Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Gay? You're outta here...

Court: Christian school can expel lesbian students

RIVERSIDE, Calif. – A California appeals court has ruled that a Christian high school can expel students because of an alleged lesbian relationship. Full story here.
This is absolutely disgusting.

Just yesterday, I was attacking the concept of Bush's 'No Child Left' mandate. Here's living proof that plenty of children are being left behind as the Christian right wing get their hooks further into the system.

What particularly irks me is the 'alleged' comment. Apparently, girls and boys don't even need to actually be gay, lesbian or (most likely) not entirely sure what they are. All that's needed to kick them out of school is the suspicion of them possibly not being neat and twee straight kids.

What example does this set for the rest of the kids at this high school?

15 comments:

Margo B said...

What's also strange is you'd imagine this has something to do with homosexuality "not being Christian" according to some interpretations. But, isn't premarital sexual relations always against the rules? Yet another inconsistencies of right wingers! Ugh! I thought we had moved on!

ck said...

Sigh.
I actually just wrote a blog about this that will show in a few days. Here is the blog in its entirety:
Turns out there are some judges in California with a brain.

A Christian school decided to expel two female students who participated in homosexual behavior. The students sued. The court threw it out.

This is the concern that folks like me have. ‘We’ won this round, but we are just one law suit away from being forced to do what a religious organization is against.


Come on Roland. This is a Christian school, forcing them to do something against their will would violate the actual intent behind separation of church and state (keeping the state out of the church... again, not meant to be the other way around).

sxychikadee said...

You know I have a pretty strong opinion on this one...

Let them be expelled, but also make absolutely certain that school is getting ZERO tax dollars. If you want to keep church & state separate, please do so. I would just rather my tax dollars not support a "school" where intolerance is being taught and where I would not be allowed to attend.

"...keeping the state out of the church...not meant to be the other way around" is inaccurate. Otherwise why did Thomas Jefferson refer to the "separation of church and state" to be "creating a WALL" between church and state. A wall is a barrier, not a one-sided gate.

Roland Hulme said...

Oh, Sexy Chikadee! I love that big sexy brain of yours. A perfectly acceptable compromise and a good lesson in how if religious institutions want to suckle from the government's teat, they're going to have to play fair, like the rest of us do.

I also LOVE your comment about the separation of church and state. I've never seen it described so accurately and concisely before.

ck said...

But then you have to make sure that money doesn't go to things that violate the conscience of others.

Rejecting homosexuality violates yours. Paying for abortions violates mine.

Here's a deal for you, let the government stop paying for both. HOWEVER there is one big difference, people pay property tax for 'their schools'. If you pay property taxes, yet don't utilize it for your children then you should get a voucher to take your child to the school of your choice. If you are going to mandate education, then you shouldn't be able to mandate how it is spent as long as the child can pass the standardized test.

He may have used the word WALL but the use of that word was not a two-way barrier. Remember TJ wrote that letter in REPLY to a church meddling in politics. Telling them, not to worry the state won't interfere with what you want to do. The wall was clearly one sided.

sxychikadee said...

I also reject government funding for abortions in 99% of circumstances. I also agree 100% that I should be able to choose what schools my children attend so that if my property taxes support a school I cannot (in good conscience) send my children to I have an option.

It isn't about violating my conscience. It's about rejecting ME. I am a person - not an idea, belief, moral or any other intangible thing. I am a mother, friend, daughter, aunt, niece human being. I struggle financially, emotionally, physically every day just the same as the rest of the working class Americans. Yes: I am an American too.

CK is saying that I "violate his conscience" because I am not straight - I can only assume defined as "A woman who loves/has sexual relations with ONLY male bodied men."

I tried to live that way CK. I was abused for 8 years in order to live a "normal straight life." I CHOSE to live a straight life that nearly got me killed.

So before you say I am choosing to live a non "straight" life - I'm freely admitting that I am. It is SO HARD in so many ways, but at least I'm being honest about who I am. My children are seeing me (usually) happy and not at the hands of an abuser.

You know what though - it's ok. Everyone is allowed to have their own beliefs.

Must also take a moment here to point out that black people could not marry white people at late as 1967 in the United States. Hmmmm.... that was probably because it "violating the conscience of others"


http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/10/1667759.aspx

sxychikadee said...

I have more clearly articulated my response to CK on my own blog. My apologies for being overheated at homosexuality being compared to abortion at last comment post.

ck said...

I won't give you the pleasure of continuing this conversation on your blog.

But gay is not the new black. People are born black. There has been absolutely no proof of a 'gay gene' and even you admit you make the choice to be gay. Plus this is not an argument I get into because it is flawed. I am not born strait, I am born man. Designed for a women.

The fact that you chose an abusive man is really irrelevant to the decision. Tragic? Sure. But irrelevant.... well not really, bad boyfriends/husbands many times (not all the times... so my apologies if this doesn't apply to you) points to bad (or non-existent) dads. Which one author once said, and I've yet to have this disproved... "I have never met a sexually dysfunctional person that had a great relationship with their dad."... but this isn't psycho therapy 101.

But the fact is that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. People who say otherwise are being stupid. It is very clear, and I think I've even made Roland a believer of that as well. So it would make total sense that a Christian organization would oppose a sin. Just as I'd hope they oppose an adulteress staff member. Or a 'loose' student (male or female). I know if I were in charge I would.

Forcing a Christian organization to do something against its well is completely wrong. It would be like the government forcing the democratic party to let me be a voting member of their private organizations, while living life as a far right wing individual.

Gay is not the new black. If I were black, that would infuriate me.

sxychikadee said...

I said I choose to live my life as non-straight, not that made a choice to be gay. In fact, I have spent most of my life wishing I could make the choice to NOT be gay. I never said there is a "gay gene". I just know I am made this way and I pointed out that I tried to live otherwise to the misery of myself and others.

I also didn't say "gay is the new black". I made a comparison between the once illegal marriages of a certain group of people to the now illegal marriages of another group of people.

And
Again
I agree that a Christian organization, or a Muslim one, or a Cat one, or a Pencil Sharpening one may set their own standards for membership and inclusion based on their own beliefs.

I think tax payer dollars shouldn't fund any organization that discriminates based on the way a person just is - you know, like someone who chooses to be a vegetarian, someone who is BORN with a facial deformity, someone who chooses to live their life honestly - even if that means living it gay, or someone who is born Japanese.

You see, I really just don't believe in prejudicial behavior - no matter the underlying justification.

ck said...

So I'm a bit morbidly curious if I was right about the daddy thing.

I'll admit when I first read that statement I thought the author was nuts. The dad isn't THAT important is he? So I called up a very good friend of mine who has a gay brother and who has a great relationship with is dad. So I asked him if his brothers relationship was any different... it was. Then to be honest my 'gay' circle stands at pretty much zero.

But in the most technical term it is discrimination, but not all discrimination is illegal or bad. I can't attend an all girls school. A white police officer can't be a member of the black police union. I can't get certain scholarships because I'm not (black, female, gay, etc..). So discrimination is not all bad or illegal, its just a criteria that an organization can set. Regardless of the tax benefits they get. Because I'd assume since you don't want this school getting tax money for discriminating against gays, you think that every organization I listed above should be disqualified as well?

And you certainly did imply that gay is the new black. And its not.

There is pretty solid proof that people are born with a temperament. I am a man with a pretty angry one. But being born that way isn't a justification for me to be angry. I am expected to not react to the way I was born.

It's a slippery slope we are on about what should be tolerated and what shouldn't be tolerated.

Roland Hulme said...

CK, as far as the Bible goes, I look at it this way. Fifty years ago, or so, conservative Christians like yourself argued that the Bible forbid interracial marriage. The scripture they quoted stood up to brief examination, too.

Now, more rational Christians realise that those people 'misinterpreted' the Bible and that interracial marriage is fine (between people of the same religion.)

You know what? That's Christianity's one 'do-over' already played. Christians can't expect us to all accept that the Bible says something so discriminatory and so AGAINST everything Jesus stood for - especially not since they were wrong the last time.

Thomas Jefferson was the first American to suggest that morality doesn't stem from the Bible. There's a basic human code of 'right' or 'wrong' and regardless of what the holy book says, discrimination against gay people screams out 'wrong' by pretty much whichever secular morality you live by.

sxychikadee said...

Hey Rolland, check out this link:


I think you'll find lots of interesting things about the Bible that are LOGICAL, instead of emotional reactions.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1

ck said...

That article is right and wrong.

Ask Roland... I've said the Bible does not forbid polygamy, outside of the fact that it is illegal by state laws.

However it was written with a purpose and lost complete credibility when it went to the claim that Jonathan and David may have been gay.

Plus they were quick to delve into why the Leviticus scriptures didn't apply, but then gave a cursory glance over why Paul's admonishments weren't true. They didn't go deep, because going deep into that scripture would certainly show that Paul condemned homosexuality.

It also lost credibility by saying the Bible doesn't condemn female homosexuality, when it does.

Just a poor article at best.

Roland, there was never a Biblical justification for racism. Outside of the fact that some thought blacks were a different species. Once science caught up with reality that argument went away. Slavery on the other hand is not condemned in scripture (I have a blog coming up that talks about that).

Homosexuality is wrong if you are 'born that way' or if you choose to be that way. So... I'm not to concerned with scripture being dismissed on this topic. Unless scripture is dismissed out right, as many churches are doing to justify their acceptance of it.

opop said...

情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊美女, 視訊交友, ut聊天室, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, a片下載, av片, A漫, av dvd, av成人網, 聊天室, 成人論壇, 本土自拍, 自拍, A片, 愛情公寓, 情色, 舊情人, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 情色交友, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 色情a片, 一夜情, 辣妹視訊, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊, 視訊美女, 美女視訊, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, 情人視訊網, 影音視訊聊天室, 視訊交友90739, 成人影片, 成人交友,

免費A片, 本土自拍, AV女優, 美女視訊, 情色交友, 免費AV, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, A片,H漫, 18成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人電影, 成人, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊,

uhfdf said...

做愛的漫畫圖片, 情色電影分享區, 做愛ㄉ影片, 丁字褲美女寫真, 色美眉, 自拍俱樂部首頁, 日本偷自拍圖片, 色情做愛影片, 情色貼圖區, 八國聯軍情色網, 免費線上a片, 淫蕩女孩自拍, 美國a片, 都都成人站, 色情自拍, 本土自拍照片, 熊貓貼圖區, 色情影片, 5278影片網, 脫星寫真圖片, 粉喵聊天室, 金瓶梅18, sex888影片分享區, 1007視訊, 雙贏論壇, 爆爆爽a片免費看, 天堂私服論壇, 情色電影下載, 成人短片, 麗的線上情色小遊戲, 情色動畫免費下載, 日本女優, 小說論壇, 777成人區, showlive影音聊天網, 聊天室尋夢園, 義大利女星寫真集, 韓國a片, 熟女人妻援交, 0204成人, 性感內衣模特兒, 影片, 情色卡通, 85cc免費影城85cc, 本土自拍照片, 成人漫畫區, 18禁, 情人節阿性,

aaaa片, 免費聊天, 咆哮小老鼠影片分享區, 金瓶梅影片, av女優王國, 78論壇, 女同聊天室, 熟女貼圖, 1069壞朋友論壇gay, 淫蕩少女總部, 日本情色派, 平水相逢, 黑澀會美眉無名, 網路小說免費看, 999東洋成人, 免費視訊聊天, 情色電影分享區, 9k躺伯虎聊天室, 傑克論壇, 日本女星杉本彩寫真, 自拍電影免費下載, a片論壇, 情色短片試看, 素人自拍寫真, 免費成人影音, 彩虹自拍, 小魔女貼影片, 自拍裸體寫真, 禿頭俱樂部, 環球av影音城, 學生色情聊天室, 視訊美女, 辣妹情色圖, 性感卡通美女圖片, 影音, 情色照片 做愛, hilive tv , 忘年之交聊天室, 制服美女, 性感辣妹, ut 女同聊天室, 淫蕩自拍, 處女貼圖貼片區, 聊天ukiss tw, 亞亞成人館, 777成人, 秋瓷炫裸體寫真, 淫蕩天使貼圖, 十八禁成人影音, 禁地論壇, 洪爺淫蕩自拍, 秘書自拍圖片,