An ACLU lawsuit I agree with

Never been a big fan of the ACLU. Looked like someone finally used them for something good for a change. Second question is why do these principals get to stay in these same districts teaching students after they have been removed from a higher position? Not sure why MSNBC is just now reporting this. Outing the student happen last year, lawsuit was in January, and decision was this summer (doesn't give a date). Guess a slow newsday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26316235/

Of course Doe will want to put them in a special school.

I agree with you too Scooby!

Good for the girl (she's kinda cute too) and the ACLU...

The people in the community are naive and ignorant to the world, it's not their fault, they just forgot to evolve. These people think it's normal to persecute gays.. the Nazi's thought it was normal to persecute Jews.

I wonder where the principal's white robes and hat are?

The principle did not handle this correctly. He should have talked to her and addressed the other students (if they were truly taunting her). I still would have addressed the parents as well. Hopefully the parents would get her some counseling (I know many of you would not agree with this).
It was not the principals place to tell her to stay away from other children.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Never been a big fan of the ACLU. Looked like someone finally used them for something good for a change. Second question is why do these principals get to stay in these same districts teaching students after they have been removed from a higher position? Not sure why MSNBC is just now reporting this. Outing the student happen last year, lawsuit was in January, and decision was this summer (doesn't give a date). Guess a slow newsday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26316235/

Of course Doe will want to put them in a special school.

I dont agree with the ACLU charging the school for attorney's fees, but I do agree that this should have primarily been a harassment issue rather than any sort of gay rights issue. By turning it into one, the principal brought a lot of unnecessary stuff upon himself.

moondrop wrote:The principle did not handle this correctly. He should have talked to her and addressed the other students (if they were truly taunting her). I still would have addressed the parents as well. Hopefully the parents would get her some counseling (I know many of you would not agree with this).
It was not the principals place to tell her to stay away from other children.

Whose place would it have been to tell her to stay away from the other children? Counseling for what? I find it fascinating that some people believe that homosexuality can be counseled away as if it's an addiction to internet porn... How often do you hear about people choosing to be heterosexual? Or how often do you hear about people choosing to be Christian? We protect the rights of Christians based on their lifestyle choice.

Your sh** is weak...

What the principal should have done is taken her and her girlfriend, lubed them up in olive oil and made them wrestle to the death while "The Final Countdown" played on his Ipod at full blast.

Perhaps while defiling a sheep dressed as Ann Coulter.

Oliver's Army wrote:What the principal should have done is taken her and her girlfriend, lubed them up in olive oil and made them wrestle to the death while "The Final Countdown" played on his Ipod at full blast.

Perhaps while defiling a sheep dressed as Ann Coulter.

Just to be clear, does the sheep dress as Ann Coulter, or do you mean the principal?

pez wrote:

Oliver's Army wrote:What the principal should have done is taken her and her girlfriend, lubed them up in olive oil and made them wrestle to the death while "The Final Countdown" played on his Ipod at full blast.

Perhaps while defiling a sheep dressed as Ann Coulter.

Just to be clear, does the sheep dress as Ann Coulter, or do you mean the principal?

Good point.

I think the principal should be dressed as Ann

And while we are at it let's change the sheep to a doe.

pez wrote:I dont agree with the ACLU charging the school for attorney's fees, but I do agree that this should have primarily been a harassment issue rather than any sort of gay rights issue. By turning it into one, the principal brought a lot of unnecessary stuff upon himself.

I don't know the school got off pretty cheap in my opinion and probably carries insurance for this type of items (lawsuits against it). 325K really isn't that much money now days, especially with no monetary damages awarded to the girl. The former principal still gets a job with the school (wonder if it is at the same pay as he was making as principal, like the other school person dicussed recently). Really IMO there was no punishment at all for the school in my opinion.

pez wrote:

moondrop wrote:The principle did not handle this correctly. He should have talked to her and addressed the other students (if they were truly taunting her). I still would have addressed the parents as well. Hopefully the parents would get her some counseling (I know many of you would not agree with this).
It was not the principals place to tell her to stay away from other children.

Whose place would it have been to tell her to stay away from the other children? Counseling for what? I find it fascinating that some people believe that homosexuality can be counseled away as if it's an addiction to internet porn... How often do you hear about people choosing to be heterosexual? Or how often do you hear about people choosing to be Christian? We protect the rights of Christians based on their lifestyle choice.

Your sh** is weak...

Her parents, neighbors with kids, etc...
For the sin of homosexuality, there are many that find out they can leave that life style.
Christianity is a choice.

At least I have sh**!

have it?? your so full of it i can smell your posts!

moondrop wrote:

pez wrote:

moondrop wrote:The principle did not handle this correctly. He should have talked to her and addressed the other students (if they were truly taunting her). I still would have addressed the parents as well. Hopefully the parents would get her some counseling (I know many of you would not agree with this).
It was not the principals place to tell her to stay away from other children.

Whose place would it have been to tell her to stay away from the other children? Counseling for what? I find it fascinating that some people believe that homosexuality can be counseled away as if it's an addiction to internet porn... How often do you hear about people choosing to be heterosexual? Or how often do you hear about people choosing to be Christian? We protect the rights of Christians based on their lifestyle choice.

Your sh** is weak...

Her parents, neighbors with kids, etc...
For the sin of homosexuality, there are many that find out they can leave that life style.
Christianity is a choice.

At least I have sh**!

Christianity is a lifestyle choice, and according to some of the christian lifestyle, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Homosexuals tolerate Christians that do not tolerate them. So your conundrum is that homosexuality is actually a choice on the same level as the Christianity that deems it sinful. If you choose not to engage in the lifestyle choice of Christianity, the homosexual is no longer a sinner, yes?

IMHO, it's all frigging bunk... you cant choose to be a homosexual anymore than I can. I'm simply not attracted to men, I dont see how I could possibly choose to be. If you were not blinded by your own lifestyle choices, you would be able to logically see that since you did not choose to be a heterosexual, and since you likely are not attracted to other women, you cant choose to be a homosexual.

pez wrote:
Christianity is a lifestyle choice, and according to some of the christian lifestyle, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Homosexuals tolerate Christians that do not tolerate them. So your conundrum is that homosexuality is actually a choice on the same level as the Christianity that deems it sinful. If you choose not to engage in the lifestyle choice of Christianity, the homosexual is no longer a sinner, yes?

IMHO, it's all frigging bunk... you cant choose to be a homosexual anymore than I can. I'm simply not attracted to men, I dont see how I could possibly choose to be. If you were not blinded by your own lifestyle choices, you would be able to logically see that since you did not choose to be a heterosexual, and since you likely are not attracted to other women, you cant choose to be a homosexual.

So what do you with the pedophile who says he didn't choose to be attracted to kids? And no, I'm not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. Just wondering if you think we should just sterilize them and be done with it since there is no hope for them. After all, your argument seems to say there is absolutely nothing he can do about his attraction to kids.

Markwes wrote:

pez wrote:
Christianity is a lifestyle choice, and according to some of the christian lifestyle, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Homosexuals tolerate Christians that do not tolerate them. So your conundrum is that homosexuality is actually a choice on the same level as the Christianity that deems it sinful. If you choose not to engage in the lifestyle choice of Christianity, the homosexual is no longer a sinner, yes?

IMHO, it's all frigging bunk... you cant choose to be a homosexual anymore than I can. I'm simply not attracted to men, I dont see how I could possibly choose to be. If you were not blinded by your own lifestyle choices, you would be able to logically see that since you did not choose to be a heterosexual, and since you likely are not attracted to other women, you cant choose to be a homosexual.

So what do you with the pedophile who says he didn't choose to be attracted to kids? And no, I'm not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. Just wondering if you think we should just sterilize them and be done with it since there is no hope for them. After all, your argument seems to say there is absolutely nothing he can do about his attraction to kids.

Well, you arent comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, but then you say that my argument is comparing them. Not sure that is what you intended... I dont think I have a fully formed opinion about pedophilia (i guess that is a really bad pun).

For the interest of discussion, I will put out that since pedophilia has a victim and homosexuality does not, that pedophiles cannot be protected as a "class" (white, gay, black, christian, muslim etc) because pedophilia has (at it's core) the violation of the human rights of another individual.

You can't rape the willing...

pez wrote:

Markwes wrote:

pez wrote:
Christianity is a lifestyle choice, and according to some of the christian lifestyle, homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Homosexuals tolerate Christians that do not tolerate them. So your conundrum is that homosexuality is actually a choice on the same level as the Christianity that deems it sinful. If you choose not to engage in the lifestyle choice of Christianity, the homosexual is no longer a sinner, yes?

IMHO, it's all frigging bunk... you cant choose to be a homosexual anymore than I can. I'm simply not attracted to men, I dont see how I could possibly choose to be. If you were not blinded by your own lifestyle choices, you would be able to logically see that since you did not choose to be a heterosexual, and since you likely are not attracted to other women, you cant choose to be a homosexual.

So what do you with the pedophile who says he didn't choose to be attracted to kids? And no, I'm not comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. Just wondering if you think we should just sterilize them and be done with it since there is no hope for them. After all, your argument seems to say there is absolutely nothing he can do about his attraction to kids.

Well, you arent comparing homosexuals to pedophiles, but then you say that my argument is comparing them. Not sure that is what you intended... I dont think I have a fully formed opinion about pedophilia (i guess that is a really bad pun).

For the interest of discussion, I will put out that since pedophilia has a victim and homosexuality does not, that pedophiles cannot be protected as a "class" (white, gay, black, christian, muslim etc) because pedophilia has (at it's core) the violation of the human rights of another individual.

You're right, bad choice of words. I meant that I wasn't equating homosexuals and pedophiles. I know it should seem obvious but at one time that was a pretty typical reaction to do that and just wanted to make that disclaimor. My question really had nothing to do with the fact one has a victim and the other doesn't. I just switched gears (I know - bad) and said if sexual attraction is not something that we choose, then a pedophile is always a pedophile right?

yea, I'd agree that a pedophile is always a pedophile, but I think when you compare that with homosexuality, you are comparing a mental illness to a sexual preference (I'm sure doe will have a field day with that)...

well spoken pez!