School suspends kid for voicing opinion in opposition to homosexuality

[Whiskey16]

You realize that the whole "homosexual" part of the discussion is irrelevant right? The kid is a bigot. The year is 2011 and it's time people get over themselves and that "homosexuality is wrong". A kid that thinks blacks, homosexuals, handicapped people, Jews, etc are wrong should be pulled to the side, told that being a bigot is unacceptable, and disciplined.

:thumbsup: This++

 

[Whiskey16]

We all have differing opinions and those opinions should be respected.

You are irrational to an extreme and espouse an opinion of bullshit. How does that feel?

Dude, you have little recognition of reality and are totally out to lunch to believe that all opinions are to be accepted or even tolerated as equal. Those, such as yourself, who are flat out wrong ought to expect reasoned critiques for their false beliefs. That is reality.

The key part of bigotry is intolerance.

No, one who is intolerant of espousing belief or action is not automatically a bigot. My opinion of you is one who has damned of a clue upon the language he applies. Intolerance of unreasoned stupidity is a fundamental principal for most educational system's grading system. 😉

The core of bigotry is of prejudicially holding one group as being somehow inferior to another.

I think Islam is a silly religion rooted in hate, fear, intolerance and misogyny.

You sir, have provided a perfect example of a bigot, where you denounce another group and likely identify the group you are a part of as being superior.

I am not a bigot for specifically condemning your anti-social and hateful opinion. I am a reasonsed, civilised adult who has participated in the exhumations of genocide victims who themselves first suffered under the signs of demeaning bigotry.

I would be the first on the picket line if someone tried to outlaw that religion.

Naw, you are just party to the crowds such as 'ol locked up Anders in Norway. Espousing hate speech to demean an identifiable group which increases acceptance of such hatred and increased rates of hate crimes. :thumbsdown:

This forum's own rules do not permit "hatred."

Written or spoken intolerance of a racial, linguistic, geographical, physically different, or sexually orientated group of people ought to be unacceptable within the confines and control of a school. Those are states of universally enshrined rights of being. With the violently sordid and anti-social history of the USA, such fundamentals of a zero tolerance policy upon racial/ethnic/sexual bigotry should be the educational norm.

Religion? Politics? Dogma, tenents, and policy should always be open to critique. Condemning a religious sect's advocation to condemn homosexuals is not an act of prejudicial bigotry -- it is reasoned justice.

 

[Whiskey16]

Christianity teaches to hate sin, not the sinner. Ultimate judgment of sinners is God's job, not ours. Those that usurp that authority are very dangerous individuals.

That train of thought is dangerous and a fairly unique failing in the moral structure of Christianity.

It has also long been an enabler to justify horrible attrocities through varying Inquisitions to current day condemnation of homosexuals for their homosexuality. Though, certainlynot all sects of Christianity advocate such bigotry upon homosexuals.

Reality is of individuals being responsible for the choices that they make, rather than some phantom.

 

[Whiskey16]

You don't get it. "Homophobia" (as you put it) shouldn't be protected or supported by the government. It is not up to the government to determine what is right and wrong outside of what is legal and illegal.

You fail. This is a civil rights issue. Numerous state jurisdictions in the USA have ratified legislation against discrimination upon sexual orientation.

At the federal level work started in th 1990s with legilstaion for the FBI to compile hate crimes involving motives against sexual orientation. Federally court cases involving sexually oriented discrimination have increased. Federal amendments to te tardy US civil rights acts will soon include sexual orientation along with sex, race, etc..

As this a public scool, a public school has the directive to abide by all laws, including those involving discrimatory action and certainly in those jurisdiction with hate crime legislation.

Your homosexuality is moral/immoral argument is a failure. It is no more a morality concern than the disgust of US recent history concerningrace mixing. Homosexuallity has always been present and a fact. No amount of opinion will deny it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Please do not project your own resentment onto me. You've mistaken pity for hate.

Please pity yourself as you're the one that projecting their hate on someone.

 

[marvdmartian]

This happened in Texas?? LMAO

You DO realize that the major metropolitan areas of Texas (i.e.-Austin, Houston, Dallas-Ft Worth, etc) are predominantly liberal leaning, right? 🙄

What this is, in reality, is another case of the politically correct hounds barking a person's freedom of speech into oblivion. :thumbsdown:

 

[Throckmorton]

"It gets better"

 

[onlyCOpunk]

I know it's a bit late in the game, but for what it's worth many of you are grossly tied up with this free speech bullshit.

Both sides acted out of line.

The kid voicing his "opinion" is wrong. To the closeted gay kid in the corner overhearing what he said will make him/her feel even more alienated. Imagine sitting in a room where a handful of people are talking openly about how they find a born attribute about your life as "wrong" based on their religious faith? The fact he was speaking about homosexuality makes it an even bigger issue since kids often use homophobia as powerful weapon of bullying and intolerance which needs to be squashed at a root level. All it would've taken is for another kid to turn around and say "Yeah I hate fags."

Luckily the teacher smashed it....

The school itself has overreacted. Punishing the boy so harshly will not make him "act better," it is going to instead give him a cause, drive him more. Education systems need to do just that, educate. Teach the boy why what he said and where he said it was not appropriate.

It's a real shame that religious types often confuse what they believe the bible says about homosexuals and what it actually says. It's actually humourous how an issue with probably no more then 10 words on the subject gets twisted and manipulated into some holy crusade when there are much more important issues in the world that need drastic attention.

 

[Carmen813]

Sadly this isn't the way to handle these situations. The only way we are going to move through discrimination, of any form, is for people to be able to have a rational discussion about them. The teacher should have brought his viewpoint forward and promoted a discussion, because I doubt he was the only student in the room who felt this way.

 

[1prophet]

I know it's a bit late in the game, but for what it's worth many of you are grossly tied up with this free speech bullshit.

Both sides acted out of line.

The kid voicing his "opinion" is wrong. To the closeted gay kid in the corner overhearing what he said will make him/her feel even more alienated. Imagine sitting in a room where a handful of people are talking openly about how they find a born attribute about your life as "wrong" based on their religious faith? The fact he was speaking about homosexuality makes it an even bigger issue since kids often use homophobia as powerful weapon of bullying and intolerance which needs to be squashed at a root level. All it would've taken is for another kid to turn around and say "Yeah I hate fags."

Luckily the teacher smashed it....

The school itself has overreacted. Punishing the boy so harshly will not make him "act better," it is going to instead give him a cause, drive him more. Education systems need to do just that, educate. Teach the boy why what he said and where he said it was not appropriate.

It's a real shame that religious types often confuse what they believe the bible says about homosexuals and what it actually says. It's actually humourous how an issue with probably no more then 10 words on the subject gets twisted and manipulated into some holy crusade when there are much more important issues in the world that need drastic attention.

That so called free speech bullshit is the reason gays and their advocates were able to start voicing their opinions publicly and eventually get the rights they have today.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...r-demands-hoover-high-stop-censoring-students


If it's a public school then the first amendment applies

see
Tinker v. Des Moines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District

The Court held that in order for school officials to justify censoring speech, they "must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," allowing schools to forbid conduct that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school

The US does not have hate speech laws, but believe it or not the ones who push for such laws the hardest are religious groups who seek a back door blasphemy law.

 

[Atreus21]

Yeah, that sounds nice in theory, but the tricky part is that any reference to a homosexual situation is seen as "bringing up sexual orientation" but not so a reference to a heterosexual situation. For example, the comment in the article about a picture on a wall showing 2 men kissing. That is "bringing up homosexuality" right? But if it is a picture of a man and a woman kissing, it isn't "bringing up heterosexuality." It's just a picture of a man and a woman kissing, right? The truth is that people are offended by the one and not the other, and so the argument that you're making - which nominally appears neutral on its face - ends up being a code for suppressing anything and everything related to homosexuality.

- wolf

The bold is very true and hints at a deeper problem. Would it apply as well if people recoiled at a picture of a polygamous group kissing?

Are you ultimately saying that societal norms pertaining to sexuality(meaning that heterosexuality is generally seen as "normal") have no validity?

 

[Atreus21]

That train of thought is dangerous and a fairly unique failing in the moral structure of Christianity.

It has also long been an enabler to justify horrible atrocities through varying Inquisitions to current day condemnation of homosexuals for their homosexuality. Though, certainlynot all sects of Christianity advocate such bigotry upon homosexuals.

Reality is of individuals being responsible for the choices that they make, rather than some phantom.

No, condemnations of the kind you're talking about came about specifically because Christians condemned people, not sins, which is expressly in contravention to their supposed faith. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[zsdersw]

Are you ultimately saying that societal norms pertaining to sexuality(meaning that heterosexuality is generally seen as "normal") have no validity?

Validity and relevance are not the same thing. Heterosexuality is much more common and, as such, is regarded as more "normal"... so saying it's a societal norm is valid, but the relevance to this issue is not demonstrated by validity.

The "normal" and "familiar", by virtue of their prevalence, rarely need to be explicitly expressed. It is the "unusual" and "uncommon" of which we should be made aware.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Validity and relevance are not the same thing. Heterosexuality is much more common and, as such, is regarded as more "normal"... so saying it's a societal norm is valid, but the relevance to this issue is not demonstrated by validity.

The "normal" and "familiar", by virtue of their prevalence, rarely need to be explicitly expressed. It is the "unusual" and "uncommon" of which we should be made aware.

I think heterosexuality is considered 'normal' for a bit more than its 'much more common'. I think it might have to do with the whole its required in order to create a child thing. I guess mother nature is a bigot as well.. lol.

 

[zsdersw]

I think heterosexuality is considered 'normal' for a bit more than its 'much more common'. I think it might have to do with the whole its required in order to create a child thing.

That's assumed, not excluded.

I guess mother nature is a bigot as well.. lol.

Not at all. Homosexuality is found in 450 separate species.

 

[Atreus21]

The "normal" and "familiar", by virtue of their prevalence, rarely need to be explicitly expressed. It is the "unusual" and "uncommon" of which we should be made aware.

Made aware, or made to endorse?

 

[zsdersw]

Made aware, or made to endorse?

Aware. There's far too many people who want endorsement, but there's also far too many people who don't want awareness.

 

[Atreus21]

Aware. There's far too many people who want endorsement, but there's also far too many people who don't want awareness.

Then that sounds just fine to me.

 

[ShawnD1]

I think heterosexuality is considered 'normal' for a bit more than its 'much more common'. I think it might have to do with the whole its required in order to create a child thing. I guess mother nature is a bigot as well.. lol.

Mother nature is the one creating homosexuals. It's people like you who think nature is wrong all the time.

 

[werepossum]

Funny, a reinforcement of my point comes up in the thread regarding the GOP debate and Santorum's response to the gays in the military issue. Santorum says sex of any kind shouldn't be an issue in the military. No one should be discussing anything about sex or sexual preference. All should "keep it to themselves." He then said he would reverse policy to the way it was before Obama. So presumably that means that anyone in the military who 1) mentions having a significant other of the opposite sex, or 2) is seen with a member of the opposite sex in a circumstance suggesting a sexual relationship (i.e. holding hands), will be reported and then discharged. Do you think he means that?

LOL@ at endorsing discrimination while pretending to be preference neutral. I think if you endorse discrimination, then say you endorse discrimination instead of spouting dishonest, smarmy hypocritical nonsense.

Sorry this isn't about you. That clip really irritated me.

- wolf

My take on Santorum is that he probably would prohibit gays from openly serving, or rather he would probably try. SCOTUS may or may not drive progress in a particular human rights issue, but it is not generally friendly to attempts to roll them back. I wasn't entirely okay with mandating the end of DADT - I think that should have come from the military or at least not be mandated during a time of war - but at this point, re-establishing DADT or any sort of prohibition would be re-establishing discrimination. People can't go back into the closet once out, and should not be asked to do so.

I agree completely about the smarmy language; one cannot completely avoid sexuality and/or sexual behavior. Politicians try to take a position, then couch in language that will soften the blow for those who oppose that position. Both sides do so; I highly doubt if anyone really believes Obama isn't up for gay marriage, he just doesn't won't to take the hit with the voters to say so. Allowing gays to openly serve was going to happen, and should happen, and shouldn't be taken away. Even those of us who might not have selected that exact time should be able to agree that it's not a step that can or should be revoked, and although I'm all in favor of presenting one's personal life to others as little as possible, it's simply not practical in the military. One has spouses, girlfriends/boyfriends, letters, photos, and these things are a great topic of conversation when deployed away from home. When one's life (or the lives of others) depend greatly on unit cohesion and one lives (often roughly) with one's co-workers, one simply can't maintain the kind of barriers one might at, say, a school or a construction site. Asking gays do in effect live a lie for the comfort of their fellows is not practical, and certainly not acceptable after being allowed to be honest.

 

[werepossum]

Sadly this isn't the way to handle these situations. The only way we are going to move through discrimination, of any form, is for people to be able to have a rational discussion about them. The teacher should have brought his viewpoint forward and promoted a discussion, because I doubt he was the only student in the room who felt this way.

This is a good answer too. This teacher is obviously promoting homosexuality, but in his over reaction he actually hurt his cause. Much better (assuming he's going to raise the point at all) to have a calm discussion about it. With a devout Christian, there should be points where a good teacher could link discrimination he can self-identify (such as banning prayer or denominational prayer in school) with discrimination he can't self-identify such as gay marriage rights to make him see that even if he can't accept such a lifestyle as pleasing to G-d, he should not support discrimination against those who are homosexual. If nothing else, the kid should be able to identify with religious discrimination - i.e. equating Christian oppression in Muslim lands with gay oppression.

 

[HAL9000]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/22/texas-school-punishes-boy-for-opposing-homosexuality/



In Texas, no less.

I have no qualms about tolerating the homosexual lifestyle though I disapprove of it, but I wish supporters of it would have the decency to return the favor.

The teacher was within his rights to disagree, even to get angry, but it crossed a much more serious line when the kid got suspended.

I completely disagree with most of what you've said, the little homophobic fucker got what he deserved if he's spreading his delusions to others in the class then he absolutely should be reprimanded and sent home for it, if he does it again he should be expelled.

he is a well grounded 14 year old

lol

 

[zsdersw]

I completely disagree with most of what you've said, the little homophobic fucker got what he deserved if he's spreading his delusions to others in the class then he absolutely should be reprimanded and sent home for it, if he does it again he should be expelled.

Homosexuality was once considered a delusion as well. Should those precious few who spoke about it be "reprimanded and sent home for it" or "expelled" for continuing to speak about it?

 

[HAL9000]

Homosexuality was once considered a delusion as well. Should those precious few who spoke about it be "reprimanded and sent home for it" or "expelled" for continuing to speak about it?

I think people who spread beliefs that are detrimental to members of society who cause no harm or offense to others, in a school environment need to be reprimanded.

I've phrased it this way because I'm fine with prejudice against Nazi's for example.

 

[zsdersw]

I think people who spread beliefs that are detrimental to members of society who cause no harm or offense to others, in a school environment need to be reprimanded.

I don't think anyone has the right to punish anyone for expression of their beliefs. Actions are detrimental, beliefs are not.