Student Opposed Homosexuality

[AChristian4Life]

That's fine I believe it was written by infallible men many of whom were divinely inspired. Much of it is also laws that were created for the time period that are no longer applicable. We won't agree because you believe the Bible is by God and I believe it is by men through divine inspiration. What we can come to common ground on is that we both love Jesus Christ.

 

[VCViking]

never said one thing about homosexuality,

Who do you think wrote the OT?

 

[Prayer Circle]

As a new member I would be quite presumptuous to add my two cents to every comment afforded on this topic.

So I'll just throw in from what I read in post 1 and proffer my personal opinion.

Firstly,World Net Daily is not a wholly credible news source.

The student in question, Dakota Ary, was placed on an in-house suspension for just 4 hours, while the teachers complaint regarding Dakota Ary's conduct was investigated.
As was policy, in a matter such as implying religious discrimination afforded against an individual students personal identity.
Even though this discussion involved Germany and the German point of view regarding religion and homosexuality. The implication being, with Mr. Ary's comment, that they hold a religious opinion, which they're free to do. While at the same time implying the teacher in question thought there may be an issue surrounding that, with religiously bolstered intolerance of gay students.

(Sic)"... "A perceived student conduct violation does allow for the temporary removal of a student. The district then considers two questions before assessing discipline. The first is whether there has been a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. If so, the district then determines the appropriate consequence for such a violation. But in this case, as in all cases, if the perceived violation is determined not to be true, the student is returned to class, as soon as possible, without consequence."

The school's explanation continued, "Unfortunately, Dakota remained in in-house suspension for almost four hours before returning to his assigned classes without a consequence. While the delay was due to the district's attempt to carefully consider the competing interests presented by the referral, we do apologize for the delay in returning Dakota to class."


I don't feel the teacher over reacted. I think they were being cautious given the hyper reactive Politically Correct schism that seems to be affecting American society on all fronts. And as such, so as to insure tolerance and a safe environment in a public government funded school environment, the teacher acted so as to protect all concerned, and to clarify right conduct in such matters.

If anything I think Liberty counsel over reacted, in that the in-house suspension lasted but 4 hours and the student was then returned to classes.

I see Liberty as pursuing this matter not for the sake of one Dakota Ary, but rather due to the timing of this incident in Texas that coincided with the Legislative measure that was being argued in Michigan relative to bullying, religion and particularly homosexual identity of public school students.

SB-0137 Aka/ "Matt's Safe School Law" as passed in the Senate November 2, 2011.


The Bill/Law may actually be understood as pro-bullying, when applying religious exemption to the act of bullying.
I.E. one's personal religious point of view can confront someone from that religious ideological stand point, and not be construed as engaging in bully type behavior due to the religious freedom exemption afforded the behavior.


Tragic and morally reprehensible, in my view.


Firstly, as in the case with Mr. Ary, it presumes the religion that has the right of exemption or that the bully or harassing behavior that would be demonstrated from a religious standpoint would by and large be that afforded through the Christian doctrine.

So that Doctrinal opposition to Homosexuality, for instance, would not only be tolerated but would be exempt from prosecution under this alleged law of protection for government funded (secular) public school students.

However, as we all know a law of this nature can not give exclusive exemption for conduct to one religious identity.

Ergo, there would be nothing precluding a Muslim ultra-right wing conservative student from taking issue with girls who did not comport with the Sharia standard of dress, be they Muslim or non-Muslim.
There would be nothing to preclude a ultra-right wing conservative white supremacist from preaching for segregation and against integration. Nor would it be construed as bullying and thus subject to disciplinary action, if that religious ideology was used as cause behind physically or verbally assaulting a non-white student.

I think it a dangerous precedent that religious doctrine can be espoused in a secular environment dedicated to education, when those doctrines in as much as condemn and judge what is an eclectic assembly of individual minors joined in community within a government tax payer funded educational environment that would then, given the Michigan precedent, permit discrimination against certain of the student body using the allotment of religious exemption as a standard for cause against what would otherwise be found morally reprehensible as bullying under any other standard.

Personally, as a straight woman married for quite some time now, I can say that my relationship with God necessarily informs me that that superior being is incapable of creating an abomination in his image and likeness.

Personally speaking, I do not believe sexuality is a choice. If it is, as is often argued when individuals may claim homosexuality is a choice, then that by proxy intimates that they speak as one who has decided to practice heterosexuality. That they elect to have sensual biological reactions happen, when gazing at someone of the opposite sex whom they decide is attractive enough to allow those emotions to go deeper than just a visual first impression.

I think it delusional to imagine one can choose to activate their libido. And I think it impertinent, living within the infinite gaze of a supreme omniscient omnipotent omnipresent and most importantly, omnibenevolent creator father, to interpret man made doctrine as Deific permission to find abominable and treat as condemned and worthy of ridicule, etc... a soul manifest in flesh and born in the image and likeness of God, because they are Homosexual.

When the Leviticus verse, given the context of the time and the relationship between a man and a woman in a Jewish house, could just as easily be interpreted as condemning any man who lies with another man as one would the woman who was and continues to be in orthodox houses, unclean, foul and a lesser sex.

In my world, a God of love can not create an object of derision and authorize their death or battery by mortal judgment that declares when God created Homosexuals he created an abomination, a mistake, a creature worthy of condemnation until it chooses to be heterosexual and thus be afforded forgiveness and respect on earth and in Heaven.

So I guess I afforded commentary to post 1 and the whole of the argument regarding the morality of Homosexuality all in one fell swoop.


I'm thrifty like that. Saves time. ​