|
ATRL: 14 year old suspended for saying Homosexuality is wrong.
Member Since: 6/15/2011
Posts: 5,842
|
If he really was stating his opinion in a non-hostile manner, he shouldn't have been suspended. Kids should have a right to state controversial opinions, as long as they don't espouse violence and aren't harassing anyone.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/11/2010
Posts: 28,420
|
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
!!!
That's already violating ANOTHER constitutional law. In public schools religion can only be spoken from a neutral point of view.
I went to private Christian schools my whole life, so I was used to hearing religious talk every day though.
|
You're right. But most public schools aren't very strict with the laws. I've had teachers spend a whole period talking about God, the bible, etc. One school I attended in Louisiana even held weekly prayer sessions, which I refused to attend. Most students had no problem with it, though, as most were Christian/Catholic.
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonage Daydream
If he really was stating his opinion in a non-hostile manner, he shouldn't have been suspended. Kids should have a right to state controversial opinions, as long as they don't espouse violence and aren't harassing anyone.
|
Even though I think that it's wrong to be discussing these things in school in the first place, I agree with you.
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/30/2010
Posts: 8,199
|
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
If some of you are advocating that it's OK to suspend children from school because they say homosexuality is wrong, than you're also implying its ok to ban gay children from school.
It's funny how some people are the first to start typing novels about gay pride and how one should have the right to express their sexuality because "love is love" or whatever and how its justified by the 1st Amendment that grants Americans freedom of speech and expression, but at the same time, you contradict yourselves and oppose that when its the reverse, which is under the SAME right.
That school/superintendent/whoever is looking to lose their job and possibly have a heavy lawsuit on their hands. You can't violate an individual's rights like that. Some of you need to get your heads out of your rear ends and think logically rather than emotionally.
|
Umm, that's not true. Haven't you heard of the supreme court case TLO vs New Jersey. It resulted in the limitation of students rights so that it wont be as extensive like an adult in other given situation.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
If some of you are advocating that it's OK to suspend children from school because they say homosexuality is wrong, than you're also implying its ok to ban gay children from school.
It's funny how some people are the first to start typing novels about gay pride and how one should have the right to express their sexuality because "love is love" or whatever and how its justified by the 1st Amendment that grants Americans freedom of speech and expression, but at the same time, you contradict yourselves and oppose that when its the reverse, which is under the SAME right.
That school/superintendent/whoever is looking to lose their job and possibly have a heavy lawsuit on their hands. You can't violate an individual's rights like that. Some of you need to get your heads out of your rear ends and think logically rather than emotionally.
|
This is one of the most incoherent attempts at an argument I've ever had the (mis)fortune of witnessing. How does your introductory analogy make any sense whatsoever? How does suspending a student for saying homosexuality is wrong equate to banning gay kids for being gay? Did you accidentaly erase the sentences that explained that connection?
And though you may be familiar with the 1st amendment, that knowledge is currently going to waste because you remarkably fail at actually comprehending it. The first amendment allows us the right to say whatever we want, BUT it does not protect us from the repurcussions that may arise as a result. Just as an employee will surly lose his job for telling his boss to go **** herself, a student will be reprimanded when they speak in a way the school determines to be unacceptable.
So how on earth can you tell anyone to speak logically, when logic itself seems to be a foreign language to you? A mess.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/18/2010
Posts: 3,104
|
Um I don't think he should have got suspended he was just saying his opinion, it's not as if he was bashing them.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by GRADUAT10N
So we're supposed to allow someone to enter the world as an adult with the belief that being gay is "wrong"? I think that is more morally reprehensible than suspending the kid. Obviously suspension isn't the best solution (as it does nothing to change his beliefs) but some type of education needs to be put in place. We can't allow children to repeat the same mistakes previous generations have made.
|
I completely agree with everything you said. Suspension really just exacerbates the problem because the student's views remain unchanged and now he'll simply learn to internalize that perspestive.
Obviosuly educated him (and the class) would have been the ideal solution, but to do so you would have had to introduce science and actual facts into the conversation, which i'm sure his parents would fight seeing as it's in direct opposition to their fantasy based beliefs, aka religion.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/3/2010
Posts: 26,013
|
Hahaha was the teacher a ***g?
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/24/2011
Posts: 29,233
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mélina
I don't think he should have been suspended. Now if he had of said something like all gays are going to hell or being extremely homophobic then it would have been right. He thinks it's wrong. His opinion.
|
This.
Quote:
Originally posted by IfICannot Love♥
Gradua10n brought up a good point, though.
If someone said being black or white (or beige, chola or orient made. ) was wrong, would it be seen as the same or worse? Either way, you're saying that someone is wrong for something they cannot change about themselves.
|
There is a difference between religious beliefs (in this context, Christianity) and being racist.
One you practice because you think it will get you to the right place afterwards.
Being racist is something that will get you nowhere in life,
unlike religion which one believes will.
However, there is a time and place for everything,
but I don't know whether or not him saying it was relevant to anything at the time.
I didn't bother reading the full article. lol
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/21/2009
Posts: 11,151
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Wes
Umm, that's not true. Haven't you heard of the supreme court case TLO vs New Jersey. It resulted in the limitation of students rights so that it wont be as extensive like an adult in other given situation.
|
TLO vs. New Jersey had to do with the 4th Amendment and student's rights versus the school officials rights to reasonable search. This is about free speech. Two different things.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/21/2009
Posts: 11,151
|
Quote:
Originally posted by inspiration4
This is one of the most incoherent attempts at an argument I've ever had the (mis)fortune of witnessing. How does your introductory analogy make any sense whatsoever? How does suspending a student for saying homosexuality is wrong equate to banning gay kids for being gay? Did you accidentaly erase the sentences that explained that connection?
And though you may be familiar with the 1st amendment, that knowledge is currently going to waste because you remarkably fail at actually comprehending it. The first amendment allows us the right to say whatever we want, BUT it does not protect us from the repurcussions that may arise as a result. Just as an employee will surly lose his job for telling his boss to go **** herself, a student will be reprimanded when they speak in a way the school determines to be unacceptable.
So how on earth can you tell anyone to speak logically, when logic itself seems to be a foreign language to you? A mess.
|
I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding. Nobody else had a difficult time understanding the analogy. But we all comprehend at different paces. Let me break it down at an elementary level for you. By agreeing that a school can violate a child's 1st Amendment rights, under that same law, you would be indirectly that another school could or any place for that matter, could violate an openly gay person's 1st Amendment rights to express themselves. Both parties have the same rights. You either agree with the law or oppose it altogether, it's not a selective approach.
I never once said the 1st Amendment protects anyone against repercussions. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect against deviant behavior from ethical standards of the norm.
The article states he state his viewpoint in a "nonhostile, benign" manner. Apparently comprehension and syntax is not your strong suit. However, I applaud your attempt. Just as The Little Engine That Could said, "I think I can..I think I can...I think I can..."
You have a nice day.
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/9/2007
Posts: 9,007
|
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding. Nobody else had a difficult time understanding the analogy. But we all comprehend at different paces. Let me break it down at an elementary level for you. By agreeing that a school can violate a child's 1st Amendment rights, under that same law, you would be indirectly that another school could or any place for that matter, could violate an openly gay person's 1st Amendment rights to express themselves. Both parties have the same rights. You either agree with the law or oppose it altogether, it's not a selective approach.
I never once said the 1st Amendment protects anyone against repercussions. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect against deviant behavior from ethical standards of the norm.
The article states he state his viewpoint in a "nonhostile, benign" manner. Apparently comprehension and syntax is not your strong suit. However, I applaud your attempt. Just as The Little Engine That Could said, "I think I can..I think I can...I think I can..."
You have a nice day.
|
So basically, if we went by your stupid-as-**** philosophy, gay people shouldn't be able to come out until college? Being out is not equal to spewing hateful speech. You might be able to read a book, but you're ability to understand simple human emotions seems to have been lost.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding. Nobody else had a difficult time understanding the analogy. But we all comprehend at different paces. Let me break it down at an elementary level for you. 1. By agreeing that a school can violate a child's 1st Amendment rights, under that same law, you would be indirectly that another school could or any place for that matter, 2. could violate an openly gay person's 1st Amendment rights to express themselves.] Both parties have the same rights. You either agree with the law or oppose it altogether, it's not a selective approach.
3. I never once said the 1st Amendment protects anyone against repercussions. The 1st Amendment doesn't protect against deviant behavior from ethical standards of the norm.
4. The article states he state his viewpoint in a "nonhostile, benign" manner. Apparently comprehension and syntax is not your strong suit. However, I applaud your attempt. Just as The Little Engine That Could said, "I think I can..I think I can...I think I can..."
You have a nice day.
|
Again, your analogy fails because it's based on hilariously false logic and a disturbing lack of comprehension of the 1st amendment.
1. The 1st amendment allows you the right to say whatever you like, BUT does not protect any person from the inevitable repurcussions they're likely to encounter when saying something considered to be "out of line" ... Don't believe me? Call your employer or teacher a "****ing *****" and see what happens. Sure, it's legal, but you can bet your life you'll be fired or suspended from school as a result of exercising this constitutionally protected right. The students first amendment rights were not violated, seeing as he was not reprimanded by any level of the law.
2. And though your analogy is innately incoherent, I'm curious to know what it means exactly for an openly gay person to "express themself", and how on earth that relates to the 1st amendment. Simply being gay doesn't require or need any protection the first amendment provides so your attempt to draw a parrallel remains a failure.
3. Wowzers. So you maintain that the childs first amendment rights were violated, yet you acknowledge that the amendment doesn't prevent repurcussions and somehow fail to see the picture painted before your eyes. The child's rights were not violated in any way. He wasn't arrested and charged with a crime for what he said, rather reprimanded by the institution (school) that determines it's own bounderies of acceptable speech to be adhered to when on their premises.
I repeat, his 1st amendment rights were not violated. By your very "logic", a student would be able to say anything in a classroom setting and not suffer any consequences, simply because they're allowed to by law. The glaring result of comprehension failure.
4. Gotta love the personal insults, especially when laced with dangerous levels of irony ...
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2011
Posts: 5,259
|
Quote:
Originally posted by inspiration4
BUT does not protect any person from the inevitable repurcussions they're likely to encounter when saying something considered to be "out of line"
|
What this boy said was not out of line, he wasn't attacking a gay person directly.
Whether or not this incident violates one of the amendments is pretty irrelevant, it's more an issue of common sense. This school demonstrated a lack of it.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/15/2010
Posts: 26,154
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaru
This is ridiculous. As much as I disagree with that this child is saying, he should not be suspended for speaking his beliefs.
|
.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/28/2009
Posts: 9,353
|
Quote:
Originally posted by inspiration4
Again, your analogy fails because it's based on hilariously false logic and a disturbing lack of comprehension of the 1st amendment.
1. The 1st amendment allows you the right to say whatever you like, BUT does not protect any person from the inevitable repurcussions they're likely to encounter when saying something considered to be "out of line" ... Don't believe me? Call your employer or teacher a "****ing *****" and see what happens. Sure, it's legal, but you can bet your life you'll be fired or suspended from school as a result of exercising this constitutionally protected right. The students first amendment rights were not violated, seeing as he was not reprimanded by any level of the law.
2. And though your analogy is innately incoherent, I'm curious to know what it means exactly for an openly gay person to "express themself", and how on earth that relates to the 1st amendment. Simply being gay doesn't require or need any protection the first amendment provides so your attempt to draw a parrallel remains a failure.
3. Wowzers. So you maintain that the childs first amendment rights were violated, yet you acknowledge that the amendment doesn't prevent repurcussions and somehow fail to see the picture painted before your eyes. The child's rights were not violated in any way. He wasn't arrested and charged with a crime for what he said, rather reprimanded by the institution (school) that determines it's own bounderies of acceptable speech to be adhered to when on their premises.
I repeat, his 1st amendment rights were not violated. By your very "logic", a student would be able to say anything in a classroom setting and not suffer any consequences, simply because they're allowed to by law. The glaring result of comprehension failure.
4. Gotta love the personal insults, especially when laced with dangerous levels of irony ...
|
I was about to write out a response similar to this one, but I'm glad you already have done so sufficiently.
Leave it to NE to make a damn fool of himself in these types of threads. Although many are quick to point out the child's free speech right, there appears to be a severe lack of understanding as to the rights of the school itself.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/28/2008
Posts: 22,771
|
The real kii here is that a lot of people here are still against homosexuality.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/28/2008
Posts: 22,771
|
I just hope that someday some close-minded bigots should see the discriminating effects of their actions to homosexuals in the same way Nazi was to Jews as well as apartheid to blacks.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/18/2010
Posts: 12,628
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaru
This is ridiculous. As much as I disagree with that this child is saying, he should not be suspended for speaking his beliefs.
|
This. ****ing stupid that they would suspend someone for expressing their opinions on a subject matter in a non-hostile way.
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/8/2011
Posts: 3,738
|
Some of the gay communities are just soo ****ing sensitive that it's irritating.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/18/2010
Posts: 12,628
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ManDown
Even though I think that it's wrong to be discussing these things in school in the first place, I agree with you.
|
Why?
|
|
|
|
|