Miss. prom canceled after lesbian's date request

[BlackAndy]

Anywhere you think the new testament condemns homosexuality, I'm pretty sure you're using a flawed translation, or taking it out of context.

[FONT=arial,helvetica] "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

The only place in the New Testament that homosexuality is discussed is Romans. Homosexuality is described as vile, against nature, unseemly.
Where is my translation flawed?


[/FONT]

 

[LightHorseman]

[FONT=arial,helvetica] "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]The only place in the New Testament that homosexuality is discussed is Romans. Homosexuality is described as vile, against nature, unseemly.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Where is my translation flawed?[/FONT]

People far more learned than you or I disagree that "homosexual" is an apt translation of Paul's term "arsenokoites". You're also taking it out of context, you need to read the next chapter as well.

All that aside, this has what to do with a public school?

 

[lawtonfogle]

What do you mean normal dress?

The dress than the average male wears. Remember, dressing like a female is abnormal, since most males don't do it. But that does not make it bad. For example, waiting for marriage to have sex has become abnormal because most people don't do it, but it is not bad.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Guess I have to quote myself to drive home a point:

then Christians (at least those who adhere to scripture) will reject homosexual behavior

Calling oneself a Christian and BEING a Christian are two different things.

The difference is between rejecting it but still allowing others to legally engage in it. For example, I am not going to attempt to pass laws that make blasphemy illegal, even though I reject blasphemy.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Not possible.

Why?

Granted, there is a difference between morally supporting something and legally supporting something. I support free speech, but I morally think you shouldn't engage in blasphemy.

 

[lawtonfogle]

[FONT=arial,helvetica] "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Perhaps this is just women who stop being barefoot and pregnant and want to get a job instead?

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

This sounds like heterosexuals who decided to engage in homosexual sex.

And what is this 'natural use for women'? I don't remember my Sunday school class ever teaching the 'natural use for women'...

Perhaps I should try to get my church to start teaching children (you gotta raised them with sound scripture from a young age) what this 'natural use of the woman' is.

The only place in the New Testament that homosexuality is discussed is Romans. Homosexuality is described as vile, against nature, unseemly.
Where is my translation flawed?
[/FONT]

See above.

 

[wanderingone]

Okay, how to pose this question?

Let me think... are people under the age of 18 allowed sexual freedom rights in the first place in the USA? I don't think so...???

But.... there was no request by this young woman (who I believe IS 18) to have sex... she notified the school who her date was... not who her sex partner was.

--- as for your suggestion that persons under 18 do not have sexual freedome... 18 is not the national age of consent, each state has their own laws, In most states it's younger than 18 and restrictions are based on child welfare laws that protect them exploitation by persons older than themselve.

 

[Maren]

That is why I said she will have to prove that prom was canceled because of her request for the judge to even consider this case.

Actually, I think unless someone else was suing the district to change prom in some way that the court will find it reasonable to believe that the "distractions" were caused by the lawsuit. From what I recall of other cases it is typically up to the defendant (the school board) to prove that other distractions, and not the lawsuit, were the cause. Beyond that, one strong indicator that it was because of this girl is the blame McMillen has been getting from other students -- if it was not her fault you would expect the school to step in to stop a student from being blamed for the distractions.

I also think one of the things that will really hurt the school district in this case is the statement, "It is our hope that private citizens will organize an event for the juniors and seniors." This sounds a lot like they were admitting they couldn't legally keep the lesbian out of the prom, so they are asking that a private group have a prom so the lesbian can legally be excluded.

 

[Pinhead]

[/i]
Perhaps this is just women who stop being barefoot and pregnant and want to get a job instead?

This sounds like heterosexuals who decided to engage in homosexual sex.

And what is this 'natural use for women'? I don't remember my Sunday school class ever teaching the 'natural use for women'...

Perhaps I should try to get my church to start teaching children (you gotta raised them with sound scripture from a young age) what this 'natural use of the woman' is.


See above.

You can toy with the words all you want- you KNOW what is being said. It is obvious (to anyone who isn't being willfully ignorant of the facts, that is.)

 

[Pinhead]

People far more learned than you or I disagree that "homosexual" is an apt translation of Paul's term "arsenokoites". You're also taking it out of context, you need to read the next chapter as well.

All that aside, this has what to do with a public school?

I, myself, have read the entire chapter, book, etc. It is what it is.

 

[LightHorseman]

I, myself, have read the entire chapter, book, etc. It is what it is.

Did you read it in ancient Greek?

But even if you did, its not really relevent concerning anyone who doesnt believe in it. This incident did not occur at a Christian school.

 

[Pinhead]

Did you read it in ancient Greek?

But even if you did, its not really relevent concerning anyone who doesnt believe in it. This incident did not occur at a Christian school.

Right. I think this was actually in defense of the Christian belief system. Someone earlier said that because we follow a scriptural code of ethics we are HATEFUL.

My argument remains: This girl wanted to take something traditional and change it to meet HER standards. When the school system changed it altogether she cried persecution...
poor thing.

 

[Maren]

Right. I think this was actually in defense of the Christian belief system. Someone earlier said that because we follow a scriptural code of ethics we are HATEFUL.

Actually, no, what you are trying to defend is the right to force your "code of ethics" onto others who don't believe as you do. Somehow I think you would call a group of Muslims hateful if they attempted to force women to wear burkas in this country, even though per your comment they would just be following a scriptural code of ethics.

EDIT: To respond to what you added to your post after I clicked "QUOTE" -- No, the girl wanted to choose her own date, as tradition (and the law) allows. The school board, knowing they couldn't legally deny her to bring who she chose as her date, decided that if they couldn't legally get their way they would just cancel the whole thing. It had nothing to do with "change to meet HER standards", it had to do with the school district that would not follow the standards.

 

[CaptainNemo1138]

Right. I think this was actually in defense of the Christian belief system. Someone earlier said that because we follow a scriptural code of ethics we are HATEFUL.

My argument remains: This girl wanted to take something traditional and change it to meet HER standards. When the school system changed it altogether she cried persecution...
poor thing.

They closed the entire prom. How is that anything but overreacting? And no, you're hateful because you're happy in denying someone you've never met the right to love their partner.

 

[yasic]

I applaud the moral stance this school is taking. Inevitably though, public schools will be forced to indoctrinate their students with curriculum that reflects the morals and values of American secular society.

If a Christian school wants to maintain its moral standards, it's going to have to go private.

Meanwhile, this graduating class will likely have their prom in a hall or a barn somewhere. Whether the lesbian couple shows up or not will depend on the graduating class. My guess is that they will be accepted.

Yes, if your Christian school wants to uphold its traditional racist, homophobic, sexist or otherwise discriminatory view, they must go private so as not to receive government funds.

Every school has the right to (or at least in theory should) decide to not give blacks, asians, women, homosexuals, or any other subgroup of people the same rights and activities, or even to go so far as to call them not people... just don't expect the taxpayers who fall into those categories to pay for the school.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Anywhere you think the new testament condemns homosexuality, I'm pretty sure you're using a flawed translation, or taking it out of context.

Anywhere you think that God has declared that sexual immorality is okay is obviously you reading scripture the way YOU want to read it. I'm pretty sure YOU'RE using a flawed translation and taking it out of context.

point is, you're going off your own interpretation as much as you accuse the next person of going off theirs.

 

[LightHorseman]

Anywhere you think that God has declared that sexual immorality is okay is obviously you reading scripture the way YOU want to read it. I'm pretty sure YOU'RE using a flawed translation and taking it out of context.

point is, you're going off your own interpretation as much as you accuse the next person of going off theirs.

Quite possibly. The difference is I'M not using MY interpretation as a justification to oppress others.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Quite possibly. The difference is I'M not using MY interpretation as a justification to oppress others.

No, actually you use it to try to force those who disagree with you into accepting this lifestyle as normal and okay and when they don't you call them hateful.

Same difference.

 

[GigageiTsula]

No, actually you use it to try to force those who disagree with you into accepting this lifestyle as normal and okay and when they don't you call them hateful.

Same difference.

I will say that, as a Christian, I'm not accepting this lifestyle as normal and okay, so I guess I'm viewed as being hateful by some.

 

[LightHorseman]

No, actually you use it to try to force those who disagree with you into accepting this lifestyle as normal and okay and when they don't you call them hateful.

Same difference.

I've never done any such thing, and I find the accusation offensive.

People can believe whatever they want, and I don't believe I've ever called anyone hateful.

The fact that I recognise that religious beliefs should not be binding on people who don't share them doesn't make me liable to fall into the same pitfalls as those that do.