What ever happened to FREEDOM OF CHOICE?

No such thing in Private Schools it appears.

why shouldn't PRIVATE schools actually have MORALS
and the ability to decide who they want in their schools

btw:EVERY MAJOR COLLEGE chooses who they want why do you think we had to submitt an application to enroll?so THEY can choose who they want

one more thing you said what happened to freedom of choice (your absolutly right)
what happened to the PRIVATE schools choice

it works both ways

Some people just don't like it when others are allowed their rights. And keep in mind people, California already shot down the gay "marriage" BS, so what would you expect?

Yes, the private schools should have the right to allow or disallow anyone, and they do, keep in mind that we already have "black" colleges and clubs. Are you trying to imply that they should be forced to open their enrollment along with these other private schools?

This is pretty much the same issue as when they passed the non smoking laws and stole the rights of small business owners to decide who could do what in their establishments. That was wrong. If these schools can afford or don't care about the loss of tuition from gays, that is their perogative.

Wow all this going on in the Obama administration... you think it would have stopped after Bush left...

They still have free choice..they can either choose to go there or choose not to...

I believe that religious schools are extentions of Chruches and share their right to establish their own rules and bylaws..just like All black schools and all girls schools..all muslim schools

So if they want to establish an all gay school, go to a church that will help you establish one..pretty simple huh??

That DOES sound like the most reasonable solution. But, they weren't exactly reasonable on the marriage issue, so I don't expect it on this one.

I do believe in separation of Church from the State, our constitution prohibits the government from intruding on the church, and it should remain that way. And although I do not support the gay issues, I believe that this is America and people can do or think as they please..just don't force me to believe or except other ideas..

Marriages can be performed by the church, and is not legally binding by the government. They require a legal document to be signed to bind two people legally. If the government decides to allow the legal binding of two people together then that is up to them, but the government cannot and should not try to force churches to perform marriages.

It is sad that this private school chose to take their homophobia out on children that are there to learn. While I do understand that people have the choice whether or not to go to private schools such as this one, I can't understand how people would think it's ok to expel a student based on their sexual orientation. It's definitely sending the wrong message to children and teaching them to be close minded. Is that what we really need? More people growing up to be close minded and homophobic?

That is exactly the point to turn out close minded religiously brain washed phobics of one kind or another, and the legal right to do it. I am sure there is a more pc way of putting it.

Phobias indicate fear..I don't think most christian people fear Homosexuals, I know I don't...I find it un-natural, since nature is driven by the need to reproduce itself...and they cannot do that...But you are more interested in calling people names and demeaning them for their beleifs while patting yourself on the back for your unbrainwashed mind and openmindedness. At least be fair and consistant in your belief, hipocracy is ugly.

Do you also find couples who don't have kids to be unnatural? Since they're not reproducing?

I'm not demeaning anyone. I'm saying I think it's sad to be so close minded and to be able to teach kids that by expelling some because of sexual preference. If you think that's perfectly fine and normal.. then it's your right. Just as it's my right to be amazed that people still think that way.

Get a grip! Fear homosexuals?, I would say it's more about fearing homosexuality in themselves or in their children, fear that it' some how catching.

You have no clue what nature is driven by Delsold, there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom as well.

And as for calling names, if you Christians will stop maybe I will too. Never thought to pat myself on the back for being open minded or un-brainwashed, but come to think of it, Thanks for the tip..

It took getting rid of the Christian brainwashing I took in as a kid to come to open mindedness myself.

Hypocrisy is ugly, maybe you want to tell your conservative friends the same.

By the way i am fair and consistent in my belief, you guys haven't changed have you?

I do not fear homosexuals in any way, and if my daughter was alive today, I wouldn't fear for her either.

Animals are driven to reproduce by scent and the innate desire they were born with..I don't know of any species that has survived by being homosexual. And I don't personally know any animals that are mated in a homosexual relationship..must have missed that in my science and biology classes.. It is part of the nature versus nurture debate in the science world.

You don't know what I believe or if I am a christian or not, because you treat anyone that differs from your opinion, you assume things..and you know what they say about assuming don't you??

I do not support hipocracy in any form, coming from a conservative or liberal, it is all the same to me, a living condradiction I guess.

And by "you guys" I am not sure who you are talking about, if I were a black man, I would call that statement racist by your standards, if I were a woman, I would call that gender biased by your standards, If I were a homosexual I would call that homophobic by your standards...but you don't know me so I would call that hypocracy..since you claim to be openminded...

And Singme, I would call it un-natural for a man an a woman to not bare children..since it is natural for men and women together to mate and reproduce..but that does not make them weird, wrong or bad in my book. Unfortunate would most likely come to mind. Since it would be unfortunate that they couldn't have children. People that do not support homosexuallity because of their faith beliefs are people too, and have feelings, and want inclusion too, feel discriminated against, and repressed and oppressed just as other groups have too. Because most liberal people treat them that way...inequality runs both directions, so all I ask is that we treat each other they way we want to be treated... is that so hard for liberals to grasp??

.. So what are you saying your daughter was gay, yet you are still against it? Explain..

You appear to have missed a few classes on the animal kingdom but I won't push it.......

I have pretty good idea where you stand having read many of your posts. If you didn't get what I meant about YOU GUYS then I expect you missed the meaning of what I said altogether... It had nothing to do with racism...

'''''''''''
Because most liberal people treat them that way...inequality runs both directions, so all I ask is that we treat each other they way we want to be treated... is that so hard for liberals to grasp??
''''''''''''''

There you go again with the liberal this and liberal that, and you wonder why I respond in kind... LOL

My daughter was killed in a car accident 7 years..8 years ago now, she wasn't old enough to determine what her preference was..she was only 2..but I would not have loved her any less, I still wouldn't support it either.

I have a BSN and although I did not continue in the sciences, I have taken enough classes to know that although there are abborations in all species, it is not a very common attribute in any of them. Only a small percentage of humans are homosexual, less then 4%, not the 13% some like to claim, but it is not important to me either way.

I was just kidding about the racism..just showing how hypocritical those that claim how openminded and diverse they are..since they can't seem to show those that don't agree with them the same amount of respect they demand.

Liberal is not a bad word...or at least I thought so. I do not consider conservative a bad name either, I point out the inconsistancies of some that sterotype me, but connect others with the statements that each person makes only to point out the hypocracy of their own words. So if you think I am bad because I am conservative, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I do not think you are bad because you are liberal.

I am conservative socially and fiscally, I have never claimed to be above or below anyone. I desire to talk about issues and ask questions to try to determine the thinking behind each persons statements and can defend people of faith against the bigotry and hatred that is spewed against them. Christians were considered for many generations to be overall good people, but times have changed and moral values have declined, and now you get people that hate them because they stand for the same things they have believed for many centuries. I do not think that name calling is the best way to discuss issues, but might do so if that becomes the only way to discuss a subject with someone.. I look at you and others as my liberal friends..no harm...no foul..:)

There are many straight people out there who choose not to have children. By what you've said they're not wrong, but homosexuals are wrong, because it's unnatural. So, two women being in love and wanting to get married would be wrong because they cannot have children? A man and women being in love and wanting to get married, but choose to have no children would be fine to you?

Don,t ask don,t tell

I am sorry that you lost your daughter, but it's sad that you would not support her being who she is, but that's your choice...

That said: You don't even recognize your own subtle condescension do you?

I would say that you have no more idea what percentage of the US is gay than I do. I can only say that it is far more than you think, considering most of the gays I know do not want it known due to the typical actions taken against them.

You were kidding about the racism, so then I can't really take anything you say seriously... hmmm



No kidding? As if I couldn't tell...



A we have something in common then, as I like to defend people of NO FAITH against the bigotry and hatred that is spewed against them....



There you go with that subtle condescension... Of course your morals are so much better than those of others... I do not hate you for standing for the same things you have believed for centuries. We might and do dislike the fact that you use your antiquated beliefs to condemn others.

If you read my previous statements, I said that marriage is a church function, not to be mistaken for the state requirements of a legal document they sign to signify their union. If two people want to go before a judge and join in a legal union or contract with each other, that has nothing to do with a church wedding. After all, you can be married in a church, but not recognized by the state as being married, or united by a judge, and not be married as far as the church is concerned.. people want to blurr the lines between the church and the government santioned ceremonies. If the state wants to pass laws for people to join in a legal binding agreement, just as they do now, then so be it, I did not comment on that activity.
About being natural, procreation is only possible in humans between a man and a woman, not being able to do that is un-natural, is it not? I didn't say one way or the other whether it was right or wrong, just that it was un-natural. Two people that chose not to have children is not natural, because unless barren, they have to take un-natural steps to prevent it. I have noticed that since people have changed the meaning of words to no longer mean what they were designed to say, there is alot of confusion, and I believe that this is the case here.

I also stated that I did not support the homosexual agenda, but belive that in this country, a person can believe or do whatever they want.If law makers passed laws making homosexual contracts legal, then that is up to them, I do not pass laws and only have my one vote. But if they pass laws allowing two men or two women to join in a union, why can't 3 people or more join in a union or contract also?? Or as disgusting as it is to think, why not between humans and animals? In california they want animals to be treated as humans, with the same rights as people..Now I wouldn't support that for obvious reasons, and it disgusts me to even think about it, but my feelings about it shouldn't make it wrong right?? But what grounds do you have to object to multiple people getting married and animals being people getting married?