School can expel lesbian students, court rules

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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?
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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Duh? Are you kidding?

Yes. DUH.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Your attempt to show that you disagree with my post would probably have been more effective if you had used a better example.

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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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

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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

I don't really recall attempting to "snark" with you. I think that because YOU are always trying to "snark" with other people that you are just paranoid about it.

And which sentence did you fail to finish?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I don't really recall attempting to "snark" with you.

You don't have to recall it for it to exist.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

You don't have to recall it for it to exist.

Actually being able to recall it is the first step in verifying it's existence. As I said before, I think you're just paranoid.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I think its discriminatory.

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?

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Selective universities are discriminatory.

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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

Are you saying intangible criteria have no place in the admissions/selection process? Are you saying sexuality is an intangible criterion?

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

So, if they created their own version of the bible or created their own religious document its okay. If they chose they could use parts of the Bibile to "justify" discrimination against black or mixed people especially if that was an integral part of their religious teaching. There are plenty of things in the Bible not explicitly stated that are considered sins. There are other things that are stated that are not considered sins. If they came up with such a rule it would not necessarily be clear that it is discrimination.

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Are you saying intangible criteria have no place in the admissions/selection process? Are you saying sexuality is an intangible criterion?

Yes. Yes. If there is no way to evaluate or measure it then why consider it?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

Not all Christian religions think the Bible is the sole source of religious dogma.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not all Christian religions think the Bible is the sole source of religious dogma.

No, but since I.A.S.K referred to the Bible, my response also referred to the Bible.