DUH. That I disagree with your post because it depends on the rule and what are perceived to be necessary steps towards change. DUH.

Duh? Are you kidding? :rolleyes:
As I said before...what is your point? Any responsible, mature human being knows that to go around advocating for breaking the rules as a mechanism of change is going to open the door for chaos. It's more important to have dialogue about the issues and break down barriers that way. Breaking the rules only gives "them" the ammunition they need against you and in many cases weakens the effectiveness of what you are attempting to do. Your attempt to show that you disagree with my post would probably have been more effective if you had used a better example.

Yes. DUH.

So instead of asking "what's your point" you could've found a less smartassy way of asking for clarity. Since we're talking about what mature human beings do. ;)

You're smart enough to grasp my point that there are certain contexts where rule breaking is deemed necessary. I simply used a silly example of Raven Symone's bad acting to convey the point. You can disagree with the point as I disagree with your point. But you're smart enough to grasp it. I assume. Maybe.

Blaming those practices on religious teachings alone is a bit simplistic, don't you think? Religious practice versus cultural practice gets is something of a chicken vs. egg argument. Some folks like to be able to justify their behavior with scripture.

In a sense, I think you're trying to compare 'those' religions with the teachings of the Lutheran Church. Or specifically, one particular teaching -- that homosexuality is a sin. That particular teaching has been black-letter law as far as religion has been concerned since even prior to the formation of the Lutheran Church (the school here is Lutheran). I'm not so certain that lynching, segregation, racism, etc. were ever so codified and clear in the religious teaching of that particular church or its predecessor.

What we have here is not some cultural norm being unconvincingly propped up by some shaky scripture verse. This is a religious norm which has been with us forever. Big 'ol difference, doncha think?

ETA: I'm not arguing for the correctness of this particular religious norm, but it's hard to deny it exists. In my church's case, I doubt the Pope or any of his successors will be changing this anytime soon. I do admit that theoretically, it is changeable, but the sort of change you're asking for would have to be something far more substantial than even Vatican II and at least in my mortal estimation, that ain't happening.

I'm not blaming them on religious teachings. The people who said they come from religious teachings did.

Wherever they come from, they become ingrained in ideologies and practices. It can take a degree of rule breaking to overcome these practices. Holding a press conference doesn't always work.

That school will need to kick out the kids who eat shrimp & lobster, as well as the kids who wear cotton/polyester blended clothing.

I sent this to one of my (gay) work colleagues for Gay Pride Week and he appreciated it:
http://mail2.someecards.com/filestorage/gay_7.jpg

rut roh :p

As I posted previously, there are many different Synods for Lutherans, so please don't lump us all together. I don't want people to get the wrong idea, my flavor of Lutherans are much less likely (though not completely) to have issues with homosexuality.

"What's your point?" IS asking for clarity. :rolleyes:

And you got it.

ETA: This isn't the first time that you've seemed to be attempting snark with me on this board. But I just re-read my initial post to you and see that I didn't finish my sentence for some reason. Hmmmm...perhaps I was multi-tasking.

This kind of stuff demonstrates particularly kind of irony. One usually can't aspire to pull off "holier than thou" better than traditional religious leaders, and yet, people criticizing traditional religious leaders in this fashion are REALLY trying.

Am I the only one who found the above mention of chaos in response to Dr.Phil a LOL moment? I guess so.

I disagree with the rule. I think its discriminatory. If a school took the Bible and declared that the Bible says it is not okay to be black or mixed (and included teaching their kids in a religious environment safe from blacks as a part of its mission) the school could then expel students for being black. My general rule is that if it does not work with race then it shouldnt work with sexuality. With only a few exceptions one being in the actual church.

Selective universities are discriminatory.

In most cases, being discriminatory is a good thing. It allows an entity to weed out undesirable candidates. How is that a bad thing? By expressing their sexuality in an undesirable manner, these kids became undesirable to the school. Why force a private religious institution to teach students which, in its opinion, offend its moral code?

Selection based on merit is not the same as discrimination based on intangible criteria.

The difference with this example is that in the Bible homosexuality is clearly listed as a sin. Being black or mixed is NOT listed as a sin. So if they came up with such a rule, it would be clear that it was based more on discrimination and not religious doctrine.
:)