California school expels girls because they are lesbians.

[Bob Hubbard]

Court says private school can expel lesbians


Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 28, 2009


A private religious high school can expel students it believes are lesbians because the school isn't covered by California civil rights laws, a state appeals court has ruled.


Relying on a 1998 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said California Lutheran High School is a social organization entitled to follow its own principles, not a business subject to state anti-discrimination laws.


"The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework," Justice Betty Richli said in the 3-0 ruling, issued Monday.
As with the Boy Scouts, she said, the primary function of the school is to instill its values in young people, who are told of its policies when they enroll.


Kirk Hanson, a lawyer for the two girls, said he was disappointed and would talk to them about a possible appeal to the state Supreme Court.
According to the court, he said, "if you're a religious school, you can discriminate on any basis you want."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/28/BAB615IA5R.DTL

 

[elder999]

Well, I think the 1998 Boy Scout ruling was B.S., as most here know-I posted about it a couple of years ago. On the other hand, a religious school is different-provided that they don't receive state or federal funding.

 

[Gordon Nore]

The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework," Justice Betty Richli said in the 3-0 ruling, issued Monday.

As with the Boy Scouts, she said, the primary function of the school is to instill its values in young people, who are told of its policies when they enroll.

Questions:

1. How did the school come to the determination that the girls were lesbians?

2. Inasmuch as the school probably frowns upon any premarital sex -- which everybody does -- are the (Lesbian) girls somehow more guilty than their heterosexual counterparts?

And this one's for the judge...

3. How in Hell are these girls supposed to 'learn even secular subjects within a religious framework' if they are expelled from the school?

Despicable.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I believe the principle asked them if they loved each other, and that was enough.

Remember, being gay is a sin, because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word, and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned, even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Remember, being gay is a sin, because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word, and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned, even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.

Disagree with the court ruling if you want, but don't stoop to stupid, uninformed, bigoted statements such as this one just because you disagree with the belief system of the school in question. It's obvious from what you've posted you know nothing about the transmission of texts or the translation of the same.

I would also mention the fact that the school is apparently Lutheran in affiliation. I know of no Lutheran synod that teaches homosexual inclination or orientation is sunful. It is the act which is considered to be sinful. Again, you may disagree with that, but at least have the common courtesy to accurately present the position with which you disagree.

Now think on this: If the court had ruled that the school in question was not allowed to expell the students how would that not have been the state telling a relgious institution what to do when it comes to practicing its faith?

Pax,

Chris

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Disagree with the court ruling if you want, but don't stoop to stupid, uninformed, bigoted statements such as this one just because you disagree with the belief system of the school in question. It's obvious from what you've posted you know nothing about the transmission of texts or the translation of the same.

I would also mention the fact that the school is apparently Lutheran in affiliation. I know of no Lutheran synod that teaches homosexual inclination or orientation is sunful. It is the act which is considered to be sinful. Again, you may disagree with that, but at least have the common courtesy to accurately present the position with which you disagree.

Now think on this: If the court had ruled that the school in question was not allowed to expell the students how would that not have been the state telling a relgious institution what to do when it comes to practicing its faith?

Pax,

Chris

What part of what I said is incorrect, stupid, uninformed, or bigoted?

"being gay is a sin"
While the Lutheran church is as divided as any other, some branches do in fact teach that Homosexuality is a sin.
http://christianteens.about.com/od/homosexuality/f/LutheranHomosex.htm

"because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word"
Christianity often refers to whichever version of it's bible that particular branch prefers. Many different sects will point out chapter and verse condemning homosexuality as sin, and as the Word of God.

"and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned,"
Again, many sects teach this, and take a dim view to questioning it, or suggesting it may be in error.

"even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc."
If you know of any -original- biblical documents I would like to know, as would countless biblical scholars. There are countless sites online that refer to mistranslations from the Hebrew to English.
Here is 1 of many
http://www.answering-christianity.com/hebrew_manuscripts.htm

Here is another:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
(yes I'm aware of the sites affiliation biases)

And yet another:
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm

So, for me to make a statement based on the established teachings of numerous ministries and sects, as well as the research of those who spend more time on biblical studies than I, doesn't strike me at bigoted.

I've been arguing Christian history, dogma and theology for 22+ years with pastors, ministers and missionaries from at least 15 different Christian sects, and have read at least 5 different versions of the Christian bible cover to cover repeatedly (I own 3 btw). I don't follow the faith, but have had 2 different ministers tell me I understand Scripture better than most of their congregations.

Now think on this: If the court had ruled that the school in question was not allowed to expell the students how would that not have been the state telling a relgious institution what to do when it comes to practicing its faith?

As the article said : "Any state law that required the school to admit gays or lesbians would violate the school's freedom of expression and religion, McKay said."

My position is, boycott the school. I'm firmly against supporting any organization that follows a discriminatory policy.

 

[Thesemindz]

I believe the principle asked them if they loved each other, and that was enough.

Remember, being gay is a sin, because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word, and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned, even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.

Regardless of your opinion of anyone's religious beliefs, I don't believe that any private organization should be forced against their will to do business with people they choose to refuse service to.

I know many people won't agree with this, and before anyone asks, yes, I think that should mean people being allowed to deny service on the basis of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation etc. We have the right to assemble, we should also have the right to disassemble.

I know that the law doesn't agree with this position. I believe the law is wrong.

If I am a private business owner, I should have the right to do business only with those with whom I choose. If that makes a person a bigoted ***, and in many cases I believe it would, then judge that person for it and encourage others not to do business with them.

I'd much rather live in a world where the bigots were out in the open and we could all make informed decisions about who to associate with, than one where they closet their bigotry and leave me with no way of knowing who to avoid.


-Rob

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I agree with you to an extent on the business argument, however as the California court said, this isn't a business matter, but a religious education one.

 

[chrispillertkd]

What part of what I said is incorrect, stupid, uninformed, or bigoted?

This one: "Remember, being gay is a sin, because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word, and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned, even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc."

It is incorrect, stupid and bigoted. It seems to me that you are unwilling to give the party you disagree with the kind of understanding you would demand of them for others.

"being gay is a sin"
While the Lutheran church is as divided as any other, some branches do in fact teach that Homosexuality is a sin.
http://christianteens.about.com/od/homosexuality/f/LutheranHomosex.htm

You seem not to have read your own source. The site in questions states that the ELCA does not have a defined doctrine about homosexuality or homosexual behavior as yet (although speaking from what I have seen to date it seems quite likely that the ELCA will come down in favor of homosexual behavior in the future). The Lutheran Church of Australia does not teach that homosexual orientation is sinful per se, nor does it think the Bible addresses homosexuality. Finally, the Missouri Synod distinguishes between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts and, as the web site states: "Again, it does not state that homosexuality is a conscious choice, but still contends that homosexual behavior is sinful." It is the act which is viewed as sinful, not the orientation.

"and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned,"
Again, many sects teach this, and take a dim view to questioning it, or suggesting it may be in error.

"even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc."

If you know of any -original- biblical documents I would like to know, as would countless biblical scholars.

I am well aware of the fact that the autographs no longer exist. But never has a text in the history of western civilization been the subject of more critical study than the Bible. As for countless biblical scholars being interested in the original exts, count me as one of them. I am working on a doctorate in Theology and have spent quite a large amount of time studying the transmisison of texts and the history of interpretation.

Here are some facts for you to ponder:

The oldest version of any surviving New Testament book is a papyrus fragment of St. John's Gospel (18:31-33, 37-38) which dates from roughly 125 A.D. According to a one survey, there are over 5,000 surviving texts which can be grouped as follows:

88 papyrus fragments

274 manuscripts written in capitals (that is, each letter is separate and their are no accent marks)

2795 manuscripts written in lower case letters (that is, the letters in each word are linked)

2209 lectionaries for public liturgical use

Additionally, new texts are continually being discovered. A 1963 catalogue (K. Aland) lists 4689, while a 1976 count was 5366.Over 4000 ancient (100-400 A.D.) translations exist, composed variously in Latin (from 2nd century onward, many prior to St. Jerome's translation), Syriac (2nd to 3rd century), Coptic (3rd century), Armenian (4th century), Ethiopian, Slav, Gothic (4th century), and Arabic.

Furthermore, many ancient writers (e.g. Eusebius) quoted Scripture extensively. You can reconstruct virtually the entire New Testament on the basis of these quotations, and the ancient texts from which these quotes come are generally older than the manuscript versions of the Scripture books which have come down to us. Nearly 100 New Testament papyri have survived, all of them Egyptian. Their time of writing was approximately between 100 to 200 AD. In addition, the writings of early Christians quote the New Testament so extensively that virtually the entire New Testament, apart from seven or eight verses, could be reconstructed simply from the works of those same Christians. (Keep in mind, however, that the early Christians did not quote chapter and verse, since there were no chapter/verse subdivisions until the Middle Ages. I am just referring to the amount of text which is quoted).

And this is just referring to what we have on the New Testament.

In comparison, we have only two extant copies of accounts that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants, and only one line in all of ancient writing which indicates that Alexander reached India during his conquests. Both of these events are undisputed by historians.

There are countless sites online that refer to mistranslations from the Hebrew to English.
Here is 1 of many
http://www.answering-christianity.com/hebrew_manuscripts.htm

This site is a Muslim attack on Christainity via suposed corruptions in the text which were supposedlly made on purpose by Jews and Christians. And they did this, according to the web site, in order to disprove the truth of Islam in the Bible.

Meanwhile, Muslim critical study of the Qu'ran is nearly non-existant because it is literally the word of God. Your choice of sources reveals a lot about your view of Christianity, and even more about your view of objective scholarship.

Here is another:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
(yes I'm aware of the sites affiliation biases)

Religioustolerance is neither religous nor tolerant. It does point out that experts disagree amongst themselves. So what? That it is the case in every field.

And yet another:
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm

If you have a specific thing to referance, please feel free. I have no care for the KJV and everyone knows that it has serious translation problems. And I mean serious.

But that just goes back to my earlier point: the Bible is the most critically studied text in the world. New translations are made when groups of scholars think they can come up with more accurate translations through a better understanding of the text.

So, for me to make a statement based on the established teachings of numerous ministries and sects, as well as the research of those who spend more time on biblical studies than I, doesn't strike me at bigoted.

No, what is bigoted is the contempt you showed towards people you disagreed with. And, to speak frankly, if the sources you sited in your reply are an indication of the best you have it's just sad. If you want to study textual problems and actually see if they can be resolved enroll in a good doctoral program.

I've been arguing Christian history, dogma and theology for 22+ years with pastors, ministers and missionaries from at least 15 different Christian sects, and have read at least 5 different versions of the Christian bible cover to cover repeatedly (I own 3 btw). I don't follow the faith, but have had 2 different ministers tell me I understand Scripture better than most of their congregations.

Great. And despite that you couldn't show an ounce of courtesy in your post.

What good is your learning if you're like that?

As the article said : "Any state law that required the school to admit gays or lesbians would violate the school's freedom of expression and religion, McKay said."

My position is, boycott the school. I'm firmly against supporting any organization that follows a discriminatory policy.

Good for you. Boycott away. But leave the bigotry in your other pants. Otherwise you're just another person who demands others to respect your position but who won't do the same.

Now, how about answering the questions I made in my initial response?

Pax,

Chris

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Chris,
With respect, my sources were basically 3 random ones I pulled off the first page of a google search as I've little time tonight to spend hours of research on the matter. If they are bad, there are good ones out there that can be found. Most of my position is based on those previously mentioned discussions and debates which aren't "linkable".

You might want to pause your counter attack and read a few years worth of my posts pro and con regarding Christianity here to have a more accurate view as to just where my head is as it isn't where you suggest as many here will verify. In any event, you read my comment as an attack on your faith, rather than the sarcasm it was. My apologies for not being clearer.

Regarding your question (singular, as I only see one)
"If the court had ruled that the school in question was not allowed to expell the students how would that not have been the state telling a relgious institution what to do when it comes to practicing its faith?"
It would have been the State telling a religious institution what to do which would then violate the implied "wall" separating religion and government as per the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (implied because while oft referenced, such a statement does not actually appear in the Federal Constitution), the 14th Amendment (though that only applies to freed slaves as per several USSC decisions cited here previously in other discussions), as well as possibly going against 330 U.S. 1 (1947), 370 U.S. 421 (1962), etc.

Now if you'd like to discuss or debate scripture or Christianity, a separate thread would probably be in order.

 

[arnisador]

On the other hand, a religious school is different-provided that they don't receive state or federal funding.

Regrettably--as it's distasteful to me--I must agree. Your money, your choice.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Regrettably--as it's distasteful to me--I must agree. Your money, your choice.

Yup.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Chris,
With respect, my sources were basically 3 random ones I pulled off the first page of a google search as I've little time tonight to spend hours of research on the matter. If they are bad, there are good ones out there that can be found. Most of my position is based on those previously mentioned discussions and debates which aren't "linkable".

If you're going to make claims on the internet about things perhaps you should supply facts to back up your argument, which is what I tried to do in my last post (something oh so rare on the internet), or even an argument in the first place. The only thing you did was post a news story and then make snarky comments. That doesn't qualify as an argument, at least not where I am from.

You might want to pause your counter attack and read a few years worth of my posts pro and con regarding Christianity here to have a more accurate view as to just where my head is as it isn't where you suggest as many here will verify.

I'm not going to do a search on every poster to see their posting history on a specific topic before I reply to a thread. Frankly, I don't care what you think regarding Christianity or any religion for that matter. That should be evident if you read my postings in this thread.

In any event, you read my comment as an attack on your faith, rather than the sarcasm it was. My apologies for not being clearer.

I am not a Lutheran. I have plenty of problems with Lutheranism, personally. Again, I don't care one whit about what you think about Lutheranim, Christianity in general, or any religion. What I cared about was the rank innacuracies you posted.

The only sarcasm in your posts were directed to people you disagreed with. You belittled people because of their beliefs, which I hardly think you'd appreciate if it was directed your way. As I said, your post lacked common courtesy.

Now if you'd like to discuss or debate scripture or Christianity, a separate thread would probably be in order.

You were the one who brought both topics up in this thread. I just posted a reply.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If you're going to make claims on the internet about things perhaps you should supply facts to back up your argument, which is what I tried to do in my last post (something oh so rare on the internet), or even an argument in the first place. The only thing you did was post a news story and then make snarky comments. That doesn't qualify as an argument, at least not where I am from.

I'll remember next time to be certain when making a 1 line reply to include 10 pages of corroborating evidence. Is there a preferred format, or should I stick to standard notation? That's more sarcasm btw.

I wasn't seeking an argument, merely posting a story and commenting on it. Last I checked the rules (which I helped write) that was allowed here.

I'm not going to do a search on every poster to see their posting history on a specific topic before I reply to a thread. Frankly, I don't care what you think regarding Christianity or any religion for that matter. That should be evident if you read my postings in this thread.

Yes, you're quite clear.

I am not a Lutheran. I have plenty of problems with Lutheranism, personally. Again, I don't care one whit about what you think about Lutheranim, Christianity in general, or any religion. What I cared about was the rank innacuracies you posted.

Yes, I'm still waiting for you to show me where what I said was in fact, inaccurate as you claim.

The only sarcasm in your posts were directed to people you disagreed with. You belittled people because of their beliefs, which I hardly think you'd appreciate if it was directed your way. As I said, your post lacked common courtesy.

I'll remember to run my next terse comment by Emily Post before hitting submit. more sarcasm.

If I belittled anyone, its a small minded and bigoted group, whose opinions and feelings are of no interest to me. What homophobes want, I can care less about. A contradiction somehow I'm sure, but not my first I'm afraid.

You were the one who brought both topics up in this thread. I just posted a reply.

Pax,

Chris

So now we're arguing theology and debating your issues with my comment rather than a rights violation and discrimination issue. Makes sense to me.

 

[elder999]

Remember, being gay is a sin, because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word, and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned, even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.

Disagree with the court ruling if you want, but don't stoop to stupid, uninformed, bigoted statements such as this one just because you disagree with the belief system of the school in question. It's obvious from what you've posted you know nothing about the transmission of texts or the translation of the same.

Bob may not, ‘tis verily true, but I’m willing to show, yet again, that I do :lol:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

We’ll leave aside the source of Corinthians-Paul, God or other, and simply assume that it was Paul. I’ll even concede that it was written circa 56 A.D., though I have my own viewpoints about this-remember that it was written in koine or Greek of the time. The original verse might look something like this:

Don't you know that the unholy will not inherit the realm of God? Don't kid yourselves. None of these will inherit the realm of God: the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers or extortionists will inherit the realm of God.

Unholy is adikos and means unjust; by extension wicked, by implication treacherous; especially heathen: unjust, unrighteous. This word has special implication, as we . Two words I'm sure caught your immediate attention: malakoi and arsenokoitai. You won't find them in whatever translation you are using–you'll find various English words and phrases instead, like "homoesexual offenders." What I have shown are the words in the original language. The truth is, no one knows absolutely for sure what the words mean, and therefore what Paul really meant.

It is important to note that at the time of Christ the word in common usage, which meant "homosexuality", was homophilia. That word was used in the Greek language until well after the time of Paul's death, but this word is never used in scripture. McNeill, in his work, The Church and the Homosexual, writes that a second century use of the word in "Apology of Aristides" seems to indicate that it means an obsessive corrupter of boys.

Professor Robin Scroggs of Chicago Theological Seminary takes the position that both words–malekos and arsenokoites-refer to the active and passive partners in the Greek practice of pederasty, which should not in any way be confused with homosexuality. Pederasty is child molestation, pure and simple. A pederastic relationship existed between a lover (usually a mature male), and a beloved, a boy young enough not to yet have whiskers. The lover was always the active partner; the beloved was required to be passive. Not every relationship was sexual in nature, but nearly all were. The beloved was not to be sexually satisfied–that was the prerogative of the lover only. When the beloved became old enough to grow whiskers and otherwise become more manly, he was exchanged for a younger person. The reason for this was because the ideal was a boy who resembled a woman. Boys would pluck facial hairs, let their hair grow, some wore makeup. Professor Scroggs contends that the boy was the malekos, and the adult the arsenkoites referred to in this passage of scripture.


While pederasty appears to be homosexual in nature, the reality is that the persons engaging in this activity were for the most part heterosexuals in nature-still are, apparently. Pederasty was considered appropriate to a boy's training for manhood. The relationship was impermanent, lasting only as long as the boy kept his youthful appearance. There was no mutuality–there was no mutual satisfaction or pleasure, and the boy was used by the lover like a thing, not as a person to love and treasure.

At any rate, this is probably NOT an injunction against homosexuality, per se-though Paul was rather obsessed about the nature of the sexual relationship and, while the question of male-male relationships in the New Testament is debatable, the question of female-female relationships is not, as it does not appear anywhere in the New Testament.

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written:

"V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of this verse is literally translated as "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some for of anal sex with other men,but they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities.

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse.

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:


All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or
All sexual behavior between two men, or
Only anal sex between two men, or
Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or
Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed?

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior, but this probably isn't so at all.

Later on, in Leviticus 20:3 we have all the severe penalties. Death. Stoning. Whatever.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Leviticus 20:3 is part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also: permits polygamy ,prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period ,bans tattoos ,prohibits eating rare meat ,bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles ,prohibits cross-breeding livestock ,bans sowing a field with mixed seed ,prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood , and requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath.

Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code. It is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp and wear polyester-cotton blends without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still abuse the Bible by taking these verses out of context and using them to bash homosexuals.

It is likely that the prohibition "thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman" came about for one of the following reasons:

Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive. Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Leviticus 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices. See 19:26-29.

Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN. If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament.

So the school is even on shaky ground religiously speaking, in that there is no Biblical proscritption against lesbianism.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

You know, I used to say that nothing that happens in California surprises me....but I think that just got disproved........

 

[chrispillertkd]

I'll remember next time to be certain when making a 1 line reply to include 10 pages of corroborating evidence. Is there a preferred format, or should I stick to standard notation? That's more sarcasm btw.

I wasn't seeking an argument, merely posting a story and commenting on it. Last I checked the rules (which I helped write) that was allowed here.

Of course it's allowed. As is pointing out the fact that you were discourteous. Your boorishness in this thread not withstanding, martialtalk is a great site as far as internet forums go. But that's not because of it but rather in spite of it.

Yes, I'm still waiting for you to show me where what I said was in fact, inaccurate as you claim.

Then you didn't even read the sites you posted as "references." The one that supposedlly showed some Lutheran groups as considering as sinful homosexual orientations, not just homosexual acts, did nothing of the sort. In fact it did quite the opposite.

I'll remember to run my next terse comment by Emily Post before hitting submit. more sarcasm.

Do whatever you want. If you end up insulting whole groups of people simply because they disagree with you and do so in a manner which lacks common courtesy hopefully someone will point that out to you again.

If I belittled anyone, its a small minded and bigoted group, whose opinions and feelings are of no interest to me. What homophobes want, I can care less about. A contradiction somehow I'm sure, but not my first I'm afraid.

It is a contradiction because you are showing yourself to be as small minded and bigoted as the people you condemn supposedlly are. But I suppose that's OK? I have met many people who claim to be open minded but are just bigots against people it's "OK" to be bigotted against.

So now we're arguing theology and debating your issues with my comment rather than a rights violation and discrimination issue. Makes sense to me.

Frankly, this discussion doesn't rise to the level of theology, something I thought you'd realize given your extensive knowledge that you reference in your posts. It was a discussion of the accuracy of biblical transmission and translation, as well as (and more importantly in this context) the accuracey of your claims about certain points of doctrine. Neither one of those is theology, per se. What is most disturbing (to me, anyway) is your unwillingness to give the people you disagree with the courtesy of accurately representing their position. I somehow doubt that you would appreciate similar treatment. Or is that OK because the school in question somehow offended you? Maybe we're only supposed to be courteous when it suits us.

Pax,

Chris

 

[CanuckMA]

So the school is even on shaky ground religiously speaking, in that there is no Biblical proscritption against lesbianism.

It gets better. There is no prohibition against homosexuality per say. Only against physical homosexual acts.

 

[MA-Caver]

Funny how this turned into a theological argument ... excuse please, discussion, rather than a discussion on points of law of whether a school can enforce rules based on it's beliefs.

Also remember that it is VERY difficult to ascertain discourtesy on text alone. Tonal inflections of sarcasm, contempt, annoyance, are impossible to pick up and thus could be easily confused with reasoning, assertiveness and understanding while disagreeing.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion (especially here on MT) they don't necessarily have to be your own.

Suggest that if you find yourself becoming emotionally agitated by someone's post it's a good idea to back off, regain the calm you had when you first sat down at your computer and then tackle the points in the post you wish to address.

Just an idea. :asian:

 

[tellner]

What's even more asinine is that they weren't expelled for being lesbians and thus harming the delicate sensibilities of the Good Christian Children. They were expelled for:

"a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship,"
...
The girls were expelled in their junior year for "conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians," said McKay, who added that the girls never disclosed their sexual orientation during the litigation. Hanson said the girls had been "best friends"

The dispute started when a student at the school told a teacher in 2005 that one of the girls had said she loved the other. The student advised the teacher to look at the girls' MySpace pages. One of the girls was identified as bisexual on her MySpace page, the other's page said she was "not sure" of her sexual orientation.

McKay said the website also contained a photograph of the girls hugging.

According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other

In other words, they were acting like, well, just about every teenage girl with a BFF or a same-sex crush.