| |
ATRL: 14 year old suspended for saying Homosexuality is wrong.
Member Since: 10/6/2010
Posts: 2,188
|
your sexual orientation, in most cases, is a big part of who people are though. it effects more than just simply who you're attracted to.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2011
Posts: 5,259
|
Quote:
Originally posted by itsJAMESbitch
your sexual orientation, in most cases, is a big part of who people are though. it effects more than just simply who you're attracted to.
|
That's literally what "sexual orientation" means.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/6/2010
Posts: 2,188
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Thisisit
That's literally what "sexual orientation" means.
|
yes, i'm saying i don't agree when people say it doesn't or shouldn't play a big part of defining who you are. and the "love the sinner, hate the sin" beleif is not ok for me either.
i don't think this student should have been suspended but i also don't think they should have opened their mouth and said this in school.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/28/2009
Posts: 9,353
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Thisisit
No, it's not. Any gay child in that class, unless they are complete fools, are well aware millions of people think being gay is wrong. That person still thinks his sexuality is wrong whether he's in the same class or not.
Tragic as any suicide is, I've never heard of someone killing themselves over a classmate calmly expressing his views on homosexuality. Killing themselves over excessive bullying? Yes. Something like this? no.
At the end of the day there are some things you must learn to take in stride. If someone thinks your sexuality is wrong (read: sexuality=/=your entire being) you're not going to convince them otherwise by getting the authorities to shut them up. Challenge their beliefs with your own or ignore it.
It is a stupid thing to say. If someone came up to me and told me being white was wrong, I'd laugh nervously and walk off.
|
That's the problem though - there isn't anything to opine over. You, by definition, can't have "views on homosexuality" - there's nothing to view! It is an accepted biological fact. Just like you can't "express views on black people" or claim that their race is inferior - it is scientifically debunked and now supremist rhetoric. Any such claims stem from hatred. No matter how calmly you express hate, it will always be just that. The school saw that and were perfectly within their bounds to take action over hateful remarks. Suspension may not have been fitting, but they certainly don't have to sit back and legitimise hatred as an acceptable "belief" to express in a school environment.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Thisisit
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.
|
And just like N.E, you completely fail at grasping the concept that it's the school's decsision to determine what is considered ""out of line, seeing as the situation ocurred on their premises.
And just for the sake of entertaining your perspective, how do you draw the conclusion that what the child said, via a hostile tone or not, was acceptable? Would you feel the same way if he had said "Being black is a bad thing" or maybe "White people are evil"? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by £100
That's the problem though - there isn't anything to opine over. You, by definition, can't have "views on homosexuality" - there's nothing to view! It is an accepted biological fact. Just like you can't "express views on black people" or claim that their race is inferior - it is scientifically debunked and now supremist rhetoric. Any such claims stem from hatred. No matter how calmly you express hate, it will always be just that. The school saw that and were perfectly within their bounds to take action over hateful remarks. Suspension may not have been fitting, but they certainly don't have to sit back and legitimise hatred as an acceptable "belief" to express in a school environment.
|
Exactly. The problem with the debate is that people feel as though they're somehow allowed or even entitiled to view homosexuality, as opposed to something similarly determined by biology such as race, as being moral or immoral.
They just don't seem to get that science, or proven fact always has and always will prevail over their "religious beliefs". And whether or not they agree, they certainly don't have the right to go around in private or public owned institutions spewing hateful rhetoric that concludes certain races, sexualities, etc, are inherently inferior to others.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/21/2009
Posts: 11,151
|
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  ... |
You have failed to comprehend once again, let me retract to a pre-elementary level presentation of the facts.
I am aware the 1st Amendment does not protect you from repercussions; repercussions that are within the parameters of federal law. This is not a workplace. It's federally-funded public institution that must abide by these statues. A student cannot suffer consequences while presenting his opinion in the context of education.
The article states that the teacher brought up the discussion of homosexuality and religion in the classroom. The boy turned to his friend and told him he thought homosexuality was wrong. The teacher overheard and reprimanded him. A public school can only determine its boundaries within the parameters district or federal laws. Telling your teacher "**** you" or threatening a co-worker is in no way parallel to what the boy said. That's slanderous and deviant behavior. That is where you fail once again. Hopefully that's clear enough for you. This is America, not Nazi Germany. The Law has the first and last word.
The boy's suspension was already reduced to a 1-day in-school suspension. This took place in Texas, for god sakes. LOL. The district will have the the superintendent's ass in hot water.
Justice has been already taken care of. I rest my case.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/10/2010
Posts: 9,489
|
Quote:
Originally posted by inspiration4
exactly. The problem with the debate is that people feel as though they're somehow allowed or even entitiled to view homosexuality, as opposed to something similarly determined by biology such as race, as being moral or immoral.
They just don't seem to get that science, or proven fact always has and always will prevail over their "religious beliefs". And whether or not they agree, they certainly don't have the right to go around in private or public owned institutions spewing hateful rhetoric that concludes certain races, sexualities, etc, are inherently inferior to others.
|
for crying out loud all he said was that it was wrong, he didnt intend to offend anybody! Gee wizzz!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Wow. I can see him getting yelled at, but suspended?! I'm gay and even I think that's a little much. Maybe there is more to this then we know.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/24/2011
Posts: 29,233
|
Quote:
Originally posted by itsJAMESbitch
religion...such a wonderful thing! what else makes being judgemental, homophobic, and intolerant seem ok and justified?  |
I'm not exactly religious, but whether or not that is true, you're still being just as offensive as the kid you speak of. Have a bus full of seats. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by NE.
You have failed to comprehend once again, let me retract to a pre-elementary level presentation of the facts.
I am aware the 1st Amendment does not protect you from repercussions; repercussions that are within the parameters of federal law. This is not a workplace. It's federally-funded public institution that must abide by these statues. A student cannot suffer consequences while presenting his opinion in the context of education.
The article states that the teacher brought up the discussion of homosexuality and religion in the classroom. The boy turned to his friend and told him he thought homosexuality was wrong. The teacher overheard and reprimanded him. A public school can only determine its boundaries within the parameters district or federal laws. Telling your teacher "**** you" or threatening a co-worker is in no way parallel to what the boy said. That's slanderous and deviant behavior. That is where you fail once again. Hopefully that's clear enough for you. This is America, not Nazi Germany. The Law has the first and last word.
The boy's suspension was already reduced to a 1-day in-school suspension. This took place in Texas, for god sakes. LOL. The district will have the the superintendent's ass in hot water.
Justice has been already taken care of. I rest my case.
Thank you.
|
Again, no. A public school student or government employee can absolutly be reprimanded for stating their opinion if that opinion is deemed hateful or offensive, as determined by that specific institution.
And again, by your own logic, a government employee would be able to walk around the workplace making comments such as "Black people are all criminals" "homosexuality is bad", or "white people are evil" and remain unscathed, simply because their place of employment is federally funded. Fail.
And you say that you "understand that the 1st amendment does not protect against repurcussions that are within the parameters of federal law", yet you fail to actually comprehend what you claim to know. This protocol was folowed precisely, and the student was dealt with by the school, not the law, as would an emplyee be dealt with by his or her employer.
And my analogy was spot on. A student referring to his as teacher as a ***** is in the same vein as one referring to a race or sexuality as being immmoral, both are offensive and reprimandable, but your own perspective blinds you to into believing that the latter is somehow acceptable.
And the fact that this case took place in texas only attests to the point i'm making. Texas is one of the least progressive states in the union and even they recognize that the child was "out of line" be their determining, and as a result the suspension was maintained, reduced or not. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2009
Posts: 10,662
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Onen
for crying out loud all he said was that it was wrong, he didnt intend to offend anybody! Gee wizzz!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Who said he intended to? It wasn't me.
And for what it's worth, I don't agree with him being suspended, rather i think he should have been educated on the topic at hand. But still, intent does not render a persons actions uncoachable.
A person may genuinely believe that black people stink, but saying so aloud, regardless of intention, will likely result in him or her being reprimanded. Facts of life.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 5/28/2011
Posts: 39,615
|
Kay, then.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/15/2009
Posts: 2,121
|
He has a lawyer. the fact that he served a 1-day suspension is going to land the district in a lot of trouble. It *IS* a violation of first amendment, WHETHER YOU LIKE HIS WORDS OR NOT.
There's a group of extremists who spread a lot of terrorist propaganda out on the streets - can't remember who, but they literally stand in the streets and bitch about America being evil and they really push their hate speech. But according to the special I saw, they could NOT be arrested or reprimended because they were covered by first amendment. If that type of hate speech isn't punishable, then a 14-year old stating homosexuality is wrong definitely isn't punishable either. Like i said, the district really needs to watch for a lawsuit.
Not only that, but they can file a defamation suit - the kid's probably been harassed by gay activists and such.
The teacher would probably be in a lot of hot water too for even bringing up the subject. But the teacher's allowed her opinion, which would probably offend religious people/catholics, but the kid can't express his own? Please consider that saying "homosexuality is right" can be offensive to a lot of strong-rooted christians.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/20/2010
Posts: 276
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kworb
He was probably just quoting the Bible.  People are allowed to raise their kids to be haters. It's a free country. |
What does it say about homosexuality in the Bible, though?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/15/2009
Posts: 2,121
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RichGirlPlanet
I'm not exactly religious, but whether or not that is true, you're still being just as offensive as the kid you speak of. Have a bus full of seats. |
It's okay to bash religious people but not gays? That's not fair at all.
I mean, if the poster thinks religious people are ****, then that's his free speech. But then he should NOT proceed to chastise the boy for making a FAR LESS offensive remark than what the poster just posted.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 8/8/2008
Posts: 21,933
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/6/2010
Posts: 8,184
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Wildhope
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2011
Posts: 5,259
|
Quote:
Originally posted by inspiration4
And just like N.E, you completely fail at grasping the concept that it's the school's decsision to determine what is considered ""out of line, seeing as the situation ocurred on their premises.
|
Yeah, it's the schools decision, that does not mean they made the right or logical one nor does it mean no ones allowed to call them out for ********.
Quote:
|
And just for the sake of entertaining your perspective, how do you draw the conclusion that what the child said, via a hostile tone or not, was acceptable? Would you feel the same way if he had said "Being black is a bad thing" or maybe "White people are evil"? I doubt it.
|
I never said it was acceptable. It's just not as heinous of a crime as people are making it out to be.
Yes, I would feel the same way.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2011
Posts: 5,259
|
Quote:
Originally posted by £100
That's the problem though - there isn't anything to opine over. You, by definition, can't have "views on homosexuality" - there's nothing to view! It is an accepted biological fact. Just like you can't "express views on black people" or claim that their race is inferior - it is scientifically debunked and now supremist rhetoric.
|
Where did you get the idea that because something is generally accepted in the scientific community people no longer possess opinions? The claim people choose to be gay is no more baseless than countless conspiracy theories and religions, the view that these things exist is a wide-spread one.
Quote:
|
Any such claims stem from hatred. No matter how calmly you express hate, it will always be just that.
|
Nope. Plenty of people "disagree" with homosexuality but take the "live and let live" route. You get others who disagree with homosexuality and go out of their way to show it through harassment. Obviously we don't know exactly how this situation played out, but if the boy truly was just calmly stating his opinion, it would not be nearly as bad as if he had, for example, starting shouting at a gay kid in the class that he should kill himself and go to hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
