more German in him than Mexican, or Portueguse, or anything else. He is, for legal purposes, Mexican.

The school refuses to recognize his father's other ethnic makeup and recognizes none of my sister's ethnic makeup.

What's up with that?

Doesn't seem right to me.

[Anrhydeddu]

Bone, I had not read that short story before and I thought it was simply brilliant, esp. for being 1961. The only way we can be equal is to become the lowest common denominator. I believe the measure of worldly success is in direct proportion to the measure of worldly failure. You cannot have one without the other and any human efforts to curtail failure will have success curtailed as well. But isn't that the socialistic utopian where no one can fail - or succeed?

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Bone, I had not read that short story before and I thought it was simply brilliant, esp. for being 1961. The only way we can be equal is to become the lowest common denominator. I believe the measure of worldly success is in direct proportion to the measure of worldly failure. You cannot have one without the other and any human efforts to curtail failure will have success curtailed as well. But isn't that the socialistic utopian where no one can fail - or succeed?

The funniest part of the whole story is the fact that, I think, Vonnegut is a big liberal, and this is the ultimate outcome of all their policies. Maybe his story was meant to act as a playbook for the Dems, instead of the brilliant comment on forced equality that it is?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
The only way we can be equal is to become the lowest common denominator.

As nutshells go, you're spot on.

What alternately saddens and/or sickens me is how many people don't seem to mind that reality.

[clintl]

There is a big difference between making everyone completely equal, and trying to create conditions that give everyone equal opportunity.

[mckerney]

Yeah, we need a system like affirmative action. Then everyone has an equal opportunity. :rolleyes:

[clintl]

It may not be a good answer, but it is a big improvement over the previous system.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Cuckoo
This absolutely has to be a joke. Just because you cloak your condecension with writing abilities doesn't make it any less intolerable, John. You're the first one to turn crybaby whenever anyone says something in a 'debate' that you deem to be an inflammatory comment or doesn't add a substantial point to the argument. Yet you do it all the time. You just make it a little harder to see, and it's about time a few people should call you on it.

It is probably no secret to you that I rarely agree with your opinions on political or social issues. Hell, I'd say we wouldn't agree on much at all. I will say that I respect you as an intelligent poster on this board, and I feel that you often do contribute heartily to the debates that I enjoy. I think, though, that your intelligence is what gets you into trouble. You think you're a level above some others because you don't reduce yourself to making blatantly egregious remarks.

This time you did and think it's your first. I have to call B.S. It's just the first time you've dispensed with the flowery prose and allowed others to see how you truly react.

I may or may not agree with the substance of Dutch's post, but at the very least, I respect him for having the guts to say what he feels and take responsibility for it. I've now seen you do the same, John. I just wish you'd quit pretending it's the first time you've done it.

I have NEVER made a personal attack on someone on this board like the one Dutch levelled at me. I do defend my beliefs and attack other arguments, but I'm always civil and I do not make my comments personal.

As for being a "crybaby" - I challenge you to find one instance where I went and complained about the way people were acting. I've never reported a post, I've never sought to have a member penalized, and I've never complained about treatment (identifying a problem and offering a solution is not complaining). Instead, I've offered solutions and improvements for the board. You may not agree with them, but I've done nothing like you allege.

If you have something else to say to me, please do so by PM as this doesn't concern the board. And I hope that your PM will be more civil then some of the slur filled, hatemongering crap that people have sent me recently.

[Anrhydeddu]

some of the slur filled, hatemongering crap that people have sent me recently

If any of you have sent him something like this, send a copy to me and I will tell you why you are wrong.

Most of you know where I am coming from. I believe from Scriptures and from personal feelings that homosexual acts are repulsive, shameful and should be kept private. But in no way should that become a personal attack upon anyone, whether calling names or something more serious. From my own sinful acts or yours too, we are no better. Shame on you for making it personal. :(

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
If anyone here can name an instance where they were discriminated against because they were white, I'd love to hear it.

OK....

How about getting your application rejected from the University of Michigan because you didn't qualify for a standard gain of 20 points on the admissions exam because you are white?

I busted my ass in high school; I had a lot of health problems, physically and mentally, from the time I was in about the 7th grade, and that set me back a lot in high school. I'm not going to go into detail on these but suffice it to say I overcame a lot of obstacles throughout that time, but one of the things that got me through this was the goals that I had set for myself, and one of them was to make it into UM. So imagine finding out that you didn't make it in, not because your numbers weren't good enough (which still would have disappointed me but I would have accepted; after all, that would be my own fault if that happened), but rather because of an arbitrary points system that hands out a huge advantage based on the color of your skin, with no regards to merit. My scores would have been good enough to get in had other people not had the 20-point advantage. Now, I strongly agree with the idea that everybody should be given an equal chance, but this isn't equal. It's giving unfair advantages to people, and it isn't right. Hopefully the recent Supreme Court decision will have an effect on this.

[Cuckoo]

Originally posted by John Galt
If you have something else to say to me, please do so by PM as this doesn't concern the board. And I hope that your PM will be more civil then some of the slur filled, hatemongering crap that people have sent me recently.

I know you didn't mean to imply this, but I want to make sure it's known that I have never sent anyone anything that can even be remotely characterized as slur filled or hatemongering.

That said, PM sent.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Oh....and by the way on the gay marriage thing.... Having heard Dubya's remarks in full today, I find it interesting how the media boiled down a press conference that probably lasted a good 30-45 minutes, and decided that his 20-second-or-so answer to one single question should be the headline issue of all that the President Of The United States had to say.

I guess focusing on the hot-button item rather than the far more substantive things that he had to say improves ratings, huh? :rolleyes:

Bingo. My station carried the news conference in its entirety (how about THAT!) and the question came out of the blue. The reporter (not sure who it was) asked the question "You've been known to be a man who holds deep moral convictions. What are your feelings, personally, on homosexuality, given those moral convictions?"

I knew it was going to be the "big story" when I heard that, and I just had to shake my head.

This wasn't a news conference about gay marriage. Bush didn't even bring it up. He was asked a question by a reporter, and he answered the question. That's all.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Cuckoo
I know you didn't mean to imply this, but I want to make sure it's known that I have never sent anyone anything that can even be remotely characterized as slur filled or hatemongering.

That said, PM sent.

What Cuckoo said is true. PM back at ya.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Bingo. My station carried the news conference in its entirety (how about THAT!) and the question came out of the blue. The reporter (not sure who it was) asked the question "You've been known to be a man who holds deep moral convictions. What are your feelings, personally, on homosexuality, given those moral convictions?"

I knew it was going to be the "big story" when I heard that, and I just had to shake my head.

This wasn't a news conference about gay marriage. Bush didn't even bring it up. He was asked a question by a reporter, and he answered the question. That's all.

I don't know that I'd call it the big story. I watched NBC and I think it was mentioned for about 5 seconds during the nightly news. Even then he didn't say anything condemning gay marriage, at least what they showed. He basically said hate the sin/love the sinner. The rest was about Bush "admitting" he screwed up w/ false information. I quote admitting b/c he didn't really own up to anything, nor do I expect him to. If he believes what he did was right, I may not like it, but it shows he's a true man by standing by it. No qualms by me, he's the President, handle your business. I'm the elector, I get to bitch, thats the way it works these days.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I'm the elector, I get to bitch, thats the way it works these days.

I'm not sure about that. Your mom might get to bitch by proxy. Make sure you haven't signed away your rights on this one too. :)

[Fritz]

hasn't there been a Gay H.S. (http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/hits/90210/home.html) in California since 1990 and another one (http://www.geocities.com/sbtbsite/main.html) in Indiana since 1987?

[mrskippy]

Wrong kind of gay.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Wrong kind of gay.

tell us about the kinds of gay

[mrskippy]

There is gay as in homosexul
Or there is gay as in happy

[Fritz]

Originally posted by mrskippy
There is gay as in homosexul
Or there is gay as in happy

So I could go to McDonalds and get a Gaymeal with a toy?

[mrskippy]

Yeah, or watch the Flintstones and have a gay ole time

[Fritz]

joe friday has nothing on you

[korme]

why did this turn from a gay thread to a discrimination thread?

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Fritz
joe friday has nothing on you

But Al Bundy does.

[AZSpeechCoach]

Actually, speaking of the lowest common demoninator, there is a book out there (Class Wars, I think) that states that education today is becoming a lowest denominator project. We group all students in classes regardless of ability (from the MMR students of Special Education to gifted) and expect them to all learn. Guess who drives the curriculum and teaching methods? The lowest.

High Stakes testing demand that students learn the material on the test, but it is impossible to judge a year's worth (or several years' worth) of learning or standards on a single assessment. Normally, anything not tested is dropped from the curriculum.

Thus, we have a narrowing of the curriculum, intended for Special Education students, taught to everyone (Honors students may learn a bit more, but are not tested by the government). This is especially prevalent in urban areas, which have a higher percentage of diagnosed Special Ed. students, and are often under more pressure to perform on the high stakes tests than their "suburban" counterparts.

The reason I mention this here is this: if the world is truly colorblind, and we are in no need of affirmative action, how do we compensate for the educational disadvantages? Remember, this is real world. Funding crunches exist, students in these schools are often unmotivated to succeed due to a lack of parental involvement, and heck, despite prior anecdotes on the board, let's assume that most teachers are doing their best and using methods that they feel are correct. Part of AA is based on assuring job rights, but part of it is aimed at correcting educational disadvantages. Is this a myth, or is this still in need of correction?

[thirdandlong]

Whew big thread...and I read a good chunk of it. I am glad I stumbled across this board...lots of activity, and some interesting stuff.

On the Gay charterschool/highschool...I have to say "Glad to hear it; More power to ya". The reason, because I also feel that the private/charter schools do a better job than our beuraucracy ridden public schools, and parents ought to have an alternative. Frankly I am not crazy about public funds going to private religious schools. I'd actually like to see the whole public education system revolutionized and privatized, letting the religious private schools continue as is without public funding as they have existed for years. The deal is there is no way the public education system is gonna get scrapped, so using religious schools as an alternative to failing public schools is not all that bad an alternative. The deal is that if allowing public money to flow into a conservative religious school is acceptable, you have to accept money going to a liberal gay/lesbian school as well. It is part of the deal....Just wait till some whacko opens up a Wiccan(sp?) school of Witchcraft that gets public funding. Perfectly legal according to the current interpretation of the laws.

Regarding the race and Affirmative Action stuff. It really is Illegal to not hire someone due to their race. It is not illegal to accept an equally or lesser qualified individual becuase you wish to achieve the perceived benefit of racial diversity. The fact that this benefit is not substantive, that is, it can't be shown to actually exist, is beside the point. Right now there are huge double standards on this issue. Many colleges have self segregated "Black Graduation" or "Gay Graduation" events. Folks think this is OK, but I guarantee if some group started up a "White/Caucasion Graduation" event, there would be hell to pay and the instigators would be presumed Bigots and Racists.


In regards to Cuckoo's assertion that John Galt is a Crybaby or at least often lays claims to the moral high ground responding with righteous indignation to those with whom he disagrees. I only know of JG what I have read in this thread, but Cuckoo's position doesn't seem to be totally without merit. He certainly uses indignation as an effective tool. J G, I guess I am just saying that you do seem to throw your literary weight around a little bit, and I don't think you would deny that. I am not bashing or attacking you, just saying that I read this thread, and a little of what Cuckoo said seemed to ring true. I actually have a lot of respect for you "outting" yourself here on this forum. Even with the anonymity afforded by the internet, you are certainly still vulnerable to attack. The fact that you chose to out yourself to take up against the intolerance or insensitivity of others deserves respect as well.

peace....really

[cuervo72]

Hmm, Harrison Bergeron was something I had to read in 7th or 8th grade, when we read/discussed a series of thought provoking short stories (the others I can remember off-hand are The Lottery, and The Rocking Horse Winner). Bergeron, or rather it's premise, stuck with me the most.


As for where I stand on the gay issue. Let's just say the thought of the act itself makes me a little uncomfortable, and I don't regard it as natural. I'll admit to being hypocritical here, as I am not as repelled by lesbian acts, though I guess that's not natural either. And for whatever reason, I tend to be more critical of lesibian couples rather than gay couples (probably the misguided feeling that many of them are man-haters, whereas I never think of gay men as woman-haters - quite the contrary).

If that's who you are, so be it, I won't stand in your way, and if you're lucky enough to find a life parter, I'm happy for you (Civil Union - ok. Marriage - a religious term IMO, and should be governed by religious beliefs). Just don't beat me over the head with it.

[Butter]

Originally posted by cuervo72
If that's who you are, so be it, I won't stand in your way, and if you're lucky enough to find a life parter, I'm happy for you (Civil Union - ok. Marriage - a religious term IMO, and should be governed by religious beliefs). Just don't beat me over the head with it.

Nobody's beating anybody over the head with anything, and I wish we could all stop acting like that's what is happening. There just happens to be a lot of activity on the gay rights front right now, and the media is reporting it. Don't like it, don't watch the news. It's not as though gay people are beating down your door to regale you with tales of their sexual exploits, so give it a frickin' rest.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Nobody's beating anybody over the head with anything, and I wish we could all stop acting like that's what is happening. There just happens to be a lot of activity on the gay rights front right now, and the media is reporting it. Don't like it, don't watch the news. It's not as though gay people are beating down your door to regale you with tales of their sexual exploits, so give it a frickin' rest.

I understand that nobody is beating down my door. I guess I was speaking more of things like "gay rights parades" and things of that nature. I don't think anyone needs to flaunt their sexuality in public (Hot Chick Survivors notwithstanding :)), gay or straight.

I also think that the media plays the issue up much more than it needs to be. Today I heard a teaser on the radio suggesting that "gay marriage may turn into one of the next election's major issues". I think there are much larger issues that need to be addressed, and this is just one that the media feels it can paint the Republicans as the bad guys (as usual), so they're going to give the issue more importance than it might have received otherwise.

[Dutch]

If any of you have sent him something like this, send a copy to me and I will tell you why you are wrong.

Well, seeing how John Galt got angry at my opinions, and just nearly after I was slammed for telling him to be tough, he suggested people were sending him hate mail, it may have been perceived that *I* was sending him hate mail.

Well, I didn't nor would I.

Carry on!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by cuervo72
I also think that the media plays the issue up much more than it needs to be.Not only that, but the media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! :p

[ice4277]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Not only that, but the media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'! :p

I've always wondered, who said that anyways?

[KWhit]

I think it's from Jerry Maguire. One of the characters says it while appearing on Roy Firestone's show.