True_Avery Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35814348/?gt1=43001 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0311/Constance-McMillen-takes-fight-over-same-sex-prom-date-to-court So, essentially, the school knew this girl wanted to wear a tux and wanted to go with her girlfriend. The school told her no, and officials then circulated a flier saying students could not bring same-sex dates. When she pressed, they told her they she would be asked, and possibly forced to leave school grounds if she arrived with her girlfriend. When McMillen and a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) gave the school district a deadline to rescind the ruling, the school board on Wednesday voted to cancel the prom rather than abide by McMillen’s wish, which passed and canceled the entire senior prom event. She and the ACLU filed a lawsuit in US district court, charging that school officials violated McMillen's free speech rights when they told her they would enforce the district's policy requiring prom dates to be of the opposite sex. ---------- And, in sort of related news, a Catholic School is refusing to re-enroll a toddler because his parents are lesbians. Not because of anything wrong with him, but because they don't agree with the parents and don't want to "teach him conflicting views", essentially meaning that they teach, in their curriculum to toddlers and children, that homosexuals are sinners. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/08/colorado.lesbians.church/index.html?hpt=T2 So yeah, fun times. I'm going to stay out of this thread because I don't trust this to end in anything short of a car wreck. I'm looking at you Kavars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Betrayer Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 And, in sort of related news, a Catholic School is refusing to re-enroll a toddler because his parents are lesbians. Not because of anything wrong with him, but because they don't agree with the parents and don't want to "teach him conflicting views", essentially meaning that they teach, in their curriculum to toddlers and children, that homosexuals are sinners. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/08/col...ex.html?hpt=T2 To be honest, I don't really see what's wrong with this. It's not that the Catholic School is discriminating against homosexuals, but their belief prevents them from properly accepting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 Considering that Catholic schools are generally private, I was under the impression they had leeway to chose who they may or may not enroll. In any case, I fail to see why a lesbian couple would want to enroll their child in a school that clearly thinks his parents are sinners. As for the school prom thing, it's moronic and petty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 It's prom. It should be prohibited in the first place to keep intelligence in-check. Actually, scratch that; prom is an excellent benefactor of natural selection and inhibits exponential population growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 I'd say the Catholic school was well w/in its rights and also question why anyone would want to send their kids through a system that was fundamentally in disagreement with their chosen lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverNight Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 Catholic School: meh, it's a private school, I'll let that slide. Prom: wtf? That's dumb and I"m imagining that there's going to be some serious fallout from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ctrl Alt Del Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 I'd say the Catholic school was well w/in its rights and also question why anyone would want to send their kids through a system that was fundamentally in disagreement with their chosen lifestyle. That's it. Accepting them would beb blatantly hypocrital. It's plainly segregating what's taught there from reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurges-Ahter Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 Like everyone else has said, I have no problem with the Catholic school decision. It's private and is a faith-based institution. I'd question the parents choosing to send their child there more than the school's decision. The other example, however, will probably have significant impacts down the road. I think the school made a stupid decision, no matter what anyone's beliefs are about homosexuality. #1 - let's say you believe in equal rights for homosexuals in everything, like going to the prom, gay marriage, etc., well then of course this school's decision would trouble you. #2 - let's say you're on the other side and don't believe that homosexual relationships should be afforded the same rights that straight couples receive... well then this is still a stupid choice. The school, if they believe this way, just shined a huge spotlight on the issue and will result in high-powered people getting involved in a court decision, and over something so petty as a high school prom, I'm inclined to believe the courts will side with the ACLU and not the backwater Mississippi school district. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 We are talking Mississippi here. Some of the schools in the state still would not allow integrate proms until a few years ago. I really don’t see why the school is making a big deal about it. What are Mississippi proms so different that this is an issue? Do they allow sex acts during the prom? I would suggest that if they don’t like to see girls dancing together that they never go to a club. Back in the Stone Age, at my junior prom, a male senior brought another male in drag to our prom. The school did not make an issue out of it and the prom went off without a hitch not including the immature laughter (including myself in this admission). This was conservative Texas and still the school allowed the entire issue to just blow over. It did not ruin our Prom, it did not corrupt us and it did not mean the more religious ones were giving their consent to any lifestyle. It just meant we were all there to enjoy the Prom. It's prom. It should be prohibited in the first place to keep intelligence in-check. Actually, scratch that; prom is an excellent benefactor of natural selection and inhibits exponential population growth. Couldn't get a date? I also find the not allowing the toddler into the school stupid. While I believe the church is well within its right, still I thought churches purpose was to “save our soul from everlasting damnation.” I guess that isn’t the case anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 ..still I thought churches purpose was to “save our soul from everlasting damnation.” I guess that isn’t the case anymore. Somehow I doubt that the kid's exclusion from a Catholic kindergarten or nursery school will be the cause of his/her damnation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 Somehow I doubt that the kid's exclusion from a Catholic kindergarten or nursery school will be the cause of his/her damnation. Is the kid exclusion going to help with his/her salvation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 Doubt we'll ever know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 Doubt we'll ever know. You doubt we will ever know if his exclusion will help his salvation? I'm not saying he will or will not be saved (if you believe in that sort of thing), I’m pretty sure if I don’t give a starving man a sandwich, I did not do anything to prevent his starvation. My not giving him substance does not mean he starved; someone else may be kinder than me and give the man a sandwich. It does mean I did nothing to prevent his starvation. So I’m pretty sure, if school excludes the child (unless they allow the kid in later), they will do nothing to help his salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 What I was saying is that it's irrelevant. You make it sound as though the exclusion from what is likely to be nursery school or kindergarten is going to have some kind of negative impact on his prospects for "salvation" and that the school is thus somehow irresponsibly negligent. Might as well argue that not allowing kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance will somehow not help make them responsible citizens in the end. Sheer speculation either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 Nope. Never said anything of the such. I said I thought the purpose of churches was to “save our soul from everlasting damnation.” They used to do this by attempting to teach young people "morals" through the stories of the bible and Christ. Never said it was the best way to learn morals, just find it funny that they have decided not even to attempt it on a toddler. I agree with it being irrelevant, just goes against those same Christian "morals" I was taught in church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurges-Ahter Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 I not saying he will or will not be saved (if you believe in that sort of thing), I’m pretty sure if I don’t give a starving man a sandwich, I did not do anything to prevent his starvation. My not giving him substance does not mean he starved; someone else may be kinder than me and give the man a sandwich. It does mean I did nothing to prevent his starvation. So I’m pretty sure, if school excludes the child (unless they allow the kid in later), they will do nothing to help his salvation. While I see your point, I think this example is more similar to giving a starving man who's allergic to peanuts a PB&J sandwich. The school would have to teach the kid that his parents are eternally damned. I can understand why the school would want to avoid this, although perhaps they should take the child anyway, teach him what they believe to be right, and let his parents deal with the aftermath (it was their stupid decision). The child will suffer for that though, and perhaps the school is keeping the child's best interest in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machievelli Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 Considering that Catholic schools are generally private, I was under the impression they had leeway to chose who they may or may not enroll. In any case, I fail to see why a lesbian couple would want to enroll their child in a school that clearly thinks his parents are sinners. As for the school prom thing, it's moronic and petty. The reason for wanting a Catholic school, it's a choice between public schoo, and one that will really teach. Back in the Dark ages, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, when I was in Junior high, I remember having my hand swatted by a nun pretty much for or five times a day. This punishment was because I am left handed, and refused to write with my right hand. Where do you think the term sinister (evil) came from? Nope. Never said anything of the such. I said I thought the purpose of churches was to “save our soul from everlasting damnation.” They used to do this by attempting to teach young people "morals" through the stories of the bible and Christ. Never said it was the best way to learn morals, just find it funny that they have decided not even to attempt it on a toddler. I agree with it being irrelevant, just goes against those same Christian "morals" I was taught in church. They also 'saved' heretics by burning them at the stake or using punishments even worse just tp 'prove' they were innocent. As for the prom, I saw the last of high school in 1971. Being gay was something you didn't see much of yet, since not long before that it had been illegal in some places, and in the military. Being 'outed' back then for a military man was a career killer; try an immediate medical discharge for psychiatric reasons without benefit of a doctor suggesting it. With the advent of AIDs it is still the medical discharge but now because you 'might' get it. Would I care if they let the kids have their fun? Why would it bother me? If a child is that easily led, keep him away from politics or religion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 The prom thing--a hotel has offered to host the prom instead. Sounds like the school decided simply to not deal with the situation. Prom is an extracurricular activity and it's not required that the school hold the event. I don't see how the aclu can force the district to hold the prom. It's draconian to be sure, but if the school board was looking at the costs of a legal battle and the potential for having to pay for extra police protection to protect the girls and prevent fights over this issue, they may well have decided there wasn't enough money in the budget. Scrapping the prom gets rid of the legal problem. The Catholic school issue--private school, they get to set the rules. The priest said it was a very difficult decision to make, and I have no doubt it was. I would be surprised if he hadn't considered the issues that mimartin brought up. How do you take a stand on a doctrine, but then ignore it in this situation? Do the spiritual needs of the rest of the congregation get outweighed by the needs of the one? There is no way for anyone to 'win' in this case. The only way to go in this case is to go with the solution that causes the least damage. Hopefully the parents will be able to find excellent alternatives to this school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 ...perhaps they should take the child anyway, teach him what they believe to be right, and let his parents deal with the aftermath (it was their stupid decision). The child will suffer for that though, and perhaps the school is keeping the child's best interest in mind. This issue seems incredibly familiar, and if I recall the last time this happened correctly, the school took their kids, and then the parents sued when the school started teaching that homosexuality was a sin, as the school had informed the parents they would do beforehand. And I'd really rather not see a school get entrapped like that, it's just lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 They also 'saved' heretics by burning them at the stake or using punishments even worse just tp 'prove' they were innocent. I think that was a little before my time, at least I don't remember seeing that at bible school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TKA-001 Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 but their belief prevents them from properly accepting them. Only if they're homophobic (which is in violation of a lesser-known rule in the Catholic belief system). On another note, how is a tuxedo a guys-only type of clothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 On another note, how is a tuxedo a guys-only type of clothing? Yeah, and if she's in a tux, at least her parents don't have to worry about too much cleavage showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machievelli Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 I think that was a little before my time, at least I don't remember seeing that at bible school. Actually, one thing I like about the Catholic Church is their admission what they did... as long as you're talking two or three centuries ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 Heh, Mississippi, what do you expect. While I think what the school district did was really stupid, I don't think they violated anyones' civil rights by cancelling prom. Prom isn't a findamental right. If they held it and wouldn't let her in, that'd probably be a different matter. If they had just let the girl go to prom and not made a big deal about it, they wouldn't be getting national attention as homophobic rednecks. As for the Catholic school. It's not a public school right? They can do whatever the heck they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TKA-001 Posted March 13, 2010 Share Posted March 13, 2010 They can do whatever the heck they want. May I ask what they can do has to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.