Here We Go: Lesbian Couple Upset That 'Private Religious School' Denied Their Daughter...

[Peikko 1,575]

While I don't agree with it that statement in the handbook is their version of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" sign. At this point the parents should just find a better school. If their goal is to give the child a Christian education then they should find a school that really teaches Christianity rather than intolerance.

The point of the article was not to get the child into that school but to point out the prejudice they encountered when attempting to enroll their child in this school. It is quite clear from reading the article that while they are upset by the prejudice shown by this school they have indeed moved on and enrolled their child elsewhere, I have already addressed this very point. That does not make their story irrelevant.

[Peikko 1,575]

Not quite.... much education can be gained from "observation" of the subject matter as well.

You are aware that the idea that homosexuality is a learned behaviour is totally discredited, aren't you?

[Danno 1,228]

You are aware that the idea that homosexuality is a learned behaviour is totally discredited, aren't you?

Sure and that "Gay Gene" is on the verge of being discovered too.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sure and that "Gay Gene" is on the verge of being discovered too.

Seriously, you think it's all a matter of watching gay men in action et voila, you turn gay? No wonder you are so homophobic, it must be quite troubling to believe that you could turn ####### just like that!

[Danno 1,228]

Seriously, you think it's all a matter of watching gay men in action et voila, you turn gay? No wonder you are so homophobic, it must be quite troubling to believe that you could turn ####### just like that!

MC you missed the ball again a few posts back which is why ......you thought I was suggesting "observing" homosexuality... makes one a homosexual".

When I suggested "Observing" might teach one to reject it... (Or to be homophobic as you prefer say).

[Peikko 1,575]

MC you missed the ball again a few posts back which is why ......you thought I was suggesting "observing" homosexuality... makes one a homosexual".

When I suggested "Observing" might teach one to reject it... (Or to be homophobic as you prefer say).

You can't reject homosexuality. You either are one, or you are not - it is not something that can be accepted or rejected based on whether you find such behaviour attractive or repellent. What part of 'it's not a learned behaviour' did you not get yet Danno?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The point of the article was not to get the child into that school but to point out the prejudice they encountered when attempting to enroll their child in this school. It is quite clear from reading the article that while they are upset by the prejudice shown by this school they have indeed moved on and enrolled their child elsewhere, I have already addressed this very point. That does not make their story irrelevant.

I didn't say the handbook quote made the story irrelevant. I was replying to Madhouses statement. I get the point of the story.

I very much doubt there was literature that said "we don't want kids from ####### families"

[HAL 9000 96]

While I don't agree with it that statement in the handbook is their version of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" sign. At this point the parents should just find a better school. If their goal is to give the child a Christian education then they should find a school that really teaches Christianity rather than intolerance.

I agree with your last statement. A child is not an adult that can fend for itself... if this child were to stay at that school, there would likely be excess bullying and complacency on the part of the staff (although we are starting to notice better legal attention to that too, thank goodness)- which is how part of that homophobia and intolerance is allowed to continue in society.

[evli1966 88]

Please clarify, as that stands it make no sense.

Why the introduction of this redherring about being a muslim? That is totally and utterly irrelevant.

I am sorry it did not make sense.

I feel that that because their religeous view differs from this particular church view does not mean they have a right to change the church/school doctrine. ( I know much different than what I wrote first)

It is relevant if the homsexual couple can sue to to change the church doctrine then they can sue any religeon including the Muslim to be allowed to participate in the church as a member; thus changing the doctrine of the church.

Those are old testament laws and unless your Jewish they do not apply to Christians. Jesus came to earth to make a new covenant with man. It didn't include hatred and intolerance.

I was raised Southern Baptist (the old conservative way) not the comercialized sell out we have today. Anyway with that said My Grandfather Ordainded pastor with his master in Theolgy and "Old English" (not sure that meant). Preached not taking the passages out of context and if you wanted to know what they mean then you diagram each sentence of a verse in a passage together to know the meaning no tjust what you assumed it meant.

There are liberal views and conservative views of the bible and if the new testasment doesn't have it the old tetsament does. The new Testament clarified many things such as sins and what is needed to be saved now that the Jesus died on the cross.

Do you say that the 10 Commandments no longer hold true?

With that said the new testament says little about Homsexuality but in a conservative view point it still states it is a Sin if taken in context and no additional view points added as done by liberal view points

Conservatives and liberals often interpret this passage very differently.

Conservatives typically use the NIV or KJV versions of the Bible. They generally interpret passages literally, and believe that Paul was inspired by God to write epistles which were inerrant. The KJV condemns "abusers of themselves with mankind", which criticizes male-male intercourse. However, the NIV appears to go well beyond the content of the original Greek by attacking "homosexual offenders" -- that is, both gay males and lesbians. Essentially all Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians appear to prefer the NIV translation and believe that this verse condemns all homosexual activity. They view it as valid today as it was in the first century CE. Verse 6:11 states clearly that once gays and lesbians become saved, then they will no longer wish to engage in homosexual activities. They will presumably become heterosexuals.

The King James Version of the Bible translates verse 9 and 10 as:

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

My apologies for going off topic and John I respect your view of the Bible but it seems we differ in this point.

[Danno 1,228]

I would think this Lesbian couple would be happy to place their kids in a Public school which embraces (in fact imposes ) a positive Homosexual outlook

such as this school which reaches the children Early.....very early.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16Ed1kb8B6U&feature=related

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul is not very good at hiding his prejudice against homosexuality - he dresses it up with the 'I don't care' #######, but clearly he cares very much or he would not make such stupid mistakes as he made in the thread title. It's a private school so they have no right to feel upset because they were treated with prejudice. Brilliant.

Excuse me? Who in the bloody hell do you think you are? I have no prejudice against homosexuals or anything of that nature. How dare you act like the almighty little girl.

I'm sorry, I actually 'get' that most private religious schools would have a huge problem with them. Excuse me for understanding that. If you read the article and look at everything they went through, they just wanted attention. They knew they'd get it this way. All the 'crossing out daddy, writing in mommy' BS. I mean cmon. It's damn obvious that these people wanted some sort of media attention on this and they knew exactly the reaction they would get from a religious institution.

Of course you being the 'i want to attack Paul' little brat you are, you ignore the fact that the first thing I even said was it's silly to deny this child for those reasons. Read the whole damn statement.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You are aware that the idea that homosexuality is a learned behaviour is totally discredited, aren't you?

I'll never get how people can argue it's a 'learned' behavior. Yeah, some dude just wakes up one day and says, 'mmmmm #######.'

This Metro-sexual/non-masculine BS is learned though!! Curses!!

[Peikko 1,575]

Excuse me? Who in the bloody hell do you think you are? I have no prejudice against homosexuals or anything of that nature. How dare you act like the almighty little girl.

I'm sorry, I actually 'get' that most private religious schools would have a huge problem with them. Excuse me for understanding that. If you read the article and look at everything they went through, they just wanted attention. They knew they'd get it this way. All the 'crossing out daddy, writing in mommy' BS. I mean cmon. It's damn obvious that these people wanted some sort of media attention on this and they knew exactly the reaction they would get from a religious institution.

Of course you being the 'i want to attack Paul' little brat you are, you ignore the fact that the first thing I even said was it's silly to deny this child for those reasons. Read the whole damn statement.

You might not recognize your own prejudice but it is there, I have pointed it out. Why do you say that crossing out daddy and writing the other mother's name is BS? Why do you suppose that a perfectly ordinary lesbian couple would disrupt their family life just to get media attention? What is it about them that brings this reaction out in you when the story is quite benign, they are shocked by encountering discrimination in a christian school That is shocking, they are normal to feel shocked by it, and yet you conclude that it is manufactured outrage, why? Because they are lesbians this must be so? What other clues beyond their being gay lead you to this conclusion Paul?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's quite strange it's being assumed that the lesbian couple have (ulterior) motives other than wanted their daughter to be educated in a private school.

Once again it's down the prejudices of the individual who apparently can't accept that homosexual people go about daily lives, aren't pushing their lifestyle on anyone else and aren't interested in stirring up controversy.

Homophobia? Absolutely.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You might not recognize your own prejudice but it is there, I have pointed it out. Why do you say that crossing out daddy and writing the other mother's name is BS? Why do you suppose that a perfectly ordinary lesbian couple would disrupt their family life just to get media attention? What is it about them that brings this reaction out in you when the story is quite benign, they are shocked by encountering discrimination in a christian school That is shocking, they are normal to feel shocked by it, and yet you conclude that it is manufactured outrage, why? Because they are lesbians this must be so? What other clues beyond their being gay lead you to this conclusion Paul?

It's simple. It's not about them 'being gay.'

If you READ the last post I made, I said I actually 'get' that a religious school would deny them. I mean I pay attention to how most Christian/religious institutions are towards homosexuality. You'd have to be closeted away from the media/the world not to know that/not to expect that kind of reaction from a Church related school/organization.