School can expel lesbian students, court rules - Page 5

christiangirl · #61 02-04-2009, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

From the article it appeared that the school used an interrogation, a student overhearing them say I love you, and their myspace pages to determine that they were lesbians. They did not seem do anything at school (besides say "I love you" because before a student overheard this there was no issue with the girls. And I think that if they'd been feeling each other up there would have been plenty of people to say something) that was grossly inappropriate. As such they seem to have been expelled because of their sexual orientation.

See, schools should have juridiction over what happens on school grounds, IMO. What's on a Myspace page of a minor should be monitored by his or her PARENT (though that's for another debate). What someone "heard" one of the girls say is just that, hearsay, and not even bad hearsay at that. (I tell everyone I love them!!!) In this case, the school's actions seem unfair to me. I still can't say anything about the rules they set forth, but they should at least be enforced with fairness. I guess the issue I have (lol among others) is the law regulating (read: interferring with) the setting of rules established by the Church meant for their own. Now, the enforcement of said rules does need governance, I'll admit that. It's when the two are confused that the trouble starts.

RU OX Alum · #62 02-04-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

That doesn't mean it's dumb.

It's dumb because it's based on the bible.

See, others can be bigots too. Not just you.

deepimpact2 · #63 02-04-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

It's dumb because it's based on the bible.

See, others can be bigots too. Not just you.

I'm not a bigot.

As for it being "dumb because it's based on the Bible," you should be very careful saying things like that.

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

deepimpact2 · #64 02-04-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This isn't a point of debate. It is a difference in perception, which snark often is.

Whether it is or not, before you call someone else out on being snarky, you should do some internal evaluations. You are consistently snarky in your posts. So if someone dishes it right back at you...so what? Suck it up and move on.

deepimpact2 · #65 02-04-2009, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

"Clearly listed as a sin" is very subjective because Scriptures can be interpreted differently. Some Scriptures seem more straightforward than others but many Christians pick and choose which Scriptures to interpreted verbatum and which to "spin" to suit whatever cultural norms, practices, and agendas.

The scriptures I am referring to are pretty clear in stating that homosexuality is a sin.

MysticCat · #66 02-04-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

The scriptures I am referring to are pretty clear in stating that homosexuality is a sin.

No, they're not really. I would concede that the passages you're referring to are pretty clear in stating that homosexual behavior is sinful. Not the same thing.

Now, remind me what the Bible says about remarriage after divorce?

AOII Angel · #67 02-04-2009, 11:49 AM

Considering that not everyone believes in the bible, you can only use it as a source of morality amongst those that do believe. Others can ignore it all they want!

DrPhil · #68 02-04-2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

You are consistently snarky in your posts.

No shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

So if someone dishes it right back at you...so what?

Don't pretend you aren't.

The End.

DrPhil · #69 02-04-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

The scriptures I am referring to are pretty clear in stating that homosexuality is a sin.

Along with what MysticCat said, Christians often pick and choose which Scriptures to refer to when they want to defend whatever they want to defend.

People can interpret Christianity however they choose but my Christianity doesn't require what I call "Scripture Battles."

DaemonSeid · #70 02-04-2009, 12:27 PM

The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next.

Helen Keller

DrPhil · #71 02-04-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next.

Helen Keller

And that's how I believe a lot of religious tenets (in all religions) originated.

This doesn't remove the validity of faith and spirituality but, for me, it highlights the real meaning of Christianity and the Bible as an historical document and perspective.

DaemonSeid · #72 02-04-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Considering that not everyone believes in the bible, you can only use it as a source of morality amongst those that do believe. Others can ignore it all they want!

Agreed...the Bible is subject to interpretation.

Still have to love the fact there really is no such thing as separation between church and state.

agzg · #73 02-04-2009, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Still have to love the fact there really is no such thing as separation between church and state.

What do you mean by this? I'll admit, I haven't read the entire thread (I'm sure you can guess why) but wasn't the school a private catholic school?

DaemonSeid · #74 02-04-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

What do you mean by this? I'll admit, I haven't read the entire thread (I'm sure you can guess why) but wasn't the school a private catholic school?

That simply no matter how much the US tries to separate law and morality,(religion) some of what these types of decisions are based on what our moral standards are.

That is just my personal belief.

Think...what is law based on anyway? To some degree, laws are based on whatever the moral code of that time just so happens to be.

When you think about it, 30 or 40 years ago, there simply would not have been a case, they would have been expelled and that would have been the end of it.

100 to 200 years ago, they may have been killed and it would have been justified.

I sometimes think that it's almost impossible to not be biased one way or another on legal issues where morality, religion, and people's perceived rights cross paths.

agzg · #75 02-04-2009, 01:13 PM

Ok... I don't really agree with you. Separation of church and state isn't so much to set up laws completely void of moral values but to protect the state from the church and the church from the state. There's going to be overrun, however, between both because obviously to a huge part of the population, religion is incredibly important (no matter the religion).

I'd say that since we don't yet have a state-run church and we don't have a state that is run by the church, the idea has been fairly successful.

I think morality will always play a part in lawmaking, it just depends what type of morals you prescribe to. We'll always have laws that prohibit things just because they're wrong (malum in se, I think, things like murder) and we'll have laws that prohibit things that aren't necessarily morally wrong (malum prohibitum, things like parking on the wrong side of the street).

That's not to say that morals don't change, but I'm just saying that you don't need to have religion to have a strong set of morals.

ETA: I'm not trying to change your personal belief, just state my own.