Private Schools and Society

[JoeyKnothead]

From the article here:

The firing of a gay physical-education teacher from a Columbus Catholic high school would be a violation of a city ordinance if a complaint were filed and investigators determined the dismissal was based on her sexual orientation.

Carla Hale of Powell, who worked at Bishop Watterson High School in Clintonville for 19 years, said she was fired in March after an anonymous parent complained that an obituary for Hale’s mother listed the name of Hale’s female domestic partner.

^my link to what is assumed to be the school in question.

On the one hand, why would a gay person ostensibly seek to encourage a Catholic education, when at least this bunch of Catholics are so against homosexuals? Then we have the issue of a possible violation of a city ordinance conflicting with the idea that religious schools be allowed a certain latitude as relates to their religious convictions.


For debate:

Which is the greater harm (or good); allowing religious schools to fire folks over their sexual preferences, or to hold that all who are shown capable should be allowed to work (where we 'decide' this school is a part of the city as a whole)? I assume this is a privately funded school, but still contend society has a right to make certain decisions in this regard.

I propose the greater good is in allowing this woman, who hasn't been accused of anything within the school setting, to be allowed to continue to teach. But what does that say about allowing folks to practice their beliefs as they see fit? I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.

[WinePusher]

WinePusher:


Second of all, there is no objective truth when it comes to gay marriage. There are only subjective opinions, so your entire statement is flawed and wrong.

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal...

That doesn't sound "subjective" to me.

You're wrong. The idea of universal equality was the subjective opinion of the founders. You and I happen to agree with it, bu that doesn't make it an objective truth. Obviously racists or radical Muslims would have a different opinion than the founders.

[kayky]

You're wrong.

No. You're wrong.

The idea of universal equality was the subjective opinion of the founders.

No. It is a self-evident truth. Not an opinion. If you disagree with it, you are simply wrong.

You and I happen to agree with it,

Evidently not.

bu that doesn't make it an objective truth.

It is an objective truth. To act against it is to act immorally.

Obviously racists or radical Muslims would have a different opinion than the founders.

That's why we call them the bad guys.

[bluethread]

WinePusher:


Second of all, there is no objective truth when it comes to gay marriage. There are only subjective opinions, so your entire statement is flawed and wrong.

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal...

That doesn't sound "subjective" to me.

You're wrong. The idea of universal equality was the subjective opinion of the founders. You and I happen to agree with it, bu that doesn't make it an objective truth. Obviously racists or radical Muslims would have a different opinion than the founders.

One thing is self-evident. This is a thread on private schools. How did it become a thread on homosexuals and marriage. They aren't performing ceremonies in private schools now, are they?

[marketandchurch]

• Western Civilization began in Ancient Greece. Christianity nearly destroyed it, beginning with the destruction of the great Library of Alexandria, plunging Europe into the Dark Ages. Western civilization didn't even begin to recover until the Elizabethan Age, marking the beginning of the decline of the power of the church in Rome and the beginning of the scientific age. I think perhaps you've hitched your mule to the wrong wagon, my friend.

This is a lie. You don't know history, or you do, and prefer to peddle one that conforms to your preferred reality. It was Christian Europe that launched the first on-going study of science, it was clergy how founded the University system, and embraced pagan sciences from the Greeks, Babylonians, and Egyptians, and it would be protestant and catholics who would launch the scientific revolution. From Oresme to Kepler and Darwin, they were all either clergy, or religiously devout.


All of this doesn't matter, because you didn't address anything I brought up in the bit you were replying to. My asking for one to make the case for Gay Marriage was the item you quoted. You instead decided to reframe the debate, and make the case for why I am on the wrong side of history.

[center]Answer or Quote my posts with Intellectual Honesty, & Address The Issues I Bring Up, or Don't Reply To Me.[/center]

• What radicals? Polls now show that the majority of Americans support marriage equality. Even our President supports it.

That is not an adequate response. The radicalism of something has nothing to do with current support, or opposition to it.

[center]Answer or Quote my posts with Intellectual Honesty, & Address The Issues I Bring Up, or Don't Reply To Me.[/center]

• It is because as Americans we have come to realize that freedom should be for everyone, not just those who meet what you consider to be a Biblical criteria. Once you have that epiphany, it becomes a cause that is not open to doubt.

This isn't an issue of Freedom. Stop this leftwing claptrap. Sexual freedom is the only freedom the Left supports. If the Left were truly for freedom, they wouldn't fight to control:

• 1.) How you view the world
  ‪2.) What you can say‬
  ‪3.) How you can defend yourself‬
  ‪4.) Where you can live‬(Smart Growth)
  ‪5.) What you can drive‬(CAFE)
  ‪6.) What forms of energy you consume‬
  ‪7.) Where you can educate your kids‬
  ‪8.) What kind of media you can consume‬
  ‪9.) What you can eat‬
  ‪10.) How much you earn‬
  11.) How much of your taxes you get to keep

etc, etc, etc. But they don't value liberty. Which doesn't matter, because you didn't reply to the point, which was that heterosexual advocates of marriage equality always argue in the affirmative, as if its an objective fact that they are right and have the moral high ground of being on the right side of history.

[center]Answer or Quote my posts with Intellectual Honesty, & Address The Issues I Bring Up, or Don't Reply To Me.[/center]

• Slavery also survived for millennia. This can also be backed up by history, anthropology, archaeology, and traditions. The very book in which you claim to place your faith also supports slavery much more stridently than it opposes gay sex.

Please don't cite the bible as being pro-slavery. If you actually do have scholarship on the matter, please make the case for it. Otherwise, this is a lie. One that you might not necessarily be the author of, as you are not the first person on here to say this. But a lie is a lie.

In any event, this is a weak response. You are working an angle that is disingenuous in that you link the reasons behind the position I hold, to something else like slavery, to discredit a person such as myself, for having faith, supported by those things I mentioned. A honest response would have defended why pro-marriage equality advocates argue in the affirmative, OR, also admit that their position is also an article of faith, backed up by history, anthropology, archaeology, and traditions that have survived millennia. That is what an honest response to what I wrote would have looked like.

[center]Answer or Quote my posts with Intellectual Honesty, & Address The Issues I Bring Up, or Don't Reply To Me.[/center]

• I think most people who post here are just as knowledgeable about history as you are. About 150 years ago, this country dismantled slavery, an institution at least as old as marriage. I predict that making marriage more inclusive will have a negligible effect on our society by comparison.

Slavery was wrong in the old testament, it was wrong in the new testament, and it was religious Christians and Jews who were an aberration in history in their overcoming this human institution that is as old prostitution, extortion, and murder. Protestant Christians in UK and US, and Jews in Ancient Israel, were the human vehicles that ended Slavery.

The item you quote makes the case for why you are the radicals in this discussion. There's nothing wrong with being a radical by the way… don't let my being one thing, force you to necessarily take a counter-view. The radicalism of an idea in no way determines the morality or soundness of it.

And just because slavery was done away with, does not mean that, doing away with one thing necessary means that doing away with a completely different thing, or enabling something new, will have the exact same consequences. One has nothing to do with the other, and if you think that gay marriage and slavery are exactly the same, please make the case for how extending the rights given to us by the creator, to all individuals, irrespective of their skin color, is anything akin to the societally preferred living arrangement that we've upheld for the last 1500 years. Please, enlighten me on the matter. The legality of something has nothing to do with the morality of it.

And you have yet to argue for gay marriage, based on history, tradition, anthropology, and archaeology, of marriage, heterosexuality, homosexuality, and gender constructs. What use is your citing of history, if at every chance you get, you bring up slavery, without dealing with any of those core things?

[center]Answer or Quote my posts with Intellectual Honesty, & Address The Issues I Bring Up, or Don't Reply To Me.[/center]

• Appealing to tradition is not a respectable debate tactic. Gay marriage is quickly becoming the norm in first world nations with no ill effects. Unless you can point to specific ill effects that gay marriage will cause, simply saying "this is the way it's always been done" doesn't carry any water.

I wasn't appealing to tradition. I am reinforcing my position that marriage-equality advocates are the radicals, and that they are the departure from the human norm, which is fine. So was Christianity and Judaism when it successfully did away with Slavery. One has to then make a case, either for why a radical departure is good, or bad, and you haven't.

"This is the way it's always been done" is utterly disingenuous, because you are framing my argument into one that implies I am appealing only to tradition, with no case to back it up. It is a simplistic reduction of what I've done, which is to cite the historical narrative that is missing from current dialogue on the matter, and contextualize the present, in that:

• 1.) We are not only enabling marriage-equality to Gays,
  2.) we are also making a full-scale war on gender,
  3.) & that the two will pair with the secular zeitgeist, to destroy society.

[center]Answer or Quote my posts with Intellectual Honesty, & Address The Issues I Bring Up, or Don't Reply To Me.[/center]

• First of all, why should American law be based on a book written thousands of years ago by tribal primitives? Secondly, can you tell me specifically how gay marriage will harm "the family"?

Because the values of this book was what guided the "supposed" deists that our founding fathers were. The judeo-christian values espoused by the founding fathers, in the declaration of independence, and the constitution, were not born in a vacuum, nor do they owe themselves to the enlightenment.

It will be in concert, along with many factors, in its destroying the family. The three main factors that will undo the family in the West are: Secularism, The War on Gender, and allowing any other living arrangement to compete with the male-female bias that the institution of marriage is here to promote. We already see the population collapse in Europe increasing at a very high rate, so high in fact, that they have to import immigrants in the millions, just to ensure that there will be a child-rearing workforce of tomorrow, that will then sustain the welfare state and the pensions of out-going retirees.

That, coupled with the war on gender, along with the elevating of another alternative, as an equal to the male-female bias, will mean that children, 40 years from now, will not marry and settle down with the opposite sex, and even more unlikely: have children. Or more accurately: Have children at above replacement rates, meaning, 2 or more children, to keep the society going. I can go even deeper into this, but only if my arguments are reciprocated by equally deep, and intellectually honest rebuttals on your part.

• Seriously? This may be true for a handful of people, but not for the vast majority. Personally, I can't think of a single time in my life that I was not attracted to the opposite gender. The idea of sex with the same gender is not something I could even consider. Seriously? This may be true for a handful of people, but not for the vast majority. Personally, I can't think of a single time in my life that I was not attracted to the opposite gender. The idea of sex with the same gender is not something I could even consider.

How can you tell me in one sentence that you know history, and more importantly/meaningfully, as it relates to the topic of sexuality, gender, & marriage, and then just a few sentences later, say that the fluidity of gender is only true for a handful of people? You obviously don't know history as it pertains to the subject.

You are in the crowd of people who think gender is fixed, which is fine, but make the case for it. I don't care about your sexuality, as it is very highly likely that you were raised with Christianity's male-female bias, when it was rigid, intact, and affirmed publicly by every individual, even if they weren't Christian. I care about the sexuality of children, 40 years from now, who grow up in a gender neutral world. That is where you should look, vis-a-vis your whole line about seeing gays marrying and seeing now immediate consequences because of it.

• Well, it's a good thing then that we do not live in a society based on any kind of theism.

Legally, no. But morally, we source our values from an ethical monotheistic tradition.

• This is the most ludicrous thing I have ever read. I'm speechless.

Read a book on the history of sexuality every once in a while. That which the human being is capable is amazing.

• Hmmm. Strangely enough, this is the argument often used to say that the Bible does not condemn monogamous gay relationships--that it only condemns heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts as part of pagan rituals.

If sexuality is fluid, then the war to destroy every possible alternative is not aimed at just a small tiny minority who are rigidly homosexual in their attraction, but rather, at the community at large, whose sexualities are largely fluid. I know the argument you are citing, but I don't fully buy it. I'll construct an entire thread on it as well tomorrow.

• The subjugation of women would have occurred in the absence of homosexuality. One has nothing to do with the other.

Are you even replying to my post? I wrote that the torah liberated, elevated, and ennobled women, something that happened in Ancient Israel, and nowhere else on earth. I didn't go into any depth, but where on earth did that reply of yours come from? A one-line dismissal that doesn't deal with what I write discourages debate. Do you simply quote people just to give yourself a platform to knock their ideas without addressing anything they bring up?

[center]I'm getting tired of this, but Answer or Quote my posts with Intellectual Honesty, & Address The Issues I Bring Up, or Don't Reply To Me.[/center]

• Again, explain how marriage equality would affect janitorial positions. This is laughable. Also explain specifically how marriage equality would make men second class citizens.

Where in that statement did you infer that marriage equality would make men second class citizens? You play with words to reframe my arguments, so often, that this has to have been explicit on your part. There's no way one could honestly read that statement, and infer such a thing.

Since you cannot interpret it clearly: the legal inability to do something, that is afforded to another group, does not make you a second class citizen. I might have been unclear, but your interpretation is absolutely unfounded.

• So marriage equality will lead to the creation of even more families. What is wrong with that?

Gays can't reproduce with their partners. Babies are the workforce of tomorrow, they are the one's who will pay for social security and medicare, by way of taxes on their economic activity, so babies are important. Babies also grow up, and if we teach them right, will have babies on their own, to replenish the outgoing members of society with new citizens, to carry on traditions, make new ones, and be the next generation of taxpayers who support our way of life.

Even for those lesbians who want to inseminate themselves and have the baby themselves, the amount of lesbians who are willing to do so are as tiny as the amount of straight liberals who want to have children in that way. Including men who want to inseminate a woman who carry the child for them. And the amount of children they often have is not enough to replace the outgoing elderly, or those who die from diseases, war, accidents, etc, which is like 2.5 child per couple.

• Fluidity of gender, I would say, would be a rare occurrence. Have you at any time in your life been confused about your gender or your sexual orientation? Me neither!

What is the fear on behalf of men getting a colonoscopy? What is the fear on behalf of men getting tongue from another man? Or feeling up another dude? It is fear that flirting with the lines of heterosexuality and homosexuality will cast doubt over the rigidity of one's intact sexual identity, if one finds it enjoyable. That's the impulse, the knee-jerk reaction, that guides ones immediate defensiveness.

Gender and sexual identity are very very important to us. Tell a woman she looks like a man, and tell me you didn't rob her of something special to the way she sees herself. Call a dude a pussy for not taking part in some risky activity, and you are challenging his very being, and exposing the chasm between what his gender demands of him as a man, and an inability on his part to meet that standard.

Likewise, the same is true of sexuality, we are very sensitive over the issue, especially the rigidity of it. A person who mistaken's a trap or ladyboy for a man can hurt that trap/ladyboy's feelings, especially since someone mistaken'd their efforts to truly be more of the gender they were born with mentally, for the physical limitations of the authentic self that money and plastic surgery has yet to fully transform.

You can't ever fully know what you haven't tried. Why don't you try testing the waters, and having relations with the same sex before you write off the fluidity of gender. The pathetic nature of this rebuttal is compounded by the amount of individuals who make it, as if any of them have ever even flirted with first base, let alone gone to third base, or all the way, with another of the same sex.

• Considering all the gay weddings that are taking place, we know that this certainly is not true!!

What are these gays that are getting married, in proportion to the amount that are not marrying? Either you are so eager to score points on me and win for your side, or you are ignorant of what you are arguing for. If truth is to be of any importance, we cannot sacrifice it to advance our agenda, whatever that may be.

• Yes. We absolutely would.

That's fine. But at least be honest then that you don't care about marriage, and that it is only a means to an end. That "end" being: gender equality, and the social recognition of homosexuality as a morally acceptable sexuality and living arrangement, by the society at large.

• Actually, I'm pretty sure that it is the anti-gay marriage side that has lost credibility.

Fine, but it should not be equated to apartheid, otherwise, words have no meaning, and events have no significance, if we can so easily draw such superficial and intellectually dishonest connections between opposing gay-marriage, and apartheid.

• Then what is your complaint? Why not live and let live?

This is framing me as if I don't have any other reason to take the position that I do, other then that I like to harass homosexuals, who simply want to love and be afforded these rights. It's disingenuous to quote something that is part of a larger body of reasoning, out of context. Again, Do you simply quote people just to give yourself a platform to knock their ideas without addressing anything they bring up?

This isn't a matter of "live and let live." That is a cheap sly rebuttal that assumes low, unforgiving, & ignoble'd intentions on my part. As if I have out for Gays, and my preoccupation with opposing Gay Marriage is because of something like hate, or misinformation, or what have you. As if I have not made any sort of case for taking the position I have...

• Do you seriously believe in this slippery slope argument? Heterosexuals will continue to be the majority. The whole idea of a "gender-free world" is the product of hysteria.

It is not a product of hysteria. Go earn yourself a degree in women's, gender, or gay studies now our days. The message that is being pushed by the left in academia, policymakers, and leftwing society as a whole, is a war to undo the heterosexism and unjust gender inequalities brought about by the Christian/Jewish tradition. You are either ignorant of the topic, or lying. Ignorance is okay. I don't expect everyone to know about heterosexism, gender inequality, or sexuality in the ancient world. But you act as if you do know, and then with a one-line brushoff, dismiss my arguments as if your some kind of scholar on the matter. I would take a one-line brush-off from Judith Butler. She knows what she's talking about, she's steeped in the gender studies. But what do you know Kayky?

My argument is not a slippery slope. You have not given any support for your position, that gay-marriage will not affect anyone beyond gays, and that heterosexuals will continue to be the majority. The only position you are defending is that this time around, we will be the exception in history. That is the implication, if you have the audacity to look at history, honestly, and say that raising homosexual coupling, as a societal ideal, to the level of heterosexual coupling will have no adverse affects.

• Something is either fair or unfair. If you are a victim of injustice, a discussion of degree has no meaning whatsoever.

Fine. But:

• 1.) What is your case against bestiality?
  2.) What is your case against incest?
  3.) What is your case against polygamy?
  4.) Are they incapable of loving the object of their affection?

Stop with the leftwing terminology. This is only "injustice" because you say it is. Most people on the Left don't care for marriage to begin with, and as you have admitted earlier on, marriage is only a tool for gays to be socially accepted by society.

[center]You are not an honest debater. I feel you reframe my arguments to score points on an opponent, but your tactic is cheap, disingenuous, and discourages meaningful debate. More one-line brushoffs, and empty-calorie responses that do not deal with the full weight of my argument in its entirety, and I will not respond to your cheap shots.[/center]

[marketandchurch]

Kayky, your even worse in your inability to think through what I've written. Please don't just post one-line brushoffs that don't deal with the gravity of what I've said.

I back up the things I've said with reason, you are asking me to redefend everything I've written, but the answer for it all is in there. You need to do the same. It isn't sufficient to just say something is appalling or to simply reaffirm something you think is true without reason & logic.

You McCulloch, Iam, and ReligousSlayer need to strengthen your arguments by not going for low hanging fruit, or reframing entirely what people say. These type of debate tactics go absolutely nowhere, and they discourage meaningful debate. I say something, you address only what you can win on, and disregard the rest with a pathetic one-line brushoff. Take what I've written as in its entirety, and stop with intellectually dishonest responses. That goes to McCulloch as well. If you can't compete in the realm of ideas, that's fine, but spare me, and the forum at large, the weak responses, that's only looking to score points on those you disagree with.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

The debate was lost. It was de-elevated by not people just looking to win a debate. Your more then welcome to the discussion, so long as you are not intellectually dishonest in dealing with points you disagree with.

[Darias]

Society should have no right to influence who a private school deems appropriate to teach its students. Whether its an art school, or a KKK-sponsored white's only charter school, a private school's business is its own.

Yes, that's true -- insofar as those organizations do not teach physical violence. Hate speech, religious fascism, or pro-government or pro-religious force apology is one thing -- teaching children to act on violence is another. The first amendment does not protect that which incites violence.

That said, I support the employment of homosexuals in every facet of life, but I have reservations about k-12 employment, and any form of employment that has children as its focus. In our value-free education system, it is important for homosexuals to stay in the closet vis-a-vis their orientation, or choose another form of employment.

Given that homosexuals amount to less than 4% of the population, and a majority of predators are of the heterosexual variety, I think your reservation is unwarranted to say the least. It carries with it a lot of assumptions about the LGBTQ community that it shouldn't. Even if sexuality is truly a spectrum and preference is capable of shifting overtime in some persons, this is certainly not true of everyone -- who can't begin to imagine or desire proclivities of an orientation they do not have. Assuming children could be taught an orientation; to assume that heterosexuality was the default is as ridiculous as saying right handedness is god's way. Sure some left-handed people could learn to use their right, and those who are ambidextrous could do so with greater ease, but the fact is, most people will be right handed and some people will be left handed, and they'll never change, even if they could. Assuming the ridiculous notion that teachers could greatly influence the sexual preferences of a child via instruction, I find it utterly nonsensical that a heterosexual professor would surely have less of an influence than a homosexual one.

And why should a homosexual be forbidden to mention anything about his spouse that would betray his preferences when you find nothing wrong with a heterosexual doing the same thing. This is a wholly biased and prejudicial position. To hold a minority of the population by a different standard than the rest? Why? To protect the children from recognizing their existence? What ends are you trying to achieve with such an argument?

In the ideal world, the sexuality of a person would not matter. . .

I agree with you up until this point.

. . .because both heterosexuals and homosexuals would vocally espouse the societal ideal, of male-female marriage, and male-female love, and heterosexuals loved their homosexual counterpart as equals, as they too are made in the image of God.

I'm sorry, what?! Just whose ideal is this, the ideal of Bronze Age goat herders? Who's society? Does society belong to you or those who agree with you?

Male-female marriage/male-female love and their homosexual counterparts are indistinguishable apart from the gender of the persons involved. In every way, they can both be just as infertile, or just as fertile -- they can have their own children via adoption or in vitro fertilization. Gay parents on average can actually be better than straight ones because they are more willing and prepared just for the opportunity.

And this language of equality means nothing if citizens are unequal under the law for the sake of Old Testament values. Institutional prejudice with a smile and "god bless" is worse than outright hatred. No one wants your sympathy, people want equality under the law.

But we don't live in that world. We live in one where one side champions traditional marriage but doesn't know how to make its case for it, and the other side wants to destroy marriage as an institution, and destroy gender as well.

Wanting the same rights that come with civil marriage, currently given to straight-couples-only in many places, is not the same thing as wanting the destruction of religious matrimony as is traditionally practiced.

Gender is not going away any time soon, and neither are gender roles defined by society (which by the way vary widely between societies and sometimes are even reversed).

What you're proposing is no different than 19th century men claiming that women's suffrage would bring about the obsolescence of the male vote. You don't lose your rights by granting them to others. Your argument is nonsense.

[marketandchurch]

Kayky, your even worse in your inability to think through what I've written. Please don't just post one-line brushoffs that don't deal with the gravity of what I've said.

This is a false accusation. I responded to each of your points in a reasonable manner (except for the one that left me speechless).

I back up the things I've said with reason, you are asking me to redefend everything I've written, but the answer for it all is in there. You need to do the same. It isn't sufficient to just say something is appalling or to simply reaffirm something you think is true without reason & logic.

This sounds like whining to me and an obvious attempt to evade responding to the challenges I have given to your points.

You McCulloch, Iam, and ReligousSlayer need to strengthen your arguments by not going for low hanging fruit, or reframing entirely what people say. These type of debate tactics go absolutely nowhere, and they discourage meaningful debate. I say something, you address only what you can win on, and disregard the rest with a pathetic one-line brushoff. Take what I've written as in its entirety, and stop with intellectually dishonest responses. That goes to McCulloch as well. If you can't compete in the realm of ideas, that's fine, but spare me, and the forum at large, the weak responses, that's only looking to score points on those you disagree with.

This is mere evasion. Address the actual challenges I have made to your arguments. If my responses are "weak" as you say, please demonstrate how this is the case.

You did not post one challenge. You only reframed what I wrote, while not responding to the "content" of my posts. You could have just posted your own case, of how marriage equality is a moral and intellectual equivalent to slavery, but if you are going to quote my posts and reply to them, please actually address the content in there. The "quote" button is not just a platform for you to construct a one-line brushoff and not deal with the intellectual content I posted in there.

If the post you quote from me is about Gay marriage advocates speaking in the affirmative, as if they are objectively correct for taking the position they do, then argue that its true and why they are objectively justified for taking that position, or argue that it is untrue and make the case for why my reading of it is untrue. But don't contort language to draw moral equivalents, between my support of a book which I think is just and true, and a normative human institution such as slavery, especially when the charge that the bible supports Slavery is a lie.

You are free to also quote me and take an angle on it that you think I might be missing. But cut down on the intellectually dishonest mis-framing of the things I post. Just because something bad was also supported by history, anthropology, archaeology, or tradition, does not mean that anything else in life, that can be backed up by the same things, is necessarily bad. The morality or soundness of an idea, philosophy, theme, or concept, is independent of its historical, anthropological, archaeological, or traditional basis.

[Darias]

I'm sorry I did not notice your reply until now.

Private schools should be able to do what they want, so long as they aren't subsidized by the government. If they are subsidized by the government, then they can't do what they want because our tax dollars are supporting them (this is why the boy scouts must welcome atheists and gays -- even though they still refuse to welcome atheists).

What of private schools that would teach that folks need them a stoning to death? Where should we draw the line?

If you can show their lesson plans incite violent behavior, I think that the first amendment doesn't protect threats of violence or anything that incites it. Hate is perfectly legal. And you can hate without being violent, just look at Westboro Baptist.

What "right" is so important that folks can declare an entire segment of society not worthy of the same respect they demand for themselves?

Well we both agree that it's hypocritical and immoral to do so, but it's perfectly within someone's rights to hate others. No one cares for convicted sex offenders; shall we make compassion and love compulsory by law?

There's also the issue of her relationship to her then-current students, and the potential harm having a new teacher may bring. I realize that's rather tangential, but there it is.

Well of course this is sad, and it's unfair and it's wrong -- but it's their hill and they are the kings of it. The community really has no say in how a business is run, how you raise your kids, etc. You're in Texas right? How'd you like your community to vote on what you should do with your person and your property? I think collectivist mentality is the greater evil here.

I feel sorry for the person who was fired, but she made a choice to work for an arguably homophobic organization. She took that risk, so she really has no right to use the government to force a private organization to comply.

I'm torn about it. I see society as having a role in education and jobs, where we don't just let anybody build a school, and where other forms of discrimination are illegal. That said, I do think there's a certain level of goofy, but when a job is there, sometimes we must do what we must. I remember working for an outfit that was so Christian, they had that in their name. Was I to go hungry just 'cause I didn't believe as they?

I find the idea of "it takes a village to raise a child" abhorrent. "We" are not the Borg. Saying that "Society should have a role in education and jobs" is fundamentally no different than Stalin claiming his policies were the "will of the people." I know we use the the "royal we" term all the time, but it's steeped in collectivism and there's something inherently disturbing about it. If "we" are anything, "we" are but a collection of individuals and no more. The nation, the corporation, the city, the people do not have wills -- individuals have wills. And when it comes to the soundness or morality of an idea, the majority is irrelevant.

In your circumstance, I would hope that there would have been enough people who would have sympathy for you if you were fired than to let you starve. What's immoral is when you expect the government to make Christians give atheists their money. What if the town used government to force you to employ Nazis to mow your lawn; would that be moral?

If this example leads to the greater question "is private education good for society in general, or should the government regulate it" -- my answer to that is the government should stay out.

Keep in mind that segregation was once enforced by the government -- and all the schools were state run -- you couldn't suggest equality or desegregation there -- and for any private schools that would have existed who would have promoted desegregation would have been forced by the government to uphold apartheid.

Of course we shouldn't dismiss history, but ultimately this is an argument from history (or argumentum ad antiquitatem).

How is citing a track record a fallacy? Is that not how we judge everything and everyone? Look at the track record of religion; is it a fallacy to believe that religion as a whole is and can be harmful based on its history and its very nature?

This doesn't mean the woman who was fired should not be shown sympathy. Why would you want to use government force to make her work for those people anyway? If you care enough about her, and arguably someone will, then someone else will offer her a job, someone else could raise funds to help her pay her bills, someone else will start a raise awareness campaign for her.

I propose it would be using government force to ensure she worked at a place of her choosing, as opposed to forcing her to work where she doesn't want to.

I do agree with your sentiment, and feel confident a school will hire her if she seeks employment elsewhere.

That's what's great about an open society. You don't need government to force people to take care of others; it's an insult to humanity and people who have the will and capacity to care for and employ those who were wronged by others.

And whether the government is forcing an organization to continue to employ her, or whether the government is forcing her to work where she doesn't want to -- it's just as equally immoral. The initiation of force and the absence of consent make for a huge moral failing.

There's nothing in my answer that suggests we just leave people out to dry.

Noted. I also note you've got one heckuva thinker in that skull of yours.

Thanks for the kind words, but I owe my ideas to others.

I do sympathize with your hesitancy to agree fully with my position. I used to share it. You don't want to be perceived as someone who doesn't care -- as someone who advocates homophobia, or whatever else.

Statists, progressives, collectivists, or socialists -- whatever name you wish to ascribe to authoritarians -- tend to paint those people who do not think the government is the best solution for problems in society as uncaring.

If you don't favor government enforced equality, government enforced regulation, or government enforced social safety nets, then you are construed to be someone who opposes moral solutions altogether. But this is nonsense.

I know I've posted this before, but it's relevant here:

[center][/center]

[marketandchurch]

Society should have no right to influence who a private school deems appropriate to teach its students. Whether its an art school, or a KKK-sponsored white's only charter school, a private school's business is its own.

Yes, that's true -- insofar as those organizations do not teach physical violence. Hate speech, religious fascism, or pro-government or pro-religious force apology is one thing -- teaching children to act on violence is another. The first amendment does not protect that which incites violence

Thank you Darias, for a sound, and intellectually honest, rebuttal.

The KKK would like work with special language, and speak in code, to get around such rules and regulations. They would likely teach all the race-based ideas of keeping the race pure, discouraging immigration, and how to reach out the community of suffering, unemployed whites. The goalposts are always moved, even if you set up a restriction. And with the advent of online-learning, a Khan-Academy equivalent is likely the future of these small pockets of zealots.

And in any case, they can still preach 99% of their content, without teaching violence, by just stating the "problem" while letting children's parents fill in the blank at home. So violence isn't the issue, so much as it is reaching the hearts and minds of unemployed or underemployed whites who feel they need to blame other races for their misfortune. I've debated a good many in recent months as they are attempting to salvage what is left of their white-pride movement, and there are just too many ways this group can get around the "violence" issue

That said, I support the employment of homosexuals in every facet of life, but I have reservations about k-12 employment, and any form of employment that has children as its focus. In our value-free education system, it is important for homosexuals to stay in the closet vis-a-vis their orientation, or choose another form of employment.

Given that homosexuals amount to less than 4% of the population, and a majority of predators are of the heterosexual variety, I think your reservation is unwarranted to say the least. It carries with it a lot of assumptions about the LGBTQ community that it shouldn't. Even if sexuality is truly a spectrum and preference is capable of shifting overtime in some persons, this is certainly not true of everyone -- who can't begin to imagine or desire proclivities of an orientation they do not have. Assuming children could be taught an orientation; to assume that heterosexuality was the default is as ridiculous as saying right handedness is god's way. Sure some left-handed people could learn to use their right, and those who are ambidextrous could do so with greater ease, but the fact is, most people will be right handed and some people will be left handed, and they'll never change, even if they could. Assuming the ridiculous notion that teachers could greatly influence the sexual preferences of a child via instruction, I find it utterly nonsensical that a heterosexual professor would surely have less of an influence than a homosexual one.

And why should a homosexual be forbidden to mention anything about his spouse that would betray his preferences when you find nothing wrong with a heterosexual doing the same thing. This is a wholly biased and prejudicial position. To hold a minority of the population by a different standard than the rest? Why? To protect the children from recognizing their existence? What ends are you trying to achieve with such an argument?

I didn't even know the "predators" argument is legitimate. I don't know any of the many gays in my life to be predators, I never knew of any living in the Castro, and I don't know of any here in Portland.

Secondly, you are right in your assessment that the majority of homosexuals cannot desire proclivities of an orientation they do not have, but when most gay say that their sexuality is fixed, they do not mean it merely for themselves, or other fellow gays, but they assume it to be true for all people. This isn't true of all gays, and some know that sexuality isn't fixed for most human beings, but still use the "Fixed" argument, because it's politically and emotionally effective. But most Gays use the "fixed" argument in this sense.

But the sexuality of the human creature is fluid. Even if the majority of gays have a fixed sexuality, which I always have and always will omit outright, does not mean that the human creature as a whole has a fixed sexuality. Sexuality is largely a societal construct. We are 100% nature, but we are also 100% nurture, and irrespective of what nature demands, environment often takes precedence. It's just how we're wired… we're social creatures, and gender roles and gender identities conform to the societal preference of our gender-based mannerisms, etiquette, assumptions, dress, who we make love to, and a great number of other things. So we have to craft policy with the majority in mind, even if there are smaller groups who will always be rigidly homosexual, or rigidly heterosexual.

Teachers could change & influence the gender of a child, if we lived in the gender-neutral world of tomorrow, wherein every possible orientation or living arrangement is truly a possibility. Especially, in this gender-neutral world, if they decided to share their private life & students observe them engaging their partner lovingly. Which is fine… if both of them stridently affirmed the heterosexual preference constantly, and that society backed this up as well. But that is not the case, and will be unlikely the case, 30-40 years from now.

And why should a homosexual be forbidden to mention anything about his spouse that would betray his preferences when you find nothing wrong with a heterosexual doing the same thing. This is a wholly biased and prejudicial position. To hold a minority of the population by a different standard than the rest? Why? To protect the children from recognizing their existence? What ends are you trying to achieve with such an argument?

Darias, my entire position is based on the assumption that gender is fluid. I do not have the case studies to prove it today, but I have history as a witness to the truer portrait of the human creature, and a rather bisexual portrait that is. So with that in mind, you cannot ever divorce that assumption form anything else I say, as that guides my thinking entirely.

Again, Darias, I am fully for the open embracing of homosexuals & their partners, and I can even curtail some of my reservations about them teaching young children, so long as they rigidly & stridently affirmed the male-female bias of the bible fully, and discourage people from experimenting or trying out homosexuality as an alternative option. But the fact of the matter is that that is not the world we live in, and the gender studies and women studies departments will have nothing of it. They too hate the biblical constructs of gender & its male-female pairing, and encourage the undoing of our "heterosexist" ways that tells us, in music, film, fashion, art, marketing, etc, that a man and a woman are the ideal pairing, that they should settle down, marry, and have children.

In the ideal world, the sexuality of a person would not matter. . .

I agree with you up until this point.

. . .because both heterosexuals and homosexuals would vocally espouse the societal ideal, of male-female marriage, and male-female love, and heterosexuals loved their homosexual counterpart as equals, as they too are made in the image of God.

I'm sorry, what?! Just who's ideal is this, the ideal of Bronze Age goat herders? Who's society? Does society belong to you or those who agree with you?

Male-female marriage and male-female love is indistinguishable apart from the gender of the persons involved. In every way, they can both be just as infertile, or just as fertile -- they can have their own children via adoption or in vitro fertilization. Gay parents on average can actually be better than straight ones because they are more willing and prepared just for the opportunity.

And this language of equality means nothing if citizens are unequal under the law for the sake of Old Testament values. Institutional prejudice with a smile and "god bless" is worse than outright hatred. No one wants your sympathy, people want equality under the law.

You are right. Love is love. But this isn't an issue of love, since the love that gays have for each other is not any bit stronger because of a meaningless piece of paper stating that the state recognizes them as being married, and can already be had without marriage, unless you want to offer that love before marriage, or without marriage, is a notch below the love one has once one get's married.

The purpose of marriage equality, is not marriage, but equality. If we allow them to marry, it will hold them as an equal in society's eyes, to that of a heterosexual couple marrying, and the law, they feel, will elevate their worth in society, to the acceptance they've been seeking for millennia. This is more about acceptance, and not about marriage. Otherwise, can you explain why an issue that affects less then 10% of 2% of the population is so popular? This is a war, and to limit it merely enabling the marrying of two individuals of the same sex is a simplistic reduction of the gravity of the matter.

It would be helpful if first we chose to argue under one assumption, that gender is fixed, and then argue under another, that gender isn't fixed. That way, we can honestly weigh the ramifications of holding the positions that we do. Because you are coming at me under the assumption that sexuality is fixed, and it's unhelpful, since my entire premise is built on sexuality being fluid.

But we don't live in that world. We live in one where one side champions traditional marriage but doesn't know how to make its case for it, and the other side wants to destroy marriage as an institution, and destroy gender as well.

Wanting the same rights that come with civil marriage, currently given to straight-couples-only in many places, is not the same thing as wanting the destruction of religious matrimony as is traditionally practiced.

Gender is not going away any time soon, and neither are gender roles defined by society (which by the way vary widely between societies and sometimes are even reversed).

What you're proposing is no different than 19th century men claiming that women's suffrage would bring about the obsolescence of the male vote. You don't lose your rights by granting them to others. Your argument is nonsense.

My argument is not nonsense if you address it under the light in which I framed it in. Sexuality is fluid, the history of man has prove this, and has proven that the only thing keeping men from coupling with other men is a social construct called marriage that rigidly denounces any competing alternative to its male-female bias. If you disagree with this, please feel free to offer a counter-argument, or show me a possible angle that I might be missing.

It is fine if you say that gender is not going away anytime soon, but can you make the case for it? In light of the swedish progressive stance on gender? In light of the position of the academics, to give a girl a truck, and a boy a doll, because they feel that orientation, especially the one given to us by society, is constructed? In light of the fact that this is one of the very few issues that every strain of feminism seem to agree upon? In light of massachusetts school system allowing children to choose the gender that most comports with how they view themselves? In light of a NY school introducing pansexual and gender-queer and forcing girls to kiss each other? In spite of the promotion of women to take on a bisexual identity vis-a-vis girl-on-girl & threesome action? In light of many groups out there like GLBTQ, trying to undo the construction of gender that always asserts that a prince saves a princess, and not just another princess?

This is only the start. To get boys & girls to explore their orientation in full, kissing others of the same sex, and finding the identity which works for them will become commonplace, routine, & normative. And the thinking is that they should not have a gender handed down to them, suggestively, by the costumes their limited to during halloween, by the characters and archetypes represented on film and books, and by mom & dad, their friends parents, their syblings, etc, etc, etc. Why be confined to something as meaningless as the specific genitals you came into this world with? There is a war on gender, everywhere you look. We are barely passing the conception stages of it, but the quicker the traditional male-female preference dies out, the faster we can bring about the gender-neutral world that academics love to dream about. It's already happening in the more progressive parts of America, It is already happening in Japan, and throughout the European continent, which is ground-zero for secular thinking, & leftist idealism.

You can try and frame what I am proposing as being similar to what animated men during the women's suffrage movement, but that is to assume intentions, for which I highly discourage. Because you don't know what it is that I think and feel on the matter, and towards the many gays in my life, who I work with, who I am friends with, and who I have in my own family. All you know is what I write, and that is not enough to deduce that I am afraid of losing my rights by granting them to others. Intention-reading is a risky business, most of the time you get it wrong, unless I am entirely misreading what you wrote, and that you explicitly meant it to be a direct attack on my personhood. I don't know, but in either case, thank you for a more elevated exchange of ideas.

[Clownboat]

This isn't true of all gays, and some know that sexuality isn't fixed for most human beings.

The bold part goes against what I know to be true for all of the humans "I know" (as far as I know). I can only assume you are projecting, which could also play a factor in your anti homosexual stance.

One psychoanalytic explanation is that anxiety about the possibility of being or becoming a homosexual may be a major factor in homophobia.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... freud.html

Regardless of what your church tells you, you are not an abomination if you have an attraction to a person of the same sex. You should be free to be who you are as long as you are not causing harm to your fellow humans.

Sure, people using the Bible as a weapon may not accept you for who you are, but those people are becoming the minority.

Gay marriage, just like interracial marriages will soon be a thing of the past.

Be well, and be who you are.