100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: "Let Constance Take Her Girlfriend to Prom!" | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody.  I think the issue is mute, since none of the kids will now have a prom. Religious affiliation is hard to discern without an individual sharing some information as is sexual orientation however RACE is right there for everyone to see from birth. So I disagree with comparing this issue with racism,,,but thats beside the point. Do I feel she should be able to go to the prom, sure. Do I feel those paying for and holding the prom have a right to set up a THEME for that dance,,,sure. If it was set as a straight couples dance, and other guidelines were in place such as one date per attendee, or a certain dress code, or things of that nature ,,I dont see the harm. I would much rather see a push for an alternative prom for any non traditional type couples(same sex, cross dressers, trans...etc..) as well as the traditional one. I think it is wonderful she stands up for herself,and am not extremely passionate about it one way or the other,,, but I can definitely see both sides. Oh you do? What about mixed couples going to a prom? A white boy with a black girl, or a black boy with a white girl? You really don't think that's an issue in the South, or some other conservative communities? What if I went to prom with an Arab girl, complete in headress hijab? You don't think it would be an issue? Yes, this particular concern is focused on sexual orientation, but the other biases exist in this country as well concerning school social events. that is exactly my point,, you can SEE a white boy with a black girl,, you cant SEE a homosexual male with a homosexual girl,,you just see a boy and a girl, so the discrimination is VASTLY different. One is about what people can see from birth that cant be hid or undone,, the other is about what people observe someone DOING, which is a choice. I know my opinion wont be popular but the ONE relationship that we always will NEED is that of the male female union which creates life. A dance that sticks to that basic guideline is not so horrendous in my opinion. whether it be a black and white male and female or an arab and italian male and female, should have no bearing. As far as this particular case, I am really not passionate about it one way or the other. Im not particularly offended by a traditional male female dance, but Im not gonna kill myself if other pairings are included either. Its an option, a stupid, silly option but the same kind of option, HIDE. You either hide what and who you are or you are condemned, its the same exact thing just a different characteristic. lol,, use makeup,, seriously....? ok now. Race is determined ASTHETICALLY in our culture,, sexual preference is not,, it is determined usually by observing ACTION. ACTION is always a choice,, asthetics,, not so much. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Tue 03/30/10 09:54 AM
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody. I think the issue is mute, since none of the kids will now have a prom. Religious affiliation is hard to discern without an individual sharing some information as is sexual orientation however RACE is right there for everyone to see from birth. So I disagree with comparing this issue with racism,,,but thats beside the point. Do I feel she should be able to go to the prom, sure. Do I feel those paying for and holding the prom have a right to set up a THEME for that dance,,,sure. If it was set as a straight couples dance, and other guidelines were in place such as one date per attendee, or a certain dress code, or things of that nature ,,I dont see the harm. I would much rather see a push for an alternative prom for any non traditional type couples(same sex, cross dressers, trans...etc..) as well as the traditional one. I think it is wonderful she stands up for herself,and am not extremely passionate about it one way or the other,,, but I can definitely see both sides. Oh you do? What about mixed couples going to a prom? A white boy with a black girl, or a black boy with a white girl? You really don't think that's an issue in the South, or some other conservative communities? What if I went to prom with an Arab girl, complete in headress hijab? You don't think it would be an issue? Yes, this particular concern is focused on sexual orientation, but the other biases exist in this country as well concerning school social events. that is exactly my point,, you can SEE a white boy with a black girl,, you cant SEE a homosexual male with a homosexual girl,,you just see a boy and a girl, so the discrimination is VASTLY different. One is about what people can see from birth that cant be hid or undone,, the other is about what people observe someone DOING, which is a choice. I know my opinion wont be popular but the ONE relationship that we always will NEED is that of the male female union which creates life. A dance that sticks to that basic guideline is not so horrendous in my opinion. whether it be a black and white male and female or an arab and italian male and female, should have no bearing. As far as this particular case, I am really not passionate about it one way or the other. Im not particularly offended by a traditional male female dance, but Im not gonna kill myself if other pairings are included either. Its an option, a stupid, silly option but the same kind of option, HIDE. You either hide what and who you are or you are condemned, its the same exact thing just a different characteristic. lol,, use makeup,, seriously....? ok now. Race is determined ASTHETICALLY in our culture,, sexual preference is not,, it is determined usually by observing ACTION. ACTION is always a choice,, asthetics,, not so much. It does not matter that you use 'funny' language like SEXUAL PREFERENCE', that's not what it is!!! It is sexual orientation. Being of same sex orientation is exactly like being of opposite sex orientation. NOT A PREFERENCE! I PERSONALLY DO NOT 'PREFER' HETEROSEXUALITY!!! I NEVER MADE A CHOICE BETWEEN HETEROSEXUALITY AND ANYTHING ELSE! HETEROSEXUALITY IS MY ONLY GENETIC OPTION (and it suits me perfectly)!!! ... SO IS HOMOSEXUALITY FOR THOSE WHOSE GENETIC REALITY IS HOMOSEXUALITY (it suits them perfectly)!!! It's not a mystery. Only religious dogma, and profound ignorance will close people's mind to the plain facts and reality. It doesn't matter, in the public domain, where yours and your 'friends' personal interpretation of your religious dogma falls. You and those friends of yours, whom have reached a 'consensus' on a particular divisive and discriminatory religious dogma, and the so-called 'consensus' shared by school administrations across the country, over those bigoted, discriminatory and illegal 'rules', simply do not matter in the public domain!!! The only 'CONSENSUS' that matters in the public domain; the ultimate majority rule, are the Constitution, laws from Congress, and the principle of rule of law which governs it all. That's the only consensus that matters!!! Have your personal religious beliefs and doctrine all you want: that's your privilege under PERSONAL FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE: but it is 'PRIVATE & PERSONAL'!!! The only OFFICIAL public consensus we share in the free western world, IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL DOGMA msharmony, it is the THE RULE OF LAW!!! Keep expressing your personal dogma all you want under your freedom of speech rights, but don't delude yourself or people around you, UNLESS WE ALL GO BACKWARDS 1000 YEARS+, RELIGION WILL NEVER AGAIN TRUMP 'RULE OF LAW' PRINCIPLES (SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE) IN OUR FREE SOCIETIES. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody. It just shows how the ignorancy of religion is still preventing us from having equality in this country. I read the 12 page opinion by the federal judge that heard the case and nowhere in there is any mention of religion as being the cause of the schools actions. Not only that, the girl nor the ACLU ever made the argument that this is religiously motivated. I know these types of cases give the religion haters a reason to speculate that it's the cause. The facts of the case as provided by the ACLU and the judges opinion show religion had absolutely nothing to do with this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 03/30/10 10:08 AM
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody. It just shows how the ignorancy of religion is still preventing us from having equality in this country. I read the 12 page opinion by the federal judge that heard the case and nowhere in there is any mention of religion as being the cause of the schools actions. Not only that, the girl nor the ACLU ever made the argument that this is religiously motivated. I know these types of cases give the religion haters a reason to speculate that it's the cause. The facts of the case as provided by the ACLU and the judges opinion show religion had absolutely nothing to do with this. this was my point, when we can CENSOR music based on the label of 'religion' , it is no less a violation of ones right to express themself than is censoring whom one CHOOSES to take to a dance,,, constitution allowed that people may choose their religion(including no religion) and not have it chosen for them,, it would uphold that a school could not MANDATE any 'specifically religious' type curriculum or participation but the flip side of this would uphold that a school should not be able to BAN an individuals choice of religious expression either,,, that was EXACTLY my legal point,, thank you |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Tue 03/30/10 10:21 AM
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody. It just shows how the ignorancy of religion is still preventing us from having equality in this country. I read the 12 page opinion by the federal judge that heard the case and nowhere in there is any mention of religion as being the cause of the schools actions. Not only that, the girl nor the ACLU ever made the argument that this is religiously motivated. I know these types of cases give the religion haters a reason to speculate that it's the cause. The facts of the case as provided by the ACLU and the judges opinion show religion had absolutely nothing to do with this. That's not exact 'InvictusV'. The suit and the court's treatment of it, did not seek to establish 'cause'; it did not have the legal latitude to establish WHY were her First Amendment violated, but rather, were her first amendment rights violated or not, period. It was a simply case of 'First Amendment' rights violation. The court doesn't deliberate outside of the strict legal framework of a given case. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that the case was a Freedom of Speech First Amendment, which didn't have to deal with aspects of 'freedom of religion'!!! The religion 'side dish' has been brought up by 'thomas' and 'msharmony', whom seem to equate a religious angle to this issue, where there isn't one!!! The court never ruled that '... religion had absolutely nothing to do with this...' as you claim above, it simply wasn't part of its mandate to rule on 'cause'. And should it have done has you suggest, it would have exposed itself to having the case thrown out of court, for 'ex-causis' reasons; expressing itself, giving an opinion beyond the case at hand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 03/30/10 10:26 AM
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody. It just shows how the ignorancy of religion is still preventing us from having equality in this country. I read the 12 page opinion by the federal judge that heard the case and nowhere in there is any mention of religion as being the cause of the schools actions. Not only that, the girl nor the ACLU ever made the argument that this is religiously motivated. I know these types of cases give the religion haters a reason to speculate that it's the cause. The facts of the case as provided by the ACLU and the judges opinion show religion had absolutely nothing to do with this. That's not exact 'InvictusV'. The suit and the court's treatment of it, did not seek to establish 'cause'; it did not have the legal latitude to establish WHY were her First Amendment violated, but rather, were her first amendment rights violated or not, period. It was a simply case of 'First Amendment' rights violation. The court doesn't deliberate outside of the strict legal framework of a given case. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that the case was a Freedom of Speech First Amendment, which didn't have to deal with aspects of 'freedom of religion'!!! The religion 'side dish' has been brought up by 'thomas' and 'msharmony', whom seem to equate a religious angle to this issue, where there isn't one!!! oh my goodness,, you are so TOTALLY missing my point. The case of the girl who wanted to play AVE MARIA ,,was deemed religious because of the song being generally a religious song. STRICTLY because the song (of which she was only going to play the instrumental and not SING the lyrics)tied into religion, it was CENSORED and she was not given her choice of musical expression(an expression she insists she chose because of the beauty of the piece and NOT its religious message) and it was censored ONLY Because it was considered 'religious'. Now, flip to this dance. This girl is who she is, she is attracted to females. She wanted to bring a girl to the dance and the school said no. The school, in effect, CENSORED her ability to choose her dates gender based upon her PREFERENCE(coming with a male FRIEND would have no more restricted her from being homosexual as me going with a female friend would restrict me from being a heterosexual or bi sexual). The school thought it could mandate her PERSONAL preference for a date and the court said it couldnt. But in the other case, the school thought it could mandate the grads PERSONAL preference for a musical piece and the court says it wont even HEAR this girls case. this is a terrible double standard regarding censorship of expression that basically supports that censorship if a tie can be made to 'religion' but not if it is tied to 'sexuality' I think these double standards will someday be overturned and I just hope for that consistency to help folks see 'christians' with the same right to 'equal' treatment as anyone else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Tue 03/30/10 11:26 AM
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody. It just shows how the ignorancy of religion is still preventing us from having equality in this country. I read the 12 page opinion by the federal judge that heard the case and nowhere in there is any mention of religion as being the cause of the schools actions. Not only that, the girl nor the ACLU ever made the argument that this is religiously motivated. I know these types of cases give the religion haters a reason to speculate that it's the cause. The facts of the case as provided by the ACLU and the judges opinion show religion had absolutely nothing to do with this. That's not exact 'InvictusV'. The suit and the court's treatment of it, did not seek to establish 'cause'; it did not have the legal latitude to establish WHY were her First Amendment violated, but rather, were her first amendment rights violated or not, period. It was a simply case of 'First Amendment' rights violation. The court doesn't deliberate outside of the strict legal framework of a given case. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that the case was a Freedom of Speech First Amendment, which didn't have to deal with aspects of 'freedom of religion'!!! The religion 'side dish' has been brought up by 'thomas' and 'msharmony', whom seem to equate a religious angle to this issue, where there isn't one!!! oh my goodness,, you are so TOTALLY missing my point. The case of the girl who wanted to play AVE MARIA ,,was deemed religious because of the song being generally a religious song. STRICTLY because the song (of which she was only going to play the instrumental and not SING the lyrics)tied into religion, it was CENSORED and she was not given her choice of musical expression(an expression she insists she chose because of the beauty of the piece and NOT its religious message) and it was censored ONLY Because it was considered 'religious'. Now, flip to this dance. This girl is who she is, she is attracted to females. She wanted to bring a girl to the dance and the school said no. The school, in effect, CENSORED her ability to choose her dates gender based upon her PREFERENCE(coming with a male FRIEND would have no more restricted her from being homosexual as me going with a female friend would restrict me from being a heterosexual or bi sexual). The school thought it could mandate her PERSONAL preference for a date and the court said it couldnt. But in the other case, the school thought it could mandate the grads PERSONAL preference for a musical piece and the court says it wont even HEAR this girls case. this is a terrible double standard regarding censorship of expression that basically supports that censorship if a tie can be made to 'religion' but not if it is tied to 'sexuality' I think these double standards will someday be overturned and I just hope for that consistency to help folks see 'christians' with the same right to 'equal' treatment as anyone else. That's the point you keep missing, and the confusion you keep spreading. Christian or any other religious 'choice' or 'preference' as nothing fundamental to do with being a HUMAN BEING!!! If you haven't noticed, a whole bunch of human beings are not christian, and are not lesser, or incomplete human beings because of it!!! But all human beings are, in large varying degrees, 'sexual' beings!!! All human beings have a skin colour, in large varying degrees!!! All human beings are sharing a number of fundamental aspects which distinguish them as the human race. Spirituality may be one of those universally human dimension we all share, but 'christian' isn't!!! Under the law, whether you like it or not msharmony, that's what is distinguished as a collective or universal right!!! You are a human being first and foremost, sharing the exact same collective or Universal rights with all other human beings!!! Then and only then (subordinated to the universal rights), as an equal human being, do you enjoy 'INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS' in the free world; 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of religion' BEING PART OF SOME OF THOSE 'INDIVIDUAL' RIGHTS. AGAIN, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE SUBORDINATED TO UNIVERSAL RIGHTS. NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, OR SINGLE GROUP COULD EVER TRUMP THE UNIVERSAL RIGHTS OF THE WHOLE. THAT'S HOW YOUR INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL CHOICE AND PREFERENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY, WHICH ARE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, WILL NEVER BE UPHELD AS COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL RIGHTS, MUCH LESS WILL THEY EVER TRUMP COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS!!! (capitals for emphasis only. not screaming at all :)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who the heck chooses to be an alcoholic or a drug addict?! Alcoholics and drug addicts do No one forced them to do this . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who the heck chooses to be an alcoholic or a drug addict?! Alcoholics and drug addicts do No one forced them to do this . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being gay is not a choice. What you do with the born desire is.
People are born gay. If they choose to deny who they are to please society, which is terribly sad that they would have to, that is the choice they make. If a person is sexually attracted to the same sex, they are born with this attraction and it shows up when they become sexual. Being born gay or bi is completely natural and nothing be ashamed of. People who try to change them and make them feel shame are the problem. We need to silence those who try to make people feel ashamed of their natural selves. Instead of allowing them to continue their discrimination and tyranny of others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Tue 03/30/10 02:13 PM
|
|
Being gay is not a choice. What you do with the born desire is. People are born gay. If they choose to deny who they are to please society, which is terribly sad that they would have to, that is the choice they make. If a person is sexually attracted to the same sex, they are born with this attraction and it shows up when they become sexual. Being born gay or bi is completely natural and nothing be ashamed of. People who try to change them and make them feel shame are the problem. We need to silence those who try to make people feel ashamed of their natural selves. Instead of allowing them to continue their discrimination and tyranny of others. 10/10 !!! :) p.s.: Not sure anyone can be silenced in matters of bigotry, intolerance and racism in a 'free world', but certainly, with an unconditional resolve on the part of those whom REALLY stand for the dignity of all human beings, that can speak up on every instance of such abuse coming from the 'fundamentalist', 'bigot', 'racist' and 'discriminatory' cultures and points of view!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody. It just shows how the ignorancy of religion is still preventing us from having equality in this country. I read the 12 page opinion by the federal judge that heard the case and nowhere in there is any mention of religion as being the cause of the schools actions. Not only that, the girl nor the ACLU ever made the argument that this is religiously motivated. I know these types of cases give the religion haters a reason to speculate that it's the cause. The facts of the case as provided by the ACLU and the judges opinion show religion had absolutely nothing to do with this. That's not exact 'InvictusV'. The suit and the court's treatment of it, did not seek to establish 'cause'; it did not have the legal latitude to establish WHY were her First Amendment violated, but rather, were her first amendment rights violated or not, period. It was a simply case of 'First Amendment' rights violation. The court doesn't deliberate outside of the strict legal framework of a given case. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that the case was a Freedom of Speech First Amendment, which didn't have to deal with aspects of 'freedom of religion'!!! The religion 'side dish' has been brought up by 'thomas' and 'msharmony', whom seem to equate a religious angle to this issue, where there isn't one!!! oh my goodness,, you are so TOTALLY missing my point. The case of the girl who wanted to play AVE MARIA ,,was deemed religious because of the song being generally a religious song. STRICTLY because the song (of which she was only going to play the instrumental and not SING the lyrics)tied into religion, it was CENSORED and she was not given her choice of musical expression(an expression she insists she chose because of the beauty of the piece and NOT its religious message) and it was censored ONLY Because it was considered 'religious'. Now, flip to this dance. This girl is who she is, she is attracted to females. She wanted to bring a girl to the dance and the school said no. The school, in effect, CENSORED her ability to choose her dates gender based upon her PREFERENCE(coming with a male FRIEND would have no more restricted her from being homosexual as me going with a female friend would restrict me from being a heterosexual or bi sexual). The school thought it could mandate her PERSONAL preference for a date and the court said it couldnt. But in the other case, the school thought it could mandate the grads PERSONAL preference for a musical piece and the court says it wont even HEAR this girls case. this is a terrible double standard regarding censorship of expression that basically supports that censorship if a tie can be made to 'religion' but not if it is tied to 'sexuality' I think these double standards will someday be overturned and I just hope for that consistency to help folks see 'christians' with the same right to 'equal' treatment as anyone else. That's the point you keep missing, and the confusion you keep spreading. Christian or any other religious 'choice' or 'preference' as nothing fundamental to do with being a HUMAN BEING!!! If you haven't noticed, a whole bunch of human beings are not christian, and are not lesser, or incomplete human beings because of it!!! But all human beings are, in large varying degrees, 'sexual' beings!!! All human beings have a skin colour, in large varying degrees!!! All human beings are sharing a number of fundamental aspects which distinguish them as the human race. Spirituality may be one of those universally human dimension we all share, but 'christian' isn't!!! Under the law, whether you like it or not msharmony, that's what is distinguished as a collective or universal right!!! You are a human being first and foremost, sharing the exact same collective or Universal rights with all other human beings!!! Then and only then (subordinated to the universal rights), as an equal human being, do you enjoy 'INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS' in the free world; 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of religion' BEING PART OF SOME OF THOSE 'INDIVIDUAL' RIGHTS. AGAIN, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE SUBORDINATED TO UNIVERSAL RIGHTS. NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, OR SINGLE GROUP COULD EVER TRUMP THE UNIVERSAL RIGHTS OF THE WHOLE. THAT'S HOW YOUR INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL CHOICE AND PREFERENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY, WHICH ARE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, WILL NEVER BE UPHELD AS COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL RIGHTS, MUCH LESS WILL THEY EVER TRUMP COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS!!! (capitals for emphasis only. not screaming at all :)) I can see your having a meltdown over this issue.You keep saying over and over how this is all because of lack of choice and Christianity.The people debating this topic have all issued very important valid points that don't seem to have anything to do with Christianity yet we must keep reading your nonsense as how this is all about Christianity.Schools have rules.They probably have several hundred of them.Would it make any difference if this was a school in San francisco run by Godless Atheist?There is a million laws and rules in this country that trample all over everyone's first amendment rights.Everything from drinking,smoking,noise,dress code,lawns,nudity,etc.These rules and laws are put there because we have to have some sort of common ground on what the majority of people agree on and what they would like to see and not see in their cities and towns.Miss harmony brought up many important points concerning Christian music being played during graduation.I know I have followed many,many,cases where Christians could not pray or start clubs.Christians have to follow these rules and lose their first Amendment rights just like the gays do.I think instead of suing and making a big deal out of these rules.We need to pass laws to take these rules away.If the majority of people vote and don't want these rules taken away I think EVERYONE should abide by them. You are born into a certain race.Be it Asian,Hispanic,African american,etc.You can not change that fact.You can pretend you are not of a certain race but it is plainly seen that you are of that certain race.People get discriminated and hated because of of all races around America including the white people.Laws have been passed to protect and help prevent discrimination based on race as the people have no choice in the matter to change their skin color. There has never been any proof that anyone was born Gay.It is a lifestyle people choose by their own free will even if they are younger.Even if there was proof you were born gay how do you explain the fact that millions of gay people have Chosen to become straight and stay that way for the rest of their lives.Kinda of hard to make the argument that people are born gay and their brains are hard wired to stay gay yet one day they are gay and the next day they are not.It's kind of like a doctor saying this person has a permanent disease and can't be cured,then the next day he doesn't have this disease and is cured. Are you also going to seriously tell me if someone was born gay and one day he or she decides to go straight,then we should put this person in counseling,give them medication,so they can go back to being gay again because that is what they claim to be born as?  It's a ridicules thought and everyone from the ex gay person to the doctors to the psychiatrist would think you were nuts.I doubt you would get a shred of support from anyone if you were to force this person to take mandatory counseling. I said it before and I will say it again.Being gay is not a right!If you are so worried about the RIGHTS of people why don't you sit down and read the Constitution and the Bill of rights to see what our rights are.You are not going to find a section that deals with Homosexual special rights.Homosexuality is not even mentioned in either one.So where these special rights are coming from you will have to show me.Every American gay or not has the same rights under the Constitution.The only extra rights(if that is what you want to call it)is given to people who practice religion.They have all the rights everyone else has but also has another right to practice their religion with out our government or anyone else taking it away. Please,Please,read the court papers.It does not mention Christianity,or religion.It does not mention the ban on gay people or that gays have special rights or that their gay rights have been violated.It says her First amendment rights to express herself were violated(concerning her desire to wear a tuxedo).This whole fiasco is really about your first amendment right to wear clothes you want to wear. The more you keep insisting that Christians are somehow the source of everyone's problems and that they somehow prevent Gay people from living a life they want to live just makes you look bad.Everyone in this world has a voice and a say so on what they believe.You can not take away someone's right to their own belief simply because you do not like it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Tue 03/30/10 02:34 PM
|
|
LAST RESPONSE IS WRONG FROM BEGINNING TO END ^^^^^ except in reference to being a certain race or skin color and not being able to change it.
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Tue 03/30/10 03:32 PM
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody. It just shows how the ignorancy of religion is still preventing us from having equality in this country. I read the 12 page opinion by the federal judge that heard the case and nowhere in there is any mention of religion as being the cause of the schools actions. Not only that, the girl nor the ACLU ever made the argument that this is religiously motivated. I know these types of cases give the religion haters a reason to speculate that it's the cause. The facts of the case as provided by the ACLU and the judges opinion show religion had absolutely nothing to do with this. That's not exact 'InvictusV'. The suit and the court's treatment of it, did not seek to establish 'cause'; it did not have the legal latitude to establish WHY were her First Amendment violated, but rather, were her first amendment rights violated or not, period. It was a simply case of 'First Amendment' rights violation. The court doesn't deliberate outside of the strict legal framework of a given case. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that the case was a Freedom of Speech First Amendment, which didn't have to deal with aspects of 'freedom of religion'!!! The religion 'side dish' has been brought up by 'thomas' and 'msharmony', whom seem to equate a religious angle to this issue, where there isn't one!!! oh my goodness,, you are so TOTALLY missing my point. The case of the girl who wanted to play AVE MARIA ,,was deemed religious because of the song being generally a religious song. STRICTLY because the song (of which she was only going to play the instrumental and not SING the lyrics)tied into religion, it was CENSORED and she was not given her choice of musical expression(an expression she insists she chose because of the beauty of the piece and NOT its religious message) and it was censored ONLY Because it was considered 'religious'. Now, flip to this dance. This girl is who she is, she is attracted to females. She wanted to bring a girl to the dance and the school said no. The school, in effect, CENSORED her ability to choose her dates gender based upon her PREFERENCE(coming with a male FRIEND would have no more restricted her from being homosexual as me going with a female friend would restrict me from being a heterosexual or bi sexual). The school thought it could mandate her PERSONAL preference for a date and the court said it couldnt. But in the other case, the school thought it could mandate the grads PERSONAL preference for a musical piece and the court says it wont even HEAR this girls case. this is a terrible double standard regarding censorship of expression that basically supports that censorship if a tie can be made to 'religion' but not if it is tied to 'sexuality' I think these double standards will someday be overturned and I just hope for that consistency to help folks see 'christians' with the same right to 'equal' treatment as anyone else. That's the point you keep missing, and the confusion you keep spreading. Christian or any other religious 'choice' or 'preference' as nothing fundamental to do with being a HUMAN BEING!!! If you haven't noticed, a whole bunch of human beings are not christian, and are not lesser, or incomplete human beings because of it!!! But all human beings are, in large varying degrees, 'sexual' beings!!! All human beings have a skin colour, in large varying degrees!!! All human beings are sharing a number of fundamental aspects which distinguish them as the human race. Spirituality may be one of those universally human dimension we all share, but 'christian' isn't!!! Under the law, whether you like it or not msharmony, that's what is distinguished as a collective or universal right!!! You are a human being first and foremost, sharing the exact same collective or Universal rights with all other human beings!!! Then and only then (subordinated to the universal rights), as an equal human being, do you enjoy 'INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS' in the free world; 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of religion' BEING PART OF SOME OF THOSE 'INDIVIDUAL' RIGHTS. AGAIN, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE SUBORDINATED TO UNIVERSAL RIGHTS. NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, OR SINGLE GROUP COULD EVER TRUMP THE UNIVERSAL RIGHTS OF THE WHOLE. THAT'S HOW YOUR INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL CHOICE AND PREFERENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY, WHICH ARE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, WILL NEVER BE UPHELD AS COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL RIGHTS, MUCH LESS WILL THEY EVER TRUMP COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS!!! (capitals for emphasis only. not screaming at all :)) I can see your having a meltdown over this issue.You keep saying over and over how this is all because of lack of choice and Christianity.The people debating this topic have all issued very important valid points that don't seem to have anything to do with Christianity yet we must keep reading your nonsense as how this is all about Christianity.Schools have rules.They probably have several hundred of them.Would it make any difference if this was a school in San francisco run by Godless Atheist?There is a million laws and rules in this country that trample all over everyone's first amendment rights.Everything from drinking,smoking,noise,dress code,lawns,nudity,etc.These rules and laws are put there because we have to have some sort of common ground on what the majority of people agree on and what they would like to see and not see in their cities and towns.Miss harmony brought up many important points concerning Christian music being played during graduation.I know I have followed many,many,cases where Christians could not pray or start clubs.Christians have to follow these rules and lose their first Amendment rights just like the gays do.I think instead of suing and making a big deal out of these rules.We need to pass laws to take these rules away.If the majority of people vote and don't want these rules taken away I think EVERYONE should abide by them. You are born into a certain race.Be it Asian,Hispanic,African american,etc.You can not change that fact.You can pretend you are not of a certain race but it is plainly seen that you are of that certain race.People get discriminated and hated because of of all races around America including the white people.Laws have been passed to protect and help prevent discrimination based on race as the people have no choice in the matter to change their skin color. There has never been any proof that anyone was born Gay.It is a lifestyle people choose by their own free will even if they are younger.Even if there was proof you were born gay how do you explain the fact that millions of gay people have Chosen to become straight and stay that way for the rest of their lives.Kinda of hard to make the argument that people are born gay and their brains are hard wired to stay gay yet one day they are gay and the next day they are not.It's kind of like a doctor saying this person has a permanent disease and can't be cured,then the next day he doesn't have this disease and is cured. Are you also going to seriously tell me if someone was born gay and one day he or she decides to go straight,then we should put this person in counseling,give them medication,so they can go back to being gay again because that is what they claim to be born as? It's a ridicules thought and everyone from the ex gay person to the doctors to the psychiatrist would think you were nuts.I doubt you would get a shred of support from anyone if you were to force this person to take mandatory counseling. I said it before and I will say it again.Being gay is not a right!If you are so worried about the RIGHTS of people why don't you sit down and read the Constitution and the Bill of rights to see what our rights are.You are not going to find a section that deals with Homosexual special rights.Homosexuality is not even mentioned in either one.So where these special rights are coming from you will have to show me.Every American gay or not has the same rights under the Constitution.The only extra rights(if that is what you want to call it)is given to people who practice religion.They have all the rights everyone else has but also has another right to practice their religion with out our government or anyone else taking it away. Please,Please,read the court papers.It does not mention Christianity,or religion.It does not mention the ban on gay people or that gays have special rights or that their gay rights have been violated.It says her First amendment rights to express herself were violated(concerning her desire to wear a tuxedo).This whole fiasco is really about your first amendment right to wear clothes you want to wear. The more you keep insisting that Christians are somehow the source of everyone's problems and that they somehow prevent Gay people from living a life they want to live just makes you look bad.Everyone in this world has a voice and a say so on what they believe.You can not take away someone's right to their own belief simply because you do not like it. Well 'thomas', you have done it!!! No rebuttal required on this latest precious post of yours, ... YOU HAVE REBUTTED YOURSELF, ... ALL ON YOUR OWN!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Wed 03/31/10 12:26 AM
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody. It just shows how the ignorancy of religion is still preventing us from having equality in this country. I read the 12 page opinion by the federal judge that heard the case and nowhere in there is any mention of religion as being the cause of the schools actions. Not only that, the girl nor the ACLU ever made the argument that this is religiously motivated. I know these types of cases give the religion haters a reason to speculate that it's the cause. The facts of the case as provided by the ACLU and the judges opinion show religion had absolutely nothing to do with this. That's not exact 'InvictusV'. The suit and the court's treatment of it, did not seek to establish 'cause'; it did not have the legal latitude to establish WHY were her First Amendment violated, but rather, were her first amendment rights violated or not, period. It was a simply case of 'First Amendment' rights violation. The court doesn't deliberate outside of the strict legal framework of a given case. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that the case was a Freedom of Speech First Amendment, which didn't have to deal with aspects of 'freedom of religion'!!! The religion 'side dish' has been brought up by 'thomas' and 'msharmony', whom seem to equate a religious angle to this issue, where there isn't one!!! oh my goodness,, you are so TOTALLY missing my point. The case of the girl who wanted to play AVE MARIA ,,was deemed religious because of the song being generally a religious song. STRICTLY because the song (of which she was only going to play the instrumental and not SING the lyrics)tied into religion, it was CENSORED and she was not given her choice of musical expression(an expression she insists she chose because of the beauty of the piece and NOT its religious message) and it was censored ONLY Because it was considered 'religious'. Now, flip to this dance. This girl is who she is, she is attracted to females. She wanted to bring a girl to the dance and the school said no. The school, in effect, CENSORED her ability to choose her dates gender based upon her PREFERENCE(coming with a male FRIEND would have no more restricted her from being homosexual as me going with a female friend would restrict me from being a heterosexual or bi sexual). The school thought it could mandate her PERSONAL preference for a date and the court said it couldnt. But in the other case, the school thought it could mandate the grads PERSONAL preference for a musical piece and the court says it wont even HEAR this girls case. this is a terrible double standard regarding censorship of expression that basically supports that censorship if a tie can be made to 'religion' but not if it is tied to 'sexuality' I think these double standards will someday be overturned and I just hope for that consistency to help folks see 'christians' with the same right to 'equal' treatment as anyone else. That's the point you keep missing, and the confusion you keep spreading. Christian or any other religious 'choice' or 'preference' as nothing fundamental to do with being a HUMAN BEING!!! If you haven't noticed, a whole bunch of human beings are not christian, and are not lesser, or incomplete human beings because of it!!! But all human beings are, in large varying degrees, 'sexual' beings!!! All human beings have a skin colour, in large varying degrees!!! All human beings are sharing a number of fundamental aspects which distinguish them as the human race. Spirituality may be one of those universally human dimension we all share, but 'christian' isn't!!! Under the law, whether you like it or not msharmony, that's what is distinguished as a collective or universal right!!! You are a human being first and foremost, sharing the exact same collective or Universal rights with all other human beings!!! Then and only then (subordinated to the universal rights), as an equal human being, do you enjoy 'INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS' in the free world; 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of religion' BEING PART OF SOME OF THOSE 'INDIVIDUAL' RIGHTS. AGAIN, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE SUBORDINATED TO UNIVERSAL RIGHTS. NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, OR SINGLE GROUP COULD EVER TRUMP THE UNIVERSAL RIGHTS OF THE WHOLE. THAT'S HOW YOUR INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL CHOICE AND PREFERENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY, WHICH ARE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, WILL NEVER BE UPHELD AS COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL RIGHTS, MUCH LESS WILL THEY EVER TRUMP COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS!!! (capitals for emphasis only. not screaming at all :)) I dont even know what collective vs individual rights has to do with it. but on the point that EVERYONE is sexual but not religious,, I disagree.. all humans are SPIRITUAL as well as PHYSICAL. not having a specific religion is still a religious CHOICE. I can no more HELP that I love God than a homosexual can HELP but to be attracted to the same gender, ,,it is both who THEY are and who I am. But if I choose to express that part of me by playing a particular song at a school service I can be censored and if she chooses to express that part of her by bringing a girl to the school dance , she cant be censored. Id like the same right to express 'who I am' or 'how I feel' as anyone else. I'd like the laws to apply to christians as equally as they do anyone else when it comes to self expression. Hopefully with the passing of this NON religious issue that boils down to a right of self expression,, christians can more openly express themselves as well... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Wed 03/31/10 07:14 AM
|
|
oh my goodness,, you are so TOTALLY missing my point. The case of the girl who wanted to play AVE MARIA ,,was deemed religious because of the song being generally a religious song. STRICTLY because the song (of which she was only going to play the instrumental and not SING the lyrics)tied into religion, it was CENSORED and she was not given her choice of musical expression(an expression she insists she chose because of the beauty of the piece and NOT its religious message) and it was censored ONLY Because it was considered 'religious'. Now, flip to this dance. This girl is who she is, she is attracted to females. She wanted to bring a girl to the dance and the school said no. The school, in effect, CENSORED her ability to choose her dates gender based upon her PREFERENCE(coming with a male FRIEND would have no more restricted her from being homosexual as me going with a female friend would restrict me from being a heterosexual or bi sexual). The school thought it could mandate her PERSONAL preference for a date and the court said it couldnt. But in the other case, the school thought it could mandate the grads PERSONAL preference for a musical piece and the court says it wont even HEAR this girls case. this is a terrible double standard regarding censorship of expression that basically supports that censorship if a tie can be made to 'religion' but not if it is tied to 'sexuality' I think these double standards will someday be overturned and I just hope for that consistency to help folks see 'christians' with the same right to 'equal' treatment as anyone else. That's the point you keep missing, and the confusion you keep spreading. Christian or any other religious 'choice' or 'preference' as nothing fundamental to do with being a HUMAN BEING!!! If you haven't noticed, a whole bunch of human beings are not christian, and are not lesser, or incomplete human beings because of it!!! But all human beings are, in large varying degrees, 'sexual' beings!!! All human beings have a skin colour, in large varying degrees!!! All human beings are sharing a number of fundamental aspects which distinguish them as the human race. Spirituality may be one of those universally human dimension we all share, but 'christian' isn't!!! Under the law, whether you like it or not msharmony, that's what is distinguished as a collective or universal right!!! You are a human being first and foremost, sharing the exact same collective or Universal rights with all other human beings!!! Then and only then (subordinated to the universal rights), as an equal human being, do you enjoy 'INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS' in the free world; 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of religion' BEING PART OF SOME OF THOSE 'INDIVIDUAL' RIGHTS. AGAIN, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE SUBORDINATED TO UNIVERSAL RIGHTS. NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, OR SINGLE GROUP COULD EVER TRUMP THE UNIVERSAL RIGHTS OF THE WHOLE. THAT'S HOW YOUR INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL CHOICE AND PREFERENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY, WHICH ARE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, WILL NEVER BE UPHELD AS COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL RIGHTS, MUCH LESS WILL THEY EVER TRUMP COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS!!! (capitals for emphasis only. not screaming at all :)) I dont even know what collective vs individual rights has to do with it. but on the point that EVERYONE is sexual but not religious,, I disagree.. all humans are SPIRITUAL as well as PHYSICAL. not having a specific religion is still a religious CHOICE. I can no more HELP that I love God than a homosexual can HELP but to be attracted to the same gender, ,,it is both who THEY are and who I am. But if I choose to express that part of me by playing a particular song at a school service I can be censored and if she chooses to express that part of her by bringing a girl to the school dance , she cant be censored. Id like the same right to express 'who I am' or 'how I feel' as anyone else. I'd like the laws to apply to christians as equally as they do anyone else when it comes to self expression. Hopefully with the passing of this NON religious issue that boils down to a right of self expression,, christians can more openly express themselves as well... You make my point perfectly!!! You contradict yourself without realizing. We have long gotten that 'FOR YOU', PERSONALLY, INDIVIDUALLY GOD IS PART OF YOU!!! However strong and real it is for YOU, IT ISN'T A UNIVERSAL OR A COLLECTIVE ELEMENT WHICH APPLIES TO ALL HUMAN BEINGS!!! I am a full blown human being, and I don't love god!!! I don't hate it either!!! It just isn't a dimension in my life!!! I sense a spirituality, but NO GOD!!! God (a specific type of belief and dogma) is a personal and individual right!!! Treated very differently form a collective or universal right!!! One whom doesn't believe in god lives and thrives as much as someone whom might believe in god. On the other hand, you can't find a single NON-SEXUAL human being on the planet. That is UNIVERSAL: it applies to ALL without exception. All shades of sexuality that is!!! That the Universal, and your personal and individual right to believe in a god that finds certain human beings 'an abomination', cannot trump universal rights!!! You can believe all you wish, that's an individual right, buit that individual right of personal belief cannot deny 'existence' to the sexual reality of other EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!!! As for your love of YOUR god, however strong and seemingly essential it may occur to you, it is purely personal to YOU msharmony. Individual phenomenon!!! Your love of god, is someone else's love of elvis, or Allah, or Vishnu!!! Or yet someone else's love of 'energy' or 'light' or 'nothing'!!! No difference amongst those categories of love or non-love!!! ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!!! The only thing universal isthat everyone is afforded the INDIVIDUAL to believe or not believe in anything they wish!!! Their right to believe or not believe is universal, NOT THE PRODUCT OF THEIR BELIEF; type of god, type of religion, type of cult, or nothing at all, etc.. The product of your faith is individual, personal, private, and cannot be imposed on others!!! Enjoy it full out for yourself. But whenever you step out of that private and personal boundary, and start thinking that your personal god, religion, faith, or whatever, should be manifest in the public domain, this is where it all collapses. This is where it invariably becomes unmanageable, divisive, discriminatory, and downright 'hell bound'. All the free world democracies are founded on the very basic principle of a delicate balance between Universal or collective, and individual rights, managed by an equally fundamental principle of 'rule of law' to manage it all. If you still have problems with it all, just stop and reflect on your potential reaction should an ideological group tried to impose 'ELVIS' and his 'teachings' as the universal supreme being and faith. In Elvis we trust!!! Elvis bless you, and Elvis bless the USA!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh my goodness,, you are so TOTALLY missing my point. The case of the girl who wanted to play AVE MARIA ,,was deemed religious because of the song being generally a religious song. STRICTLY because the song (of which she was only going to play the instrumental and not SING the lyrics)tied into religion, it was CENSORED and she was not given her choice of musical expression(an expression she insists she chose because of the beauty of the piece and NOT its religious message) and it was censored ONLY Because it was considered 'religious'. Now, flip to this dance. This girl is who she is, she is attracted to females. She wanted to bring a girl to the dance and the school said no. The school, in effect, CENSORED her ability to choose her dates gender based upon her PREFERENCE(coming with a male FRIEND would have no more restricted her from being homosexual as me going with a female friend would restrict me from being a heterosexual or bi sexual). The school thought it could mandate her PERSONAL preference for a date and the court said it couldnt. But in the other case, the school thought it could mandate the grads PERSONAL preference for a musical piece and the court says it wont even HEAR this girls case. this is a terrible double standard regarding censorship of expression that basically supports that censorship if a tie can be made to 'religion' but not if it is tied to 'sexuality' I think these double standards will someday be overturned and I just hope for that consistency to help folks see 'christians' with the same right to 'equal' treatment as anyone else. That's the point you keep missing, and the confusion you keep spreading. Christian or any other religious 'choice' or 'preference' as nothing fundamental to do with being a HUMAN BEING!!! If you haven't noticed, a whole bunch of human beings are not christian, and are not lesser, or incomplete human beings because of it!!! But all human beings are, in large varying degrees, 'sexual' beings!!! All human beings have a skin colour, in large varying degrees!!! All human beings are sharing a number of fundamental aspects which distinguish them as the human race. Spirituality may be one of those universally human dimension we all share, but 'christian' isn't!!! Under the law, whether you like it or not msharmony, that's what is distinguished as a collective or universal right!!! You are a human being first and foremost, sharing the exact same collective or Universal rights with all other human beings!!! Then and only then (subordinated to the universal rights), as an equal human being, do you enjoy 'INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS' in the free world; 'freedom of expression' and 'freedom of religion' BEING PART OF SOME OF THOSE 'INDIVIDUAL' RIGHTS. AGAIN, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE SUBORDINATED TO UNIVERSAL RIGHTS. NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, OR SINGLE GROUP COULD EVER TRUMP THE UNIVERSAL RIGHTS OF THE WHOLE. THAT'S HOW YOUR INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL CHOICE AND PREFERENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY, WHICH ARE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, WILL NEVER BE UPHELD AS COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL RIGHTS, MUCH LESS WILL THEY EVER TRUMP COLLECTIVE OR UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS!!! (capitals for emphasis only. not screaming at all :)) I dont even know what collective vs individual rights has to do with it. but on the point that EVERYONE is sexual but not religious,, I disagree.. all humans are SPIRITUAL as well as PHYSICAL. not having a specific religion is still a religious CHOICE. I can no more HELP that I love God than a homosexual can HELP but to be attracted to the same gender, ,,it is both who THEY are and who I am. But if I choose to express that part of me by playing a particular song at a school service I can be censored and if she chooses to express that part of her by bringing a girl to the school dance , she cant be censored. Id like the same right to express 'who I am' or 'how I feel' as anyone else. I'd like the laws to apply to christians as equally as they do anyone else when it comes to self expression. Hopefully with the passing of this NON religious issue that boils down to a right of self expression,, christians can more openly express themselves as well... You make my point perfectly!!! You contradict yourself without realizing. We have long gotten that 'FOR YOU', PERSONALLY, INDIVIDUALLY GOD IS PART OF YOU!!! However strong and real it is for YOU, IT ISN'T A UNIVERSAL OR A COLLECTIVE ELEMENT WHICH APPLIES TO ALL HUMAN BEINGS!!! I am a full blown human being, and I don't love god!!! I don't hate it either!!! It just isn't a dimension in my life!!! I sense a spirituality, but NO GOD!!! God (a specific type of belief and dogma) is a personal and individual right!!! Treated very differently form a collective or universal right!!! One whom doesn't believe in god lives and thrives as much as someone whom might believe in god. On the other hand, you can't find a single NON-SEXUAL human being on the planet. That is UNIVERSAL: it applies to ALL without exception. All shades of sexuality that is!!! That the Universal, and your personal and individual right to believe in a god that finds certain human beings 'an abomination', cannot trump universal rights!!! You can believe all you wish, that's an individual right, buit that individual right of personal belief cannot deny 'existence' to the sexual reality of other EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!!! As for your love of YOUR god, however strong and seemingly essential it may occur to you, it is purely personal to YOU msharmony. Individual phenomenon!!! Your love of god, is someone else's love of elvis, or Allah, or Vishnu!!! Or yet someone else's love of 'energy' or 'light' or 'nothing'!!! No difference amongst those categories of love or non-love!!! ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!!! The only thing universal isthat everyone is afforded the INDIVIDUAL to believe or not believe in anything they wish!!! Their right to believe or not believe is universal, NOT THE PRODUCT OF THEIR BELIEF; type of god, type of religion, type of cult, or nothing at all, etc.. The product of your faith is individual, personal, private, and cannot be imposed on others!!! Enjoy it full out for yourself. But whenever you step out of that private and personal boundary, and start thinking that your personal god, religion, faith, or whatever, should be manifest in the public domain, this is where it all collapses. This is where it invariably becomes unmanageable, divisive, discriminatory, and downright 'hell bound'. All the free world democracies are founded on the very basic principle of a delicate balance between Universal or collective, and individual rights, managed by an equally fundamental principle of 'rule of law' to manage it all. If you still have problems with it all, just stop and reflect on your potential reaction should an ideological group tried to impose 'ELVIS' and his 'teachings' as the universal supreme being and faith. In Elvis we trust!!! Elvis bless you, and Elvis bless the USA!!! Elvis not withstanding,, Im gonna try to make a more concise point here. I am not in FAVOR of anyones belief (or non belief) being IMPOSED on others, however, I am also not in FAVOR of anyones self expression being censored. Being a christian is but one example I was using in this thread because it applies to me, but the POINT is the freedom or expression this girl fought and won over. My point remains that perhaps freedom of EXPRESSION can now be upheld for christians,,,or transsexuals, or anyone else who is required to 'hide' who they are. As to the rest, we are all spiritual, regardless of whether we love CHrist, Allah, or dont even believe in a God. We are more than just flesh, which makes us spiritual. Whether that spirituality takes shape as atheism, agnosticism, muslim, christian,,etc,,, speaks to how we EXPRESS our spirituality. Just like a homosexual , heterosexual , bisexual lifestyle speaks to how we EXPRESS our sexuality. wish I could have made it more concise,,but that will have to do...lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Read the Gospel and the Old Testament some time. Better than 99% chance, all of us, ALL of us are frequent sinners, and hypocrites. So please, Christian conservatives, spare everyone the religious dogma about homosexuality being a sin. If you believe that, you are cherry-picking the Bible for your own benefit, and you would be a zealot, a hypocrite, and a frequent sinner. May God have mercy on our souls, all of us. Jesus warned us about hypocracy. Read this simple definition and decide for yourself.
Hypocrite: 1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Read the Gospel and the Old Testament some time. Better than 99% chance, all of us, ALL of us are frequent sinners, and hypocrites. So please, Christian conservatives, spare everyone the religious dogma about homosexuality being a sin. If you believe that, you are cherry-picking the Bible for your own benefit, and you would be a zealot, a hypocrite, and a frequent sinner. May God have mercy on our souls, all of us. Jesus warned us about hypocracy. Read this simple definition and decide for yourself. Hypocrite: 1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. absolutely,, all have sinned. but I still want to be able to express myself as freely as anyone else,,,:) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we allow heterosexual couples to escort each other to proms, we damn well better let homosexual couples do the same.
Otherwise we are discriminating unduly. |
|
|
|
|
