School Rejects Lesbian Couple's Daughter

reply to post by haterproof


Jackie cannot do anything about the color of his skin.
Homosexuality is a choice therfore a homosexual can do something about their choices.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by haterproof

 

Jackie cannot do anything about the color of his skin.
Homosexuality is a choice therfore a homosexual can do something about their choices.

What makes you so sure that homosexuality is a choice? Are you speaking from personal experience, or is that merely something somebody straight told you?

And is the little girl in question gay, and therefore fitting of your apparent bias? Like I said...would Christ send her away?

Originally posted by Raist
It is forced into the school because in schools like this the parents drop of and pick up the kids. The parents sign an agreement that they hold the same beliefs that the church/school does.

Just want to point out that the school this happened at says it doesn't discriminate based on religion, so I very much doubt that they have the parents sign any such agreement



edit for typo

[edit on 8/23/2010 by americandingbat]

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
If you are referring to homosexuality as a 'behaviour' that is chosen, you've already missed the boat. I am referring to hypocrisy. Please...what is said about the subject in your owner's manual you call the Bible?

Wow, lots of wrong assumptions...boy

First, I’m not a bible thumper so it is not “my” bible. Now that is out of the way why do you suggest I ever said or implied homosexual tendencies were a choice? Acting on these tendencies and urges is a behavior and so since it is an action then the behavior is a choice. Pedophilia urges is also not a choice, but acting on those urges is a choice, see the difference?

Getting back to the Christian gay thing, my point was that they are choosing behaviors that go against their religion, period. No need to argue it is a born trait for it is still against their religious beliefs.

Like I said...what would Christ do? Would your Christ turn the little girl away from the doors of the school? If so, then he's not as hot as he's cracked up to be. If not, then who the hell are these theocratic apparatchiks to do so.

This really doesn't make much sense..but anyhow...

Do you think the school committed a sin by not associating themselves with a couple that lives a lifestyle that goes directly against the schools religious beliefs? Maybe the school also saw it in the best interest of the child since the child would experience inconsistencies between her teachings and home life, to say the least.

Some folks ought to worry a lot less about what goes on in other people's knickers, and a little more about how they, themselves, love their neighbours. I believe that's covered in the good book.

Well maybe, but if it is in their beliefs and they are a private school to practice those beliefs....geez

So are you saying there is no sin in the bible that the school should not look the other way on? Since you like to dump it into what "Jesus would do" I think it is up to him to forgive these sins and not the school's job.


You my friend are running out of hot air on this subject….






[edit on 23-8-2010 by Xtrozero]

the school can and should reject the admission of a student with two mothers.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
If you think racism and bigotry doesn't happen constantly, then you need to stop canoodling with the Snuggley bear and sniffing the mountain spring downy softness fabric softener.

Wow! You really had to reach for an opportunity to regurgitate an insult, didn't you? In the words of the great Jim Norton... a-booooo

Exactly where in any of my posts did you see a statement or even an inference that I deny the existence of racism and bigotry. As a matter of fact, the post which you quoted, proves I recognize racism and discrimination, when I see it.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


CHRIST WOULD PROBABLY TIE A MILL STONE AROUND THE MOMMIES NECKS AND DROP THEM IN THE SEA.
sorry about the capials

reply to post by americandingbat


Discriminating on religion is different than discriminating on doctrine.

Many religions do not fully accept homosexuality.

Homosexuality is also a complex matter in Hinduism because of the many types of religious life. In general, "twice-born" Hindus are prohibited from homosexual acts (maithunam pumsi), such as in Manusmrti 11:174, which mentions both men and women.

www.religionfacts.com...

In a 1997 interview, the Dalai Lama (the leader of Tibetan Buddhism and a widely-respected spiritual figure) was asked about homosexuality. He did not offer any strong answer either way, but noted that all monks are expected to refrain from sex. For laypeople, he commented that the purpose of sex in general is for procreation, so homosexual acts do seem a bit unnatural. He said that sexual desires in themselves are natural, perhaps including homosexual desires, but that one should not try to increase those desires or indulge them without self-control.

www.religionfacts.com...


This is to name a few extras. Obviously, there are others as they are discussed more often. Also as you can see from the links while it is not fully accepted it still is more accepted than in the Western practices.


So, while they might not sign a document stating a certain religious belief they might sign something condemning certain behaviors. Aside from that though you can bet that the girl would have heard teachings condemning her parent’s actions of homosexuality. After all it is considered wrong for people of the same sex to engage in sex with one another in the Christian faith. Schools such as this teach not only normal teachings that are needed in society such as math, english, or what have you, they also teach the beliefs of the faith as well.

Raist

Originally posted by Raist
So, while they might not sign a document stating a certain religious belief they might sign something condemning certain behaviors. Aside from that though you can bet that the girl would have heard teachings condemning her parent’s actions of homosexuality. After all it is considered wrong for people of the same sex to engage in sex with one another in the Christian faith. Schools such as this teach not only normal teachings that are needed in society such as math, english, or what have you, they also teach the beliefs of the faith as well.

Not all Christian denominations consider homosexuality a sin. Including the Episcopal denomination (which as I pointed out earlier has at least one openly lesbian bishop) -- and I think it would have been reasonable for the parents of this child to assume that a school with "Episcopal" in its name would follow Episcopal doctrine.

Unfortunately, this particular school is part of a group of formerly-Episcopal churches that split with the Episcopal Church in large part over the issue of homosexuality (ACNA).

I still doubt that they make parents sign any such paper, but I do understand your point about whether the girl would have suffered by being exposed to teachings that condemn her parents' lifestyle. I even think it's likely that the girl will be better off at a school that is more open-minded.

But, as I've said before on this thread, it would have been a lot better for everyone if the school had noticed that there were two mothers listed on the girl's application and addressed the issue then rather than just before the beginning of the school year when they will struggle to find another place to send their daughter.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
You my friend are running out of hot air on this subject….

No...I just really dislike intolerance however one may try to dress it up. I'd suggest that you might like to enter into a discourse with Christians who happen to be gay, and ask them what their rationale may be, rather than to dismiss it based upon your own assumptions. You might just learn something about Christianity in the process.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

CHRIST WOULD PROBABLY TIE A MILL STONE AROUND THE MOMMIES NECKS AND DROP THEM IN THE SEA.
sorry about the capials

I'm sure you can provide chapter and verse on that little nugget, right? Not somebody's interpretation, but out of the red-letter edition.

Originally posted by americandingbat
But, as I've said before on this thread, it would have been a lot better for everyone if the school had noticed that there were two mothers listed on the girl's application and addressed the issue then rather than just before the beginning of the school year when they will struggle to find another place to send their daughter.

I can agree with this, but I also have to wonder at exactly what time they decided to enroll the girl. For instance I can sign my son up for such a school but the payment is not due until the first day of school. I take it from this that he is not actually enrolled until payment is made. Anything prior to this is just letting each party know where the child might be going. I might be wrong on that but that was my take on it.

As for the rest of your post it is true some denominations accept homosexuals and even allow some participation within the church. That does not mean though that this school does even though some others within the denomination do. As of lately there is a stir and mixed feelings as some Lutheran branches have started to allow gay clergy, but not all within the denomination will. It really varies from church to church.

All in all I think the church did the right thing for the girl simply because of the mix of teachings she would have received from home and school.

Raist

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

No...I just really dislike intolerance however one may try to dress it up.

Of course they are intolerant to practices that their religious beliefs sees as a sin...geez

But because we are talking about gays we need to give them a political correctness pass, well it doesn't necessary work that way in religion.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

No...I just really dislike intolerance however one may try to dress it up.

Of course they are intolerant to practices that their religious beliefs sees as a sin...geez

But because we are talking about gays we need to give them a political correctness pass, well it doesn't necessary work that way in religion.

Like I said...what would Christ have done? Is that recognition not the final arbiter?

And like racial intolerance, the best way to treat any bigotry is to shine a light on it and expose it for what it is. I recall all of these arguments from the days of Jim Crow...but of course, that was different.

They are a PRIVATE school, where exactly is the problem?

By being a private school they can pick and choose their students as they see fit.

If the parents did this just to draw attention to their agenda, they should be expecting child services not sympathy. Shameful use of children should be illegal.

The "what would Jesus do" argument is completely invalid here. This ideology applies to matter of personal morality and not to institutional or legal ones.

Can I walk into a bank and say "I want free money because Jesus preached charity and would surely have given me enough to buy food with."?

Of course not.

It just doesn't fly.

[edit on 8/24/10 by Hefficide]

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Matthew 18:6 "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark 9:42 "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea."

1.Matthew 18:6
but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 18:5-7 (in Context) Matthew 18 (Whole Chapter)
2.Mark 9:42
" Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
Mark 9:41-43 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)
3.Luke 17:2
" It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.
Luke 17:1-3 (in Context) Luke 17 (Whole Chapter)

[edit on 24-8-2010 by slugger9787]

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Matthew 18:6 "but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

That is quite a nebulous statement and would seem to apply equally to those who would turn a child away from school...or infect them with the evil of intolerance. Christianity is indeed a cherrypickers dream come true.

Shakespeare said it nicely: "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

And what did Burke say?: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil in America is for good men to do nothing."

Originally posted by Hefficide
The "what would Jesus do" argument is completely invalid here. This ideology applies to matter of personal morality and not to institutional or legal ones.

Perhaps a little more personal morality injected into institutional and legal matters would produce a whole different brand of Christian.

Sorry...'What would Jesus do' is the essence of the argument. Anything else is cynical obfuscation, and quite shameful at that.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]

argh double post

[edit on 24-8-2010 by aorAki]

So, we can tie a millstone around the school's collective neck and throw it into the sea?
Surely they are causing a little one to stumble more so than the parents who attempted to allow their little one access to the path?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Hefficide
The "what would Jesus do" argument is completely invalid here. This ideology applies to matter of personal morality and not to institutional or legal ones.

Perhaps a little more personal morality injected into institutional and legal matters would produce a whole different brand of Christian.

Sorry...'What would Jesus do' is the essence of the argument. Anything else is cynical obfuscation, and quite shameful at that.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]

Since you did not refute anything that I actually said and only resorted to a shaded personal jab, may I assume that we agree?