100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: "Let Constance Take Her Girlfriend to Prom!" | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Gays don't have any more rights than any other American.It's a lifestyle that is chosen to live.If gays have special rights in the Constitution or the Bill of rights I would love to read about it because I don't remember reading it anywhere. We do however have the freedom of religion...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.That means if the gays and the ACLU are demanding we lose our faith and values because of what they tell us to do they are violating our rights to express our freedom of Religion.We have the rights it is in the Bill of rights. I don't see much difference between Hitlers way of thinking and the Gay mafia.They both wanted religion destroyed and freedom of speech and thought re-written to suit their needs.Gays love to speak of tolerance but show nothing but hate to those who oppose them. They don't have near the rights a straight person does..... examples of a right 'straight' folks have which 'gay' folks do not please? How about Marriage for starters then the right to serve in the military and defend our country OPENLY. to walk down the street without being assaulted or spit on or called names? to receive promotions based off of ability and not their sexual partners? to adopt? to freaking live life like everyone else does? I have to disagree here with the definition of a RIGHT, rights do not protect people from PERSONAL attacks, they protect them from legal ones. The law does not allow assaults on anyone, or discrimination at work either. The law also allows gay people to adopt,, it happens quite often if you take a look at the celebrity world. As far as living life like everyone else does,, homosexuals do that too,,,everyone else faces some type of bigotry and obstacles in their life... That line of thinking, IMO, is thwarted msharmony!!! Contrary to your observation above, laws are meant to protect all individuals from all PERSONAL ATTACKS!!! Whether physical, verbal or psychological, all discriminatory or physically abusive acts against anyone's basic integrity, is exactly that from which individual rights laws are designed to protect all individuals: '... prevent all attacks against all individuals...!' Now I'll grant you that we couldn't afford to enforce the full reach of the law, given ALL the bigotry, and cultivated mentality of 'judgemental intolerance' 'thomas' often describes in his posts, which fuels a toxic flow of acts of intolerance and discrimination, a lot of which go unpunished. But the letter of the law is very clear: no individual should be subjected to bigotry, intolerance or discrimination, regardless of one's personal interpretation of one's religious beliefs. that was my point,, the law DOES give homosexuals that same RIGHT..whether they face bigotry on a personal level is not something that is based in LAW but in peoples personal choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 03/28/10 10:46 AM
|
|
I don't see why she doesn't take the school district to court . should be worth millions ....... except she can no longer prove discrimination as the dance has been cancelled for EVERYONE this does not prove she was not dediscriminated against . in fact I'm not even a lawyer and could win this .. It just shows how bad they would go to to punish her . little towns , big towns , states cannot make laws over the federal laws . it seems people have not recieved much of an education in consitutional laws lately . give it up bigots they have as much rights as any of you , even as much as people who come here and lie about there poor lifes . I think the point is being missed. We are not talking about a CLASS at school, or schoolbooks that other students have, or a desk,,,,we are talking about a SCHOOL DANCE..which is a privilege to begin with and not a RIGHT. schools can and do choose or not choose to have dances all the time AND because the dance was cancelled for EVERYONE she cant prove that she was specifically discriminated against or that the dance was cancelled because of her lifestyle as opposed to being cancelled because of the unwanted publicity the story brought to the dance,, You are missing the point msharmony, School officials, whom Ms McMillenn informed of her intentions, DENIED HER what were her, and anyone else living in the USA, legitimate First Amendment rights assured under the Constitution. The school officials had their day in court, pleaded their case, and were found to have failed to uphold their obligations, to guarantee Ms McMillenn her first amendment rights, as they are bound to do under the Mississippi Code of 1972, SEC. 37-9-69: 'General duties of superintendents, principals and teachers'. It's that's simple: under US law, the conditions that the school officials imposed on MsMcMillenn, were a clear/cut case of DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. WHETHER THE DANCE TOOK PLACE OR NOT, MSMCMILLENN WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAISNT. That's the 'rule of law'!!! The only 'opinion' that counts in a civil and democratic society which is governed under the rule of law. Those laws were legislated by democratically elected representatives of the People. Those Laws are the ultimate and only 'MAJORITY' that count. A 'msjority' of people at the school not wanting to be around MsMillenn unless she met their petty personal 'religious' CONDITIONS, as 'thomas' colorfully expressed it, are plain and simple INTOLERANT AND EQUALLY GUILTY OF DISCRIMINATION. To push the ill logic further, imagine a dance with a written rule, and signs at the front door, 'NO INTOLERANT CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS ALLOWED'!!! Impossible is right! And so it is with 'NO TUXEDO WEARING HOMOSEXUAL GIRL WITH SAME SEX PARTNER ALLOWED'!!! If gays have to tolerate the 'intolerant fundamentalist christians', this latter bunch is bound under the Constitution to respect the same rights for all gays, regardless of any and all personal religious beliefs or dogma. Wow! You are correct. I respect the courts ruling but I think it is a ridiculous double standard... this girls choice of lifestyle is protected under the court so that she can come to a dance with a female,,,but another childs choice of faith is not protected , merely because it might involve faith,,if she chooses to play ave maria at her graduation(noone else is being forced to play ave maria, it is her personal choice, just as this girls choice to bring a girl)still,,,,,,,,very sad and inconsistent to me,, but so be it |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
cashu
on
Sun 03/28/10 12:00 PM
|
|
The school is public property.......... The is the ONLY time I will ever say this in my life, I hope the ACLU east the principal and all the school people involved in this discrimination for lunch. I don't see where these schools now days think they have the right to tell anyone how to dress or who to asso. with . When they get there day in court I hope most of the money they lose has to be paid from the principles bank account and not the dum as tax payers Its called equalty under the law . I have never seen any laws that says you can't speak of your faith in schools . but under our laws If you don't fight for your rights you have no rights .. And that is a court ruleing . But you have no right to interupt the schools business either . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 03/28/10 11:51 AM
|
|
The school is public property.......... The is the ONLY time I will ever say this in my life, I hope the ACLU east the principal and all the school people involved in this discrimination for lunch. I don't see where these schools now days think they have the right to tell anyone how to dress or who to asso. with . When they get there day in court I hope most of the money they lose has to be paid from the principles bank account and not the dum as tax payers . \ the same place which gives them the right to tell anyone when or where they can express their faith... I hope this sets a precedent for christian students to start suing to express their beliefs at school events.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Mon 03/29/10 07:24 AM
|
|
The school is public property.......... The is the ONLY time I will ever say this in my life, I hope the ACLU east the principal and all the school people involved in this discrimination for lunch. I don't see where these schools now days think they have the right to tell anyone how to dress or who to asso. with . When they get there day in court I hope most of the money they lose has to be paid from the principles bank account and not the dum as tax payers . the same place which gives them the right to tell anyone when or where they can express their faith... I hope this sets a precedent for christian students to start suing to express their beliefs at school events.. Msharmony, As is the case with being heterosexual, being homosexual has nothing to do with faith, beliefs, or religious dogma. As an analogy, if a religion, as a part of its ridiculous dogma, claimed that 'blacks' were an abomination in the eyes of god', and that its followers were to 'feel violated' in their rights, being in the presence of blacks that didn't 'paint their faces white' (to stay true to the situation at hand), ... we would all, and I mean unanimously, find the delusional followers of that faith 'out to lunch' (I hope)!!! You can personally and privately believe what you wish, BUT DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH THE REALITY OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS: the fundamental rights of a human being, regardless of sexual orientation, TRUMPS PERSONAL CHOICES AS TO WHAT ONE WISHES TO HOLD AS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!!! It is a fundamental and intrinsic aspect of being human beings, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is not a 'choice' in the eyes of the law. Not anymore than being white, or black would ever be considered a 'choice'!!! While you and all other free nations citizens are afforded the freedom to believe, and not believe, one's beliefs or non-beliefs has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rule of law (law affords rights to practice faith, BUT IT IS NOT BASED ON FAITH). Christian fundamentalists persist in their personal beliefs that 'homosexuality' is an abomination, and PERSIST in this delusion that homosexuals, BEING just what they are, 'homosexuals', IS AN ABOMINATION IN FACT!!! That is a pure delusion!!! IT IS NOT SO NOW, AND IT IS NOT EVER GOING TO SO IN REAL LIFE, FOR 'RULE OF LAW' AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDED 'FREE NATIONS'. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or transsexuals, are all equal human beings, with absolute equal rights under the law. And as such, their 'human beingness' will never represent a possible infringement of the equal rights of other equal human beings!!! Let's all get real. There is limit to twisting everything around to fit delusional religious doctrine. Again, EQUAL RIGHTS AFFORDED ALL HUMAN BEINGS, TRUMPS ABSOLUTELY ANY RELIGIOUS CHOICES OF BELIEFS, ALWAYS!!! One 's religious dogma cannot discriminate against the fundamental rights of another human being. That in part, is why a secular morality has displaced church and religion dogma with the emergence of free and democratic Nations. ... and that important change in civilized nations, has happened a few hundred of years ago. It would high noon to get with the program!!! HOMOSEXUALS ARE 100% HUMAN BEINGS, and as such, ARE AFFORDED FULL EQUAL HUMAN (being) RIGHTS. No religious rights will ever trump that universal principle in the FREE NATION PARADIGM!!! I'm afraid msharmony that anyone whom persists in claiming that their RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE are violated simply by 'being exposed to homosexuals being homosexual', ARE JUST plain bigots, demonstrating an extreme degree of INTOLERANCE, and ultimately are guilty of discrimination toward EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The school is public property.......... The is the ONLY time I will ever say this in my life, I hope the ACLU east the principal and all the school people involved in this discrimination for lunch. I don't see where these schools now days think they have the right to tell anyone how to dress or who to asso. with . When they get there day in court I hope most of the money they lose has to be paid from the principles bank account and not the dum as tax payers . the same place which gives them the right to tell anyone when or where they can express their faith... I hope this sets a precedent for christian students to start suing to express their beliefs at school events.. Msharmony, As is the case with being heterosexual, being homosexual has nothing to do with faith, beliefs, or religious dogma. As an analogy, if a religion, as a part of its ridiculous dogma, claimed that 'blacks' were an abomination in the eyes of god', and that its followers were to 'feel violated' in their rights, being in the presence of blacks that didn't 'paint their faces white' (to stay true to the situation at hand), ... we would all, and I mean unanimously, find the delusional followers of that faith 'out to lunch' (I hope)!!! You can personally and privately believe what you wish, BUT DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH THE REALITY OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS: the fundamental rights of a human being, regardless of sexual orientation, TRUMPS PERSONAL CHOICES AS TO WHAT ONE WISHES TO HOLD AS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!!! It is a fundamental and intrinsic aspect of being human beings, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is not a 'choice' in the eyes of the law. Not anymore than being white, or black would ever be considered a 'choice'!!! While you and all other free nations citizens are afforded the freedom to believe, and not believe, one's beliefs or non-beliefs has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rule of law (law affords rights to practice faith, BUT IT IS NOT BASED ON FAITH). Christian fundamentalists persist in their personal beliefs that 'homosexuality' is an abomination, and PERSIST in this delusion that homosexuals, BEING just what they are, 'homosexuals', IS AN ABOMINATION IN FACT!!! That is a pure delusion!!! IT IS NOT SO NOW, AND IT IS NOT EVER GOING TO SO IN REAL LIFE, FOR 'RULE OF LAW' AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDED 'FREE NATIONS'. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or transsexuals, are all equal human beings, with absolute equal rights under the law. And as such, their 'human beingness' will never represent a possible infringement of the equal rights of other equal human beings!!! Let's all get real. There is limit to twisting everything around to fit delusional religious doctrine. Again, EQUAL RIGHTS AFFORDED ALL HUMAN BEINGS, TRUMPS ABSOLUTELY ANY RELIGIOUS CHOICES OF BELIEFS, ALWAYS!!! One 's religious dogma cannot discriminate against the fundamental rights of another human being. That in part, is why a secular morality has displaced church and religion dogma with the emergence of free and democratic Nations. ... and that important change in civilized nations, has happened a few hundred of years ago. It would high noon to get with the program!!! HOMOSEXUALS ARE 100% HUMAN BEINGS, and as such, ARE AFFORDED FULL EQUAL HUMAN (being) RIGHTS. No religious rights will ever trump that universal principle in the FREE NATION PARADIGM!!! I'm afraid msharmony that anyone whom persists in claiming that their RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE are violated simply by 'being exposed to homosexuals being homosexual', ARE JUST plain bigots, demonstrating an extreme degree of INTOLERANCE, and ultimately are guilty of discrimination toward EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!!! Except I did not persist any such thing,,, I equated others right not to be exposed to my EXPRESSION of myself(because it is tied with a religion) as no LESS ridiculous than the choice not to be exposed to anyone elses expression of themself(by whom they CHOOSE to bring to a dance). Certainly, if one can come to a school dance with whomever they wish, being protected from any guideline from the school of who that can be,,,another can play a song at a school graduation of whatever choice they wish(excluding vulgarity) and be protected similarly from guidelines from the school. Loving god is as much WHO I am as being homosexual is who someone else is. So its GREAT that a homosexual has the same right to show up at a dance with whomever they wish that a heterosexual does and it should also be that a CHRISTIAN should have the right to express the musical piece they wish to during a graduation with the same protection(separation of church and state ensures BOTH that the state does not give specific support to religion NOR hinder the personal religiious choice of others) My point, in summary , was. This case may now be precedent for the rest of us not to be discriminated against for WHO We are,, even if who we are is a Christian. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Mon 03/29/10 10:52 AM
|
|
The school is public property.......... The is the ONLY time I will ever say this in my life, I hope the ACLU east the principal and all the school people involved in this discrimination for lunch. I don't see where these schools now days think they have the right to tell anyone how to dress or who to asso. with . When they get there day in court I hope most of the money they lose has to be paid from the principles bank account and not the dum as tax payers . the same place which gives them the right to tell anyone when or where they can express their faith... I hope this sets a precedent for christian students to start suing to express their beliefs at school events.. Msharmony, As is the case with being heterosexual, being homosexual has nothing to do with faith, beliefs, or religious dogma. As an analogy, if a religion, as a part of its ridiculous dogma, claimed that 'blacks' were an abomination in the eyes of god', and that its followers were to 'feel violated' in their rights, being in the presence of blacks that didn't 'paint their faces white' (to stay true to the situation at hand), ... we would all, and I mean unanimously, find the delusional followers of that faith 'out to lunch' (I hope)!!! You can personally and privately believe what you wish, BUT DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH THE REALITY OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS: the fundamental rights of a human being, regardless of sexual orientation, TRUMPS PERSONAL CHOICES AS TO WHAT ONE WISHES TO HOLD AS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!!! It is a fundamental and intrinsic aspect of being human beings, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is not a 'choice' in the eyes of the law. Not anymore than being white, or black would ever be considered a 'choice'!!! While you and all other free nations citizens are afforded the freedom to believe, and not believe, one's beliefs or non-beliefs has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rule of law (law affords rights to practice faith, BUT IT IS NOT BASED ON FAITH). Christian fundamentalists persist in their personal beliefs that 'homosexuality' is an abomination, and PERSIST in this delusion that homosexuals, BEING just what they are, 'homosexuals', IS AN ABOMINATION IN FACT!!! That is a pure delusion!!! IT IS NOT SO NOW, AND IT IS NOT EVER GOING TO SO IN REAL LIFE, FOR 'RULE OF LAW' AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDED 'FREE NATIONS'. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or transsexuals, are all equal human beings, with absolute equal rights under the law. And as such, their 'human beingness' will never represent a possible infringement of the equal rights of other equal human beings!!! Let's all get real. There is limit to twisting everything around to fit delusional religious doctrine. Again, EQUAL RIGHTS AFFORDED ALL HUMAN BEINGS, TRUMPS ABSOLUTELY ANY RELIGIOUS CHOICES OF BELIEFS, ALWAYS!!! One 's religious dogma cannot discriminate against the fundamental rights of another human being. That in part, is why a secular morality has displaced church and religion dogma with the emergence of free and democratic Nations. ... and that important change in civilized nations, has happened a few hundred of years ago. It would high noon to get with the program!!! HOMOSEXUALS ARE 100% HUMAN BEINGS, and as such, ARE AFFORDED FULL EQUAL HUMAN (being) RIGHTS. No religious rights will ever trump that universal principle in the FREE NATION PARADIGM!!! I'm afraid msharmony that anyone whom persists in claiming that their RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE are violated simply by 'being exposed to homosexuals being homosexual', ARE JUST plain bigots, demonstrating an extreme degree of INTOLERANCE, and ultimately are guilty of discrimination toward EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!!! Except I did not persist any such thing,,, I equated others right not to be exposed to my EXPRESSION of myself(because it is tied with a religion) as no LESS ridiculous than the choice not to be exposed to anyone elses expression of themself(by whom they CHOOSE to bring to a dance). Certainly, if one can come to a school dance with whomever they wish, being protected from any guideline from the school of who that can be,,,another can play a song at a school graduation of whatever choice they wish(excluding vulgarity) and be protected similarly from guidelines from the school. Loving god is as much WHO I am as being homosexual is who someone else is. So its GREAT that a homosexual has the same right to show up at a dance with whomever they wish that a heterosexual does and it should also be that a CHRISTIAN should have the right to express the musical piece they wish to during a graduation with the same protection(separation of church and state ensures BOTH that the state does not give specific support to religion NOR hinder the personal religiious choice of others) My point, in summary , was. This case may now be precedent for the rest of us not to be discriminated against for WHO We are,, even if who we are is a Christian. Try as you may msharmony, while you can confuse the two on your personal time, who you are in the eyes of the law, isn't a christian as in 'Who I am is a christian human being'!!! In a rule of law, and free democratic society, you are a human being period, like every other human beings, as defined in the universal human rights charter. It just so happens that as a human being (first), you have PERSONALLY 'chosen' to practice christianity as a religion (second). The first has no legal connection with the second, from a legal treatment perspective. So first, you are a human being, and afforded protection under human rights laws right alongside all homosexuals. Following that, as a human being, you may personally choose to practice or not practice a particular religion. And should you personally choose to practice a religion, as is your case, your rights of freedom of practice will afford the right to 'PERSONALLY' practice the religion of your choice. But that personal right of practice, will never give you, or anyone else, the right to impose any part of your religion publicly, much less TRUMP the universal right of another human being. About the partner Prom 'invite'. You keep saying 'inviting anyone one chooses!!!'. That is profoundly inaccurate. It boils down to inviting another human man being!!! That's human rights!!! And human beings of 'same sex' orientation, happen to dance with 'same sex' partners, just like opposite sex orientation human beings, happen to dance with opposite sex partners. There is no direct connection between the administration of Universal Human Rights issues, and the administration of freedom of practicing a religion of one's personal choice. Confuse in your private right to practice your religious dogma if you wish, but in the public domain, it's not going anywhere!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As is the case with being heterosexual, being homosexual has nothing to do with faith, beliefs, or religious dogma. As an analogy, if a religion, as a part of its ridiculous dogma, claimed that 'blacks' were an abomination in the eyes of god', and that its followers were to 'feel violated' in their rights, being in the presence of blacks that didn't 'paint their faces white' (to stay true to the situation at hand), ... we would all, and I mean unanimously, find the delusional followers of that faith 'out to lunch' (I hope)!!! You can personally and privately believe what you wish, BUT DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH THE REALITY OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS: the fundamental rights of a human being, regardless of sexual orientation, TRUMPS PERSONAL CHOICES AS TO WHAT ONE WISHES TO HOLD AS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!!! It is a fundamental and intrinsic aspect of being human beings, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is not a 'choice' in the eyes of the law. Not anymore than being white, or black would ever be considered a 'choice'!!! While you and all other free nations citizens are afforded the freedom to believe, and not believe, one's beliefs or non-beliefs has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rule of law (law affords rights to practice faith, BUT IT IS NOT BASED ON FAITH). Christian fundamentalists persist in their personal beliefs that 'homosexuality' is an abomination, and PERSIST in this delusion that homosexuals, BEING just what they are, 'homosexuals', IS AN ABOMINATION IN FACT!!! That is a pure delusion!!! IT IS NOT SO NOW, AND IT IS NOT EVER GOING TO SO IN REAL LIFE, FOR 'RULE OF LAW' AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDED 'FREE NATIONS'. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or transsexuals, are all equal human beings, with absolute equal rights under the law. And as such, their 'human beingness' will never represent a possible infringement of the equal rights of other equal human beings!!! Let's all get real. There is limit to twisting everything around to fit delusional religious doctrine. Again, EQUAL RIGHTS AFFORDED ALL HUMAN BEINGS, TRUMPS ABSOLUTELY ANY RELIGIOUS CHOICES OF BELIEFS, ALWAYS!!! One 's religious dogma cannot discriminate against the fundamental rights of another human being. That in part, is why a secular morality has displaced church and religion dogma with the emergence of free and democratic Nations. ... and that important change in civilized nations, has happened a few hundred of years ago. It would high noon to get with the program!!! HOMOSEXUALS ARE 100% HUMAN BEINGS, and as such, ARE AFFORDED FULL EQUAL HUMAN (being) RIGHTS. No religious rights will ever trump that universal principle in the FREE NATION PARADIGM!!! I'm afraid msharmony that anyone whom persists in claiming that their RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE are violated simply by 'being exposed to homosexuals being homosexual', ARE JUST plain bigots, demonstrating an extreme degree of INTOLERANCE, and ultimately are guilty of discrimination toward EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!!! Except I did not persist any such thing,,, I equated others right not to be exposed to my EXPRESSION of myself(because it is tied with a religion) as no LESS ridiculous than the choice not to be exposed to anyone elses expression of themself(by whom they CHOOSE to bring to a dance). Certainly, if one can come to a school dance with whomever they wish, being protected from any guideline from the school of who that can be,,,another can play a song at a school graduation of whatever choice they wish(excluding vulgarity) and be protected similarly from guidelines from the school. Loving god is as much WHO I am as being homosexual is who someone else is. So its GREAT that a homosexual has the same right to show up at a dance with whomever they wish that a heterosexual does and it should also be that a CHRISTIAN should have the right to express the musical piece they wish to during a graduation with the same protection(separation of church and state ensures BOTH that the state does not give specific support to religion NOR hinder the personal religiious choice of others) My point, in summary , was. This case may now be precedent for the rest of us not to be discriminated against for WHO We are,, even if who we are is a Christian. Try as you may msharmony, while you can confuse the two on your personal time, who you are in the eyes of the law, isn't a christian as in 'Who I am is a christian human being'!!! In a rule of law, and free democratic society, you are a human being period, like every other human beings, as defined in the universal human rights charter. It just so happens that as a human being (first), you have PERSONALLY 'chosen' to practice christianity as a religion (second). The first has no legal connection with the second, from a legal treatment perspective. So first, you are a human being, and afforded protection under human rights laws right alongside all homosexuals. Following that, as a human being, you may personally choose to practice or not practice a particular religion. And should you personally choose to practice a religion, as is your case, your rights of freedom of practice will afford the right to 'PERSONALLY' practice the religion of your choice. But that personal right of practice, will never give you, or anyone else, the right to impose any part of your religion publicly, much less TRUMP the universal right of another human being. About the partner Prom 'invite'. You keep saying 'inviting anyone one chooses!!!'. That is profoundly inaccurate. It boils down to inviting another human man being!!! That's human rights!!! And human beings of 'same sex' orientation, happen to dance with 'same sex' partners, just like opposite sex orientation human beings, happen to dance with opposite sex partners. There is no direct connection between the administration of Universal Human Rights issues, and the administration of freedom of practicing a religion of one's personal choice. Confuse in your private right to practice your religious dogma if you wish, but in the public domain, it's not going anywhere!!! and god bless you devil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Mon 03/29/10 12:53 PM
|
|
As is the case with being heterosexual, being homosexual has nothing to do with faith, beliefs, or religious dogma. As an analogy, if a religion, as a part of its ridiculous dogma, claimed that 'blacks' were an abomination in the eyes of god', and that its followers were to 'feel violated' in their rights, being in the presence of blacks that didn't 'paint their faces white' (to stay true to the situation at hand), ... we would all, and I mean unanimously, find the delusional followers of that faith 'out to lunch' (I hope)!!! You can personally and privately believe what you wish, BUT DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH THE REALITY OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS: the fundamental rights of a human being, regardless of sexual orientation, TRUMPS PERSONAL CHOICES AS TO WHAT ONE WISHES TO HOLD AS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!!! It is a fundamental and intrinsic aspect of being human beings, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is not a 'choice' in the eyes of the law. Not anymore than being white, or black would ever be considered a 'choice'!!! While you and all other free nations citizens are afforded the freedom to believe, and not believe, one's beliefs or non-beliefs has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rule of law (law affords rights to practice faith, BUT IT IS NOT BASED ON FAITH). Christian fundamentalists persist in their personal beliefs that 'homosexuality' is an abomination, and PERSIST in this delusion that homosexuals, BEING just what they are, 'homosexuals', IS AN ABOMINATION IN FACT!!! That is a pure delusion!!! IT IS NOT SO NOW, AND IT IS NOT EVER GOING TO SO IN REAL LIFE, FOR 'RULE OF LAW' AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDED 'FREE NATIONS'. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or transsexuals, are all equal human beings, with absolute equal rights under the law. And as such, their 'human beingness' will never represent a possible infringement of the equal rights of other equal human beings!!! Let's all get real. There is limit to twisting everything around to fit delusional religious doctrine. Again, EQUAL RIGHTS AFFORDED ALL HUMAN BEINGS, TRUMPS ABSOLUTELY ANY RELIGIOUS CHOICES OF BELIEFS, ALWAYS!!! One 's religious dogma cannot discriminate against the fundamental rights of another human being. That in part, is why a secular morality has displaced church and religion dogma with the emergence of free and democratic Nations. ... and that important change in civilized nations, has happened a few hundred of years ago. It would high noon to get with the program!!! HOMOSEXUALS ARE 100% HUMAN BEINGS, and as such, ARE AFFORDED FULL EQUAL HUMAN (being) RIGHTS. No religious rights will ever trump that universal principle in the FREE NATION PARADIGM!!! I'm afraid msharmony that anyone whom persists in claiming that their RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE are violated simply by 'being exposed to homosexuals being homosexual', ARE JUST plain bigots, demonstrating an extreme degree of INTOLERANCE, and ultimately are guilty of discrimination toward EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!!! Except I did not persist any such thing,,, I equated others right not to be exposed to my EXPRESSION of myself(because it is tied with a religion) as no LESS ridiculous than the choice not to be exposed to anyone elses expression of themself(by whom they CHOOSE to bring to a dance). Certainly, if one can come to a school dance with whomever they wish, being protected from any guideline from the school of who that can be,,,another can play a song at a school graduation of whatever choice they wish(excluding vulgarity) and be protected similarly from guidelines from the school. Loving god is as much WHO I am as being homosexual is who someone else is. So its GREAT that a homosexual has the same right to show up at a dance with whomever they wish that a heterosexual does and it should also be that a CHRISTIAN should have the right to express the musical piece they wish to during a graduation with the same protection(separation of church and state ensures BOTH that the state does not give specific support to religion NOR hinder the personal religiious choice of others) My point, in summary , was. This case may now be precedent for the rest of us not to be discriminated against for WHO We are,, even if who we are is a Christian. Try as you may msharmony, while you can confuse the two on your personal time, who you are in the eyes of the law, isn't a christian as in 'Who I am is a christian human being'!!! In a rule of law, and free democratic society, you are a human being period, like every other human beings, as defined in the universal human rights charter. It just so happens that as a human being (first), you have PERSONALLY 'chosen' to practice christianity as a religion (second). The first has no legal connection with the second, from a legal treatment perspective. So first, you are a human being, and afforded protection under human rights laws right alongside all homosexuals. Following that, as a human being, you may personally choose to practice or not practice a particular religion. And should you personally choose to practice a religion, as is your case, your rights of freedom of practice will afford the right to 'PERSONALLY' practice the religion of your choice. But that personal right of practice, will never give you, or anyone else, the right to impose any part of your religion publicly, much less TRUMP the universal right of another human being. About the partner Prom 'invite'. You keep saying 'inviting anyone one chooses!!!'. That is profoundly inaccurate. It boils down to inviting another human man being!!! That's human rights!!! And human beings of 'same sex' orientation, happen to dance with 'same sex' partners, just like opposite sex orientation human beings, happen to dance with opposite sex partners. There is no direct connection between the administration of Universal Human Rights issues, and the administration of freedom of practicing a religion of one's personal choice. Confuse in your private right to practice your religious dogma if you wish, but in the public domain, it's not going anywhere!!! and god bless you devil WOW!!! Nothing to contribute to the topic, and hiding behind god and the devil to attack and insult people!!! How so very disingenuous and hypocritically NON-CHRISTIAN!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 03/29/10 01:03 PM
|
|
As is the case with being heterosexual, being homosexual has nothing to do with faith, beliefs, or religious dogma. As an analogy, if a religion, as a part of its ridiculous dogma, claimed that 'blacks' were an abomination in the eyes of god', and that its followers were to 'feel violated' in their rights, being in the presence of blacks that didn't 'paint their faces white' (to stay true to the situation at hand), ... we would all, and I mean unanimously, find the delusional followers of that faith 'out to lunch' (I hope)!!! You can personally and privately believe what you wish, BUT DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH THE REALITY OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS: the fundamental rights of a human being, regardless of sexual orientation, TRUMPS PERSONAL CHOICES AS TO WHAT ONE WISHES TO HOLD AS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!!! It is a fundamental and intrinsic aspect of being human beings, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is not a 'choice' in the eyes of the law. Not anymore than being white, or black would ever be considered a 'choice'!!! While you and all other free nations citizens are afforded the freedom to believe, and not believe, one's beliefs or non-beliefs has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rule of law (law affords rights to practice faith, BUT IT IS NOT BASED ON FAITH). Christian fundamentalists persist in their personal beliefs that 'homosexuality' is an abomination, and PERSIST in this delusion that homosexuals, BEING just what they are, 'homosexuals', IS AN ABOMINATION IN FACT!!! That is a pure delusion!!! IT IS NOT SO NOW, AND IT IS NOT EVER GOING TO SO IN REAL LIFE, FOR 'RULE OF LAW' AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDED 'FREE NATIONS'. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or transsexuals, are all equal human beings, with absolute equal rights under the law. And as such, their 'human beingness' will never represent a possible infringement of the equal rights of other equal human beings!!! Let's all get real. There is limit to twisting everything around to fit delusional religious doctrine. Again, EQUAL RIGHTS AFFORDED ALL HUMAN BEINGS, TRUMPS ABSOLUTELY ANY RELIGIOUS CHOICES OF BELIEFS, ALWAYS!!! One 's religious dogma cannot discriminate against the fundamental rights of another human being. That in part, is why a secular morality has displaced church and religion dogma with the emergence of free and democratic Nations. ... and that important change in civilized nations, has happened a few hundred of years ago. It would high noon to get with the program!!! HOMOSEXUALS ARE 100% HUMAN BEINGS, and as such, ARE AFFORDED FULL EQUAL HUMAN (being) RIGHTS. No religious rights will ever trump that universal principle in the FREE NATION PARADIGM!!! I'm afraid msharmony that anyone whom persists in claiming that their RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE are violated simply by 'being exposed to homosexuals being homosexual', ARE JUST plain bigots, demonstrating an extreme degree of INTOLERANCE, and ultimately are guilty of discrimination toward EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!!! Except I did not persist any such thing,,, I equated others right not to be exposed to my EXPRESSION of myself(because it is tied with a religion) as no LESS ridiculous than the choice not to be exposed to anyone elses expression of themself(by whom they CHOOSE to bring to a dance). Certainly, if one can come to a school dance with whomever they wish, being protected from any guideline from the school of who that can be,,,another can play a song at a school graduation of whatever choice they wish(excluding vulgarity) and be protected similarly from guidelines from the school. Loving god is as much WHO I am as being homosexual is who someone else is. So its GREAT that a homosexual has the same right to show up at a dance with whomever they wish that a heterosexual does and it should also be that a CHRISTIAN should have the right to express the musical piece they wish to during a graduation with the same protection(separation of church and state ensures BOTH that the state does not give specific support to religion NOR hinder the personal religiious choice of others) My point, in summary , was. This case may now be precedent for the rest of us not to be discriminated against for WHO We are,, even if who we are is a Christian. Try as you may msharmony, while you can confuse the two on your personal time, who you are in the eyes of the law, isn't a christian as in 'Who I am is a christian human being'!!! In a rule of law, and free democratic society, you are a human being period, like every other human beings, as defined in the universal human rights charter. It just so happens that as a human being (first), you have PERSONALLY 'chosen' to practice christianity as a religion (second). The first has no legal connection with the second, from a legal treatment perspective. So first, you are a human being, and afforded protection under human rights laws right alongside all homosexuals. Following that, as a human being, you may personally choose to practice or not practice a particular religion. And should you personally choose to practice a religion, as is your case, your rights of freedom of practice will afford the right to 'PERSONALLY' practice the religion of your choice. But that personal right of practice, will never give you, or anyone else, the right to impose any part of your religion publicly, much less TRUMP the universal right of another human being. About the partner Prom 'invite'. You keep saying 'inviting anyone one chooses!!!'. That is profoundly inaccurate. It boils down to inviting another human man being!!! That's human rights!!! And human beings of 'same sex' orientation, happen to dance with 'same sex' partners, just like opposite sex orientation human beings, happen to dance with opposite sex partners. There is no direct connection between the administration of Universal Human Rights issues, and the administration of freedom of practicing a religion of one's personal choice. Confuse in your private right to practice your religious dogma if you wish, but in the public domain, it's not going anywhere!!! and god bless you devil WRONG... IF the argument that we cant HELP whom we love is to stand ground than I dont CHOOSE to love God anymore than a homosexual CHOOSES to love the same gender. I do however CHOOSE whether to express that love just as a homosexual CHOOSES to express theirs. If we are all HUMANS first, than indeed my love of God should be just as protected as my love of a man or a woman,, and my expression of any of those should be,,likewise, equally protected. Just as the government is not to IMPOSE religion on others it is equally not to IMPEDE religious expression. I believe the girls constitutional rights to not have her faith impeded by playing an instrumental piece(no words included) which was considered religious were just as imposed upon as this girls right not to have her choice to 'expression' impeded. make a note of the distinction,, noone can or did prevent this girl from being attracted to whomever she was attracted to, they just limited her EXPRESSION of this attraction(if you look at the case it was her expression that was violated,,,). In the case at the school graduation, noone told the girl she could not love God but they DID restrict her from expressing that love with a musical piece. The analogy stands.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As is the case with being heterosexual, being homosexual has nothing to do with faith, beliefs, or religious dogma. As an analogy, if a religion, as a part of its ridiculous dogma, claimed that 'blacks' were an abomination in the eyes of god', and that its followers were to 'feel violated' in their rights, being in the presence of blacks that didn't 'paint their faces white' (to stay true to the situation at hand), ... we would all, and I mean unanimously, find the delusional followers of that faith 'out to lunch' (I hope)!!! You can personally and privately believe what you wish, BUT DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH THE REALITY OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS: the fundamental rights of a human being, regardless of sexual orientation, TRUMPS PERSONAL CHOICES AS TO WHAT ONE WISHES TO HOLD AS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!!! It is a fundamental and intrinsic aspect of being human beings, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is not a 'choice' in the eyes of the law. Not anymore than being white, or black would ever be considered a 'choice'!!! While you and all other free nations citizens are afforded the freedom to believe, and not believe, one's beliefs or non-beliefs has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rule of law (law affords rights to practice faith, BUT IT IS NOT BASED ON FAITH). Christian fundamentalists persist in their personal beliefs that 'homosexuality' is an abomination, and PERSIST in this delusion that homosexuals, BEING just what they are, 'homosexuals', IS AN ABOMINATION IN FACT!!! That is a pure delusion!!! IT IS NOT SO NOW, AND IT IS NOT EVER GOING TO SO IN REAL LIFE, FOR 'RULE OF LAW' AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDED 'FREE NATIONS'. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or transsexuals, are all equal human beings, with absolute equal rights under the law. And as such, their 'human beingness' will never represent a possible infringement of the equal rights of other equal human beings!!! Let's all get real. There is limit to twisting everything around to fit delusional religious doctrine. Again, EQUAL RIGHTS AFFORDED ALL HUMAN BEINGS, TRUMPS ABSOLUTELY ANY RELIGIOUS CHOICES OF BELIEFS, ALWAYS!!! One 's religious dogma cannot discriminate against the fundamental rights of another human being. That in part, is why a secular morality has displaced church and religion dogma with the emergence of free and democratic Nations. ... and that important change in civilized nations, has happened a few hundred of years ago. It would high noon to get with the program!!! HOMOSEXUALS ARE 100% HUMAN BEINGS, and as such, ARE AFFORDED FULL EQUAL HUMAN (being) RIGHTS. No religious rights will ever trump that universal principle in the FREE NATION PARADIGM!!! I'm afraid msharmony that anyone whom persists in claiming that their RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE are violated simply by 'being exposed to homosexuals being homosexual', ARE JUST plain bigots, demonstrating an extreme degree of INTOLERANCE, and ultimately are guilty of discrimination toward EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!!! Except I did not persist any such thing,,, I equated others right not to be exposed to my EXPRESSION of myself(because it is tied with a religion) as no LESS ridiculous than the choice not to be exposed to anyone elses expression of themself(by whom they CHOOSE to bring to a dance). Certainly, if one can come to a school dance with whomever they wish, being protected from any guideline from the school of who that can be,,,another can play a song at a school graduation of whatever choice they wish(excluding vulgarity) and be protected similarly from guidelines from the school. Loving god is as much WHO I am as being homosexual is who someone else is. So its GREAT that a homosexual has the same right to show up at a dance with whomever they wish that a heterosexual does and it should also be that a CHRISTIAN should have the right to express the musical piece they wish to during a graduation with the same protection(separation of church and state ensures BOTH that the state does not give specific support to religion NOR hinder the personal religiious choice of others) My point, in summary , was. This case may now be precedent for the rest of us not to be discriminated against for WHO We are,, even if who we are is a Christian. Try as you may msharmony, while you can confuse the two on your personal time, who you are in the eyes of the law, isn't a christian as in 'Who I am is a christian human being'!!! In a rule of law, and free democratic society, you are a human being period, like every other human beings, as defined in the universal human rights charter. It just so happens that as a human being (first), you have PERSONALLY 'chosen' to practice christianity as a religion (second). The first has no legal connection with the second, from a legal treatment perspective. So first, you are a human being, and afforded protection under human rights laws right alongside all homosexuals. Following that, as a human being, you may personally choose to practice or not practice a particular religion. And should you personally choose to practice a religion, as is your case, your rights of freedom of practice will afford the right to 'PERSONALLY' practice the religion of your choice. But that personal right of practice, will never give you, or anyone else, the right to impose any part of your religion publicly, much less TRUMP the universal right of another human being. About the partner Prom 'invite'. You keep saying 'inviting anyone one chooses!!!'. That is profoundly inaccurate. It boils down to inviting another human man being!!! That's human rights!!! And human beings of 'same sex' orientation, happen to dance with 'same sex' partners, just like opposite sex orientation human beings, happen to dance with opposite sex partners. There is no direct connection between the administration of Universal Human Rights issues, and the administration of freedom of practicing a religion of one's personal choice. Confuse in your private right to practice your religious dogma if you wish, but in the public domain, it's not going anywhere!!! and god bless you devil WRONG... IF the argument that we cant HELP whom we love is to stand ground than I dont CHOOSE to love God anymore than a homosexual CHOOSES to love the same gender. I do however CHOOSE whether to express that love just as a homosexual CHOOSES to express theirs. If we are all HUMANS first, than indeed my love of God should be just as protected as my love of a man or a woman,, and my expression of any of those should be,,likewise, equally protected. Just as the government is not to IMPOSE religion on others it is equally not to IMPEDE religious expression. I believe the girls constitutional rights to not have her faith impeded by playing an instrumental piece(no words included) which was considered religious were just as imposed upon as this girls right not to have her choice to 'expression' impeded. Take it to the Supreme Court, and let it tell you that your premise has no foundation in law!!! That your premise is confusing several distinct legal domains, purely to convince YOU of the merit of your self-serving religious crusade. ... go tell it that it is ... WRONG!!! Freedom of speech affords you the privilege to say others are wrong, even when you represent a consensus that is undefendable!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 03/29/10 01:30 PM
|
|
As is the case with being heterosexual, being homosexual has nothing to do with faith, beliefs, or religious dogma. As an analogy, if a religion, as a part of its ridiculous dogma, claimed that 'blacks' were an abomination in the eyes of god', and that its followers were to 'feel violated' in their rights, being in the presence of blacks that didn't 'paint their faces white' (to stay true to the situation at hand), ... we would all, and I mean unanimously, find the delusional followers of that faith 'out to lunch' (I hope)!!! You can personally and privately believe what you wish, BUT DON'T CONFUSE IT WITH THE REALITY OF EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS: the fundamental rights of a human being, regardless of sexual orientation, TRUMPS PERSONAL CHOICES AS TO WHAT ONE WISHES TO HOLD AS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!!! It is a fundamental and intrinsic aspect of being human beings, for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is not a 'choice' in the eyes of the law. Not anymore than being white, or black would ever be considered a 'choice'!!! While you and all other free nations citizens are afforded the freedom to believe, and not believe, one's beliefs or non-beliefs has absolutely NOTHING to do with the rule of law (law affords rights to practice faith, BUT IT IS NOT BASED ON FAITH). Christian fundamentalists persist in their personal beliefs that 'homosexuality' is an abomination, and PERSIST in this delusion that homosexuals, BEING just what they are, 'homosexuals', IS AN ABOMINATION IN FACT!!! That is a pure delusion!!! IT IS NOT SO NOW, AND IT IS NOT EVER GOING TO SO IN REAL LIFE, FOR 'RULE OF LAW' AND HUMAN RIGHTS FOUNDED 'FREE NATIONS'. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, or transsexuals, are all equal human beings, with absolute equal rights under the law. And as such, their 'human beingness' will never represent a possible infringement of the equal rights of other equal human beings!!! Let's all get real. There is limit to twisting everything around to fit delusional religious doctrine. Again, EQUAL RIGHTS AFFORDED ALL HUMAN BEINGS, TRUMPS ABSOLUTELY ANY RELIGIOUS CHOICES OF BELIEFS, ALWAYS!!! One 's religious dogma cannot discriminate against the fundamental rights of another human being. That in part, is why a secular morality has displaced church and religion dogma with the emergence of free and democratic Nations. ... and that important change in civilized nations, has happened a few hundred of years ago. It would high noon to get with the program!!! HOMOSEXUALS ARE 100% HUMAN BEINGS, and as such, ARE AFFORDED FULL EQUAL HUMAN (being) RIGHTS. No religious rights will ever trump that universal principle in the FREE NATION PARADIGM!!! I'm afraid msharmony that anyone whom persists in claiming that their RIGHTS OF RELIGIOUS PRACTICE are violated simply by 'being exposed to homosexuals being homosexual', ARE JUST plain bigots, demonstrating an extreme degree of INTOLERANCE, and ultimately are guilty of discrimination toward EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!!! Except I did not persist any such thing,,, I equated others right not to be exposed to my EXPRESSION of myself(because it is tied with a religion) as no LESS ridiculous than the choice not to be exposed to anyone elses expression of themself(by whom they CHOOSE to bring to a dance). Certainly, if one can come to a school dance with whomever they wish, being protected from any guideline from the school of who that can be,,,another can play a song at a school graduation of whatever choice they wish(excluding vulgarity) and be protected similarly from guidelines from the school. Loving god is as much WHO I am as being homosexual is who someone else is. So its GREAT that a homosexual has the same right to show up at a dance with whomever they wish that a heterosexual does and it should also be that a CHRISTIAN should have the right to express the musical piece they wish to during a graduation with the same protection(separation of church and state ensures BOTH that the state does not give specific support to religion NOR hinder the personal religiious choice of others) My point, in summary , was. This case may now be precedent for the rest of us not to be discriminated against for WHO We are,, even if who we are is a Christian. Try as you may msharmony, while you can confuse the two on your personal time, who you are in the eyes of the law, isn't a christian as in 'Who I am is a christian human being'!!! In a rule of law, and free democratic society, you are a human being period, like every other human beings, as defined in the universal human rights charter. It just so happens that as a human being (first), you have PERSONALLY 'chosen' to practice christianity as a religion (second). The first has no legal connection with the second, from a legal treatment perspective. So first, you are a human being, and afforded protection under human rights laws right alongside all homosexuals. Following that, as a human being, you may personally choose to practice or not practice a particular religion. And should you personally choose to practice a religion, as is your case, your rights of freedom of practice will afford the right to 'PERSONALLY' practice the religion of your choice. But that personal right of practice, will never give you, or anyone else, the right to impose any part of your religion publicly, much less TRUMP the universal right of another human being. About the partner Prom 'invite'. You keep saying 'inviting anyone one chooses!!!'. That is profoundly inaccurate. It boils down to inviting another human man being!!! That's human rights!!! And human beings of 'same sex' orientation, happen to dance with 'same sex' partners, just like opposite sex orientation human beings, happen to dance with opposite sex partners. There is no direct connection between the administration of Universal Human Rights issues, and the administration of freedom of practicing a religion of one's personal choice. Confuse in your private right to practice your religious dogma if you wish, but in the public domain, it's not going anywhere!!! and god bless you devil WRONG... IF the argument that we cant HELP whom we love is to stand ground than I dont CHOOSE to love God anymore than a homosexual CHOOSES to love the same gender. I do however CHOOSE whether to express that love just as a homosexual CHOOSES to express theirs. If we are all HUMANS first, than indeed my love of God should be just as protected as my love of a man or a woman,, and my expression of any of those should be,,likewise, equally protected. Just as the government is not to IMPOSE religion on others it is equally not to IMPEDE religious expression. I believe the girls constitutional rights to not have her faith impeded by playing an instrumental piece(no words included) which was considered religious were just as imposed upon as this girls right not to have her choice to 'expression' impeded. Take it to the Supreme Court, and let it tell you that your premise has no foundation in law!!! That your premise is confusing several distinct legal domains, purely to convince YOU of the merit of your self-serving religious crusade. ... go tell it that it is ... WRONG!!! Freedom of speech affords you the privilege to say others are wrong, even when you represent a consensus that is undefendable!!! Actually, if I were this girl, I would take it there, now that precedent for freedom of 'expression' has been set... upon reading this girl tried to take it to the supreme court but they are too anti religion I suppose to even hear the case. Its too bad in my opinion but at one time the courts wouldnt listen to racial discrimination suits either,,, its just a fight for equality that christians will have to continue ... more legal minds might come around,,,fromworldnews 'First Amendment » Justices say song is overtly religious, and it's OK to disallow at graduation ceremony. By Jesse J. Holland The Associated PressUpdated: 03/23/2010 12:55:45 AM MDT Washington » The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let a high school student sue over school officials' refusal to let her play an instrumental version of "Ave Maria" at her graduation, a decision one justice says could lead to wide-ranging censorship of student speech. The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Kathryn Nurre, a former student at Henry M. Jackson High School. Nurre,... ' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is like watching a tennis match..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Mon 03/29/10 02:06 PM
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody. 
It just shows how the ignorancy of religion is still preventing us from having equality in this country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does this really have a lot to do with religion or a lot to do with people who think they are above the rules?I'm sure if we were to look a the rules concerning proms in the thousands of high schools across the country we would probably find a large majority have the same rules that couples must be male and female.I'm also positive that probably 99% of those high schools have dress codes concerning proms and one of them is that men can not come dressed as women and women can not come dressed as men.I know when I went to prom you couldn't just wear anything.You had a list of things that was acceptable and not acceptable.You even had to wear dress shoes.
Lets put this in another perspective.Lets say you have a woman who is not gay but a tomboy who lives on a farm.She never wears dresses and has never worn a dress.If she wanted to wear a tuxedo to prom would the school treat her the same way?I'm sure they would.Would there be this massive news story about her?No because she is not gay. I said it before choosing to live a gay lifestyle is a CHOICE.There is thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people that were formally gay and decided to live straight again.It is the same choice people choose if they decide to be a biker,hippy,drug abuser,prostitute,stripper,alcoholic,and many other lifestyles that most people would rather not be a part of.Nobody is forcing anyone to be Gay and they are not restricted on who they can love,how they can love,and where they can love.They have the same freedoms everyone else has under the Constitution but their choice of lifestyle is one that is not accepted by a large majority of Americans.I feel right or wrong that everyone is entitled to their own opinion on what is morally acceptable to them.The gays have every right to do what ever they want.Nobody has to accept them.Nobody has to love them.Nobody has to believe what they want us to believe.Just like the gays don't have to believe what we say,love us,or do what we tell them to do. Anyone ever wonder when it comes to these gay rights issues(which always lose in court)why the only people who touch these cases is the ACLU? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Winx
on
Mon 03/29/10 04:57 PM
|
|
Who the heck chooses to be an alcoholic or a drug addict?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being gay is not a CHOICE.
That is the religious' way to keep up their discrimination against gays. Being gay is a natural thing that happens in some people and for some they are bi sexual and it is still natural. If the religious continue to be ignorant and unenlightened they will eventually become the extinct they so wish on their targets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being gay is not a CHOICE. That is the religious' way to keep up their discrimination against gays. Being gay is a natural thing that happens in some people and for some they are bi sexual and it is still natural. If the religious continue to be ignorant and unenlightened they will eventually become the extinct they so wish on their targets. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being gay is not a CHOICE. That is the religious' way to keep up their discrimination against gays. Being gay is a natural thing that happens in some people and for some they are bi sexual and it is still natural. If the religious continue to be ignorant and unenlightened they will eventually become the extinct they so wish on their targets. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gay teen in prom case is local pariah, national heroine http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/26/constance.mcmillen.tension/index.html?hpt=C1 *Constance McMillen in news after school cancels prom; she wanted to bring girlfriend *Support nationally shows in TV visits, prom offers, Facebook fans and scholarship *At home, Mississippi high school senior deals with tensions, anxiety, "hostility" *Her and ACLU's fight inspires others, making her poster child for LGBT student activism Constance McMillen has become somewhat of a national celebrity. She never asked for it, it just happened. All she wanted to do was to take her lesbian girlfriend to Senior Prom. Trouble is she lives in a backwardly conservative hick-town like Fulton, Mississippi. Her high school acted "stupidly," by canceling the prom, and look at the havoc, the attention, the legal fees, the school has brought upon itself by this insensitive act they chose to pursue. It is so sad and shameful for this country that places like Fulton, MS and many others in the South and other parts of the country, that would deny someone the chance to go to prom because of sexual orientation, or even race, or religious affiliation. It's 2010, and we're America, but many Americans still act as though it's the 1950s or 60s. I am fully in support of gay couples being allowed to go to prom, and any other school sponsored event. What the high school did was wrong, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Weigh in, everybody.
I think the issue is mute, since none of the kids will now have a prom. Religious affiliation is hard to discern without an individual sharing some information as is sexual orientation however RACE is right there for everyone to see from birth. So I disagree with comparing this issue with racism,,,but thats beside the point. Do I feel she should be able to go to the prom, sure. Do I feel those paying for and holding the prom have a right to set up a THEME for that dance,,,sure. If it was set as a straight couples dance, and other guidelines were in place such as one date per attendee, or a certain dress code, or things of that nature ,,I dont see the harm. I would much rather see a push for an alternative prom for any non traditional type couples(same sex, cross dressers, trans...etc..) as well as the traditional one. I think it is wonderful she stands up for herself,and am not extremely passionate about it one way or the other,,, but I can definitely see both sides. Oh you do? What about mixed couples going to a prom? A white boy with a black girl, or a black boy with a white girl? You really don't think that's an issue in the South, or some other conservative communities? What if I went to prom with an Arab girl, complete in headress hijab? You don't think it would be an issue? Yes, this particular concern is focused on sexual orientation, but the other biases exist in this country as well concerning school social events. that is exactly my point,, you can SEE a white boy with a black girl,, you cant SEE a homosexual male with a homosexual girl,,you just see a boy and a girl, so the discrimination is VASTLY different. One is about what people can see from birth that cant be hid or undone,, the other is about what people observe someone DOING, which is a choice. I know my opinion wont be popular but the ONE relationship that we always will NEED is that of the male female union which creates life. A dance that sticks to that basic guideline is not so horrendous in my opinion. whether it be a black and white male and female or an arab and italian male and female, should have no bearing. As far as this particular case, I am really not passionate about it one way or the other. Im not particularly offended by a traditional male female dance, but Im not gonna kill myself if other pairings are included either. Its an option, a stupid, silly option but the same kind of option, HIDE. You either hide what and who you are or you are condemned, its the same exact thing just a different characteristic. |
|
|
|
|
