Remember that high school that canceled their prom last year because an openly gay girl wanted to attend with her girlfriend? Yeah, this is like that, but more so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Tejas! Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
This thread could turn the whole world cynical.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: YouTubes are infallible
oh my god
my state
Posted by AlphaEnder (Member # 12514) on :
So, essentially they decided that rather than bow to pressure from GSA or LGBT or whatever anything like that is called, they would just eliminate all the other clubs? Good heavens, that school district must be run by pre-schoolers to be that immature and childish. That's breaking all the other toys and taking yours home so the other kids can't play with them. I couldn't care less what your sexual orientation is, so long as you don't hit on me or my family, so I'm all for letting there be a club, but this is not a proper response by the school/district.
Alpha
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alpha, I thought you should know that your remarks came off as sounding pretty anti-homosexual, and because I sometimes speak and give offense where none was meant, I thought I'd point out why the thoughts you expressed sounded hostile to homosexuals.
One, 'whatever something like that is called' conveys a bunch of scorn, though that can be easy to misinterpret onlin. GSA actually stands for Gay Straight Alliance-and since that's a fundental part of the story it's difficult to miss, suggesting your remark was a shot and that you're not actually apathetic.
Which leads directly to the second point-why do you care if a homosexual 'hits in' you or your family, more than once anyway? Are they not to be accorded the same right as everyone else, to express a polite interest in someone they find attractive until shut down? If not, why not? Are you and your family so attractive to homosexuals as to be somehow irresistible, or are they not to be cconsidered morally trustworthy enough to restrain themselves?
These are just some of the ideas contained within the ideas you expressed that make it come off as hostile to homosexuals-I just thought you should know.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think it sounded anti-homosexual at all. I'm even part of a GSA and I can't keep the acronyms straight. (or keep the acronyms gay durr hurr hurr hurr)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
This happened here in Utah a few years back in at least one school district.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Alpha, I thought you should know that your remarks came off as sounding pretty anti-homosexual, and because I sometimes speak and give offense where none was meant, I thought I'd point out why the thoughts you expressed sounded hostile to homosexuals.
Ah, I think his phrasing was more tone deaf than homophobic.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually thought the remark sounded anti-homosexual, but that was almost a good thing, i.e. even the people who don't like homosexuality think this was a mean, stupid decision.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Oh--my brain--.
The article is fine. Why the school made the decision should be addressed. They probably did so to avoid confrontations with the wackier of the parents--but we don't know.
But reading the comments--it hurts my brain. Some people are so committed to their short sighted, narrow minded, "its all about me" attitude that it is painful.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Would people feel differently if this situation were about a group of students who were attempting to force the school to let them form an anti-homosexuality club?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Would people feel differently if this situation were about a group of students who were attempting to force the school to let them form an anti-homosexuality club?
Those two things are not analogous. One is a club for members of an often-persecuted minority; the other is a club for people who share an opinion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The GSA is not a club for an often-persecuted minority. It is a club that includes both gay and straight students who share the opinion that there is too much bigotry against gays and who work to fight it. Would it be different if the students were attempting to start an equivalent club, except with the exact opposite opinion and goal?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A club that includes both gay and straight students who share the opinion that there is too much bigotry against straights and who work to fight it?
They'd be wrong, but I can't see people getting all that excited about it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I mean a club of students who think homosexuality is wrong and work to promote that view. Would it be okay for a school to block students from forming such a club, and how far could the school go if they attempted to legally force the school to let them make it?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Would people feel differently if this situation were about a group of students who were attempting to force the school to let them form an anti-homosexuality club?
Huh? A GSA group is not pro-homosexuality. It's anti- bullying, discrimination, abuse, depression, and despair. The only thing "gay" about such clubs is that they are focused on mitigating these things for gay teens. I can't think of what the opposite would be - a group that encourages beating up the homos?
ETA: From the wiki page: "The goal of most, if not all, gay–straight alliances is to make their school community safe and welcoming to all students regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
A group that encourages bullying and discrimination would be a fair example. How far should the school go to block such a club?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: A group that encourages bullying and discrimination would be a fair example. How far should the school go to block such a club?
That should be pretty easy. You can set content-neutral guidelines that determine which groups are permitted. For instance, you could probably prevent any group that encourages illegal activity or which advocates contravening school or district policies.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I mean a club of students who think homosexuality is wrong and work to promote that view.
A club of gays and straights that think homosexuality is wrong and work to promote that view?
What like Republicans? Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Would people feel differently if this situation were about a group of students who were attempting to force the school to let them form an anti-homosexuality club?
So if we have students trying to form a club promoting tolerance, understanding and friendship we should also allow students to form a club promoting hatred, bullying and discrimination?
No. I don't think ANY club that promotes hatred, bullying and discrimination should be allowed.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
That seems like a reasonable policy. Schools certainly shouldn't allow hate clubs as extracurricular activities. But then what should the school do if the students threatened to take it to the courts, and if the law was written (perhaps unintentionally) in such a way that they might be able to win such a lawsuit? Should it give in and accept a club that it believes is harmful for the students and most likely disruptive?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Do you have an opinion?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
My opinion is that they probably shouldn't give in if they have other options... but banning all clubs permanently is too far. If the only options were ban all clubs or accept harmful clubs, I suspect accepting harmful clubs is the lesser of two evils. There are too many positive extracurricular groups that would outweigh the negative effects of any one group.
...
In the real-life case, the school must believe the GSA is either harmful or will be very disruptive. I'm not sure what leads them to believe this, but it does seem like schools should have some degree of control. Having said that, its absurd to claim that whatever harm they think the GSA is going to cause would outweigh the benefits of every other extracurricular. I'd suspect any student in any extracurricular activity at the school, even those who hold anti-gay feelings, would agree on that. It is pretty clearly not in the interests of the students to do what the school system is doing here - regardless of where you stand on the political issues.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I wonder how much money they are going to save by cutting all clubs?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
One of the things that makes me sad is that some people's narrative of this event will be "those gays ruined it for everyone - now we can't have any clubs."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: One of the things that makes me sad is that some people's narrative of this event will be "those gays ruined it for everyone - now we can't have any clubs."
those women ruined it for everyone, now we can't have any sports
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:A club of gays and straights that think homosexuality is wrong and work to promote that view?
But you see, there are some that believe their faith demands they do just that. Worse, any club that promotes understanding and tolerance of Gays is a club that is attacking their faith. They believe that homosexuality can not be tolerated at any level and must be wiped out.
The damage this does to our children--gay and straight--is not as important to them as maintaining the freedom to practice their faith in as close minded and misguided way as they feel comfortable with.
They believe that Tolerating Gays = Destroying Christianity (or occasionally Islam).
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
While I do not think clubs based on sexual preference should be allowed in schools, I do think the GSA should be allowed. It is primarily against bullying, not promoting an agenda.
And banning all clubs? Come on. How are all of those comic book and anime lovers going to socialize now? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: How are all of those comic book and anime lovers going to socialize now?
Online, as God intended.
Posted by AlphaEnder (Member # 12514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Alpha, I thought you should know that your remarks came off as sounding pretty anti-homosexual, and because I sometimes speak and give offense where none was meant, I thought I'd point out why the thoughts you expressed sounded hostile to homosexuals.
One, 'whatever something like that is called' conveys a bunch of scorn, though that can be easy to misinterpret onlin. GSA actually stands for Gay Straight Alliance-and since that's a fundental part of the story it's difficult to miss, suggesting your remark was a shot and that you're not actually apathetic.
Which leads directly to the second point-why do you care if a homosexual 'hits in' you or your family, more than once anyway? Are they not to be accorded the same right as everyone else, to express a polite interest in someone they find attractive until shut down? If not, why not? Are you and your family so attractive to homosexuals as to be somehow irresistible, or are they not to be cconsidered morally trustworthy enough to restrain themselves?
These are just some of the ideas contained within the ideas you expressed that make it come off as hostile to homosexuals-I just thought you should know.
I'm sorry; I didn't mean to convey scorn. I know that GSA stands for Gay Straight Alliance (I helped set one up in my high school), and that LGBT means Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender, but I didn't know if there were any other names for groups out there. I meant it as sort of blanket statement for any names of groups I might have missed, not as something rude.
As far as a homosexual hitting on me; the first time, of course, that's not an issue because I wouldn't be offended if a heterosexual hit on me once. However, if I express distaste for either of those scenarios, I would expect it not to happen. I thought that was somewhat implied; it made sense in my mind at least.
Thank you for telling me though; I have no ill will towards homosexuals. I don't believe they'll destroy America and that we hold and cherish dear. I have a homosexual uncle, so I try to be a little empathetic. If it doesn't come off that way, I apologize. Please just read it as such.
@Faust: what do you mean by tone deaf? I only ask so I can avoid doing whatever that is again in the future.
@Raymond: I personally don't agree with homosexuality, as in I have no desire to perform it, but I'm not going to say I'm anti-homosexuality. Like I said above, I hold no ill will towards homosexuals, nor do I approve. I just don't really take a stance because it's something personal, and I don't believe in meddling with people's personal lives.
Alpha
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alpha,
I can't speak for Foust, but I suspect that he likely meant something like tone deaf as in unaware that some of your remarks sounded bad-possibly in the ways I described.
Sort of like saying, "I have a homosexual uncle," can sound bad depending on the context. It's the sort of remark that can be interpreted to be used as a credibility shield. In this situation the shield would be, "Don't accuse me of any sort of homophobia-I've got a gay uncle, I can't possibly be homophobic," depending on the other context. Also, why does it need to be mentioned? Shouldn't your remarks stand on their own merits as to what your real thoughts on homosexuals are? Those are some of my thoughts on 'tone deaf' and what things sound like, but again, I don't speak for Foust.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: How are all of those comic book and anime lovers going to socialize now?
Online, as God intended.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I just don't see why they wouldn't want the Girl Scouts of America in their school.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Cuz then they'd hafta let the BoyScouts in. And any dude who's ever Scouted 'd hafta tell ya that he still hasta wash his ears out with soap every time he remembers the lyrics of the ol' campfire songs.
[ March 01, 2011, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: While I do not think clubs based on sexual preference should be allowed in schools, I do think the GSA should be allowed. It is primarily against bullying, not promoting an agenda.
And banning all clubs? Come on. How are all of those comic book and anime lovers going to socialize now?
The CSU/Student Advocacy associations should be having a field day there right now.
Than again I'm in Canada, the district would be awash in class action law suits if they tried this.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I just don't see why they wouldn't want the Girl Scouts of America in their school.
Well, it IS cookie season . . .
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Nutrition requirements, you know.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Plus some of those cookie-selling scouts can get practically rabid.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: How are all of those comic book and anime lovers going to socialize now?
Online, as God intended.
Does pedantic bickering count as socialization now? Nice!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
See, to me the gay uncle was mentioned in his post as to why he tries to be more tolerant. That's completely different than claiming that he can't be homophobic because of it, IMO.
Just because I actually DO have a lot of black friends doesn't mean I AM bigoted. In fact, a large part of WHY I am not bigoted is BECAUSE of my black friends. I can't believe stereotypes that run so completely counter to my actual experiences with people of different races, the cognitive dissonance is too great.
I believe that it is far harder to judge people based on race, religion, and sexual preference when you don't know anyone who fits into whatever group you are bigoted against. I don't have a poor view of other people based on race because of how I was raised, but also because I have had friends from all over the world all of my life, so when I DID experience bigotry it just didn't fit my world view, even as a kid.
I don't think that Alpha's original post was bigoted, and his clarification was clear as day to me.
YMMV.
Posted by iglee (Member # 12455) on :
Quick, call the waaaambulance for all the whineos !
I really don’t give a rat’s adrenal gland why this school district banned all clubs from using school facilities, I’m just glad they did. Nor do I give a weasel’s spleen what that club’s agenda is, they and most other clubs have no business using school facilities.
(I'm not even convinced public schools should have huge sports programs.)
I just wish more school districts would do this - especially the one I’m paying property and other taxes to support. For as long as I can remember my family and I have been subsidizing other people’s causes, hobbies, and activities. AND I’M SICK AND TIRED OF IT. I’ve never asked other people to subsidize my hobbies, and I shouldn’t have to subsidize theirs.
So, any people who want their own club should just stop whining about it and form their own club on their own property with their own money on their own time and leave the rest of the people in their communities the hell alone.
(If I sound angry and disgusted, it’s because I am. )
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So you'd rather that the school facilities sat empty and unused?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by iglee: Quick, call the waaaambulance for all the whineos !
I really don’t give a rat’s adrenal gland why this school district banned all clubs from using school facilities, I’m just glad they did. Nor do I give a weasel’s spleen what that club’s agenda is, they and most other clubs have no business using school facilities.
(I'm not even convinced public schools should have huge sports programs.)
I just wish more school districts would do this - especially the one I’m paying property and other taxes to support. For as long as I can remember my family and I have been subsidizing other people’s causes, hobbies, and activities. AND I’M SICK AND TIRED OF IT. I’ve never asked other people to subsidize my hobbies, and I shouldn’t have to subsidize theirs.
So, any people who want their own club should just stop whining about it and form their own club on their own property with their own money on their own time and leave the rest of the people in their communities the hell alone.
You do realize the effect your plan would have on the dropout rate?
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
And you do realize that colleges these days virtually insist applicants have participated in sports, music, or other school-organized clubs?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(Not in Canada, come up North! )
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
well, isn't it better to pay more for police and jails when these kids end up droppin out and with little connection to society rather than giving them something fun and relatively cheap? I know I would rather spend more money on protecting MY safety than give someone else something they don't deserve and have done nothing to earn.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by iglee: I really don’t give a rat’s adrenal gland why this school district banned all clubs from using school facilities, I’m just glad they did.
This is like happening 'I don't care that this was a an act of stinging social discrimination against gays enacted via a school's management!' basically because you hate clubs just that much.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that he is just very possessive regarding his vermin organs.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Quick, call the waaaambulance for all the whineos !
This is a statement of considerable irony given you, well, many would call it proceed to make a post in which you whine angrily about funding extra-curricular activities for children.
quote: I really don’t give a rat’s adrenal gland why this school district banned all clubs from using school facilities, I’m just glad they did. Nor do I give a weasel’s spleen what that club’s agenda is, they and most other clubs have no business using school facilities.
They absolutely do have business using school facilities. School activities, such as extra-curricular activities, are what school facilities are for. Not just the RRRs.
quote:(I'm not even convinced public schools should have huge sports programs.)
quote:(I'm not even convinced public schools should have huge sports programs.)
I'm not either, but instead of an angry (whining) rant, you could examine the question of what happens after such programs are eliminated. You know, what enters the vacuum.
quote: I just wish more school districts would do this - especially the one I’m paying property and other taxes to support. For as long as I can remember my family and I have been subsidizing other people’s causes, hobbies, and activities. AND I’M SICK AND TIRED OF IT. I’ve never asked other people to subsidize my hobbies, and I shouldn’t have to subsidize theirs.
First of all, yes you have. Not directly, but yes you have. You're a member of society, you get more than you give unless you're some sort of saint, so yes, you do. That's the virtue of civilization. Shared labor yields greater benefits for everyone. Second, those property taxes you're we'll just say complaining about, it is indeed dreadful that they go towards improving the lives and education of children.
One might wonder aloud what might happen to your neighborhood, your property values, if suddenly there were no extracurricular activities in your neighborhood. I can guess what someone of your rant-y flavor will say - they should be funded, just not by me - but that's not the question at hand.
quote: So, any people who want their own club should just stop whining about it and form their own club on their own property with their own money on their own time and leave the rest of the people in their communities the hell alone.
Or people who attend a public school and whose parents also pay taxes and have a right to public education and facilities, etc., want to use the facilities they have supported.
(If this response sounds exasperated and sarcastic, it's because your post was pretty childish and obnoxious.)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Rakeesh- my initial response was just a string of name calling and expletives and I figured that was against TOS so I didn't post it. So, I am pretty impressed you managed to give the response you did cause your level of exasprated and sarcatic is pretty low.
Posted by AlphaEnder (Member # 12514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: See, to me the gay uncle was mentioned in his post as to why he tries to be more tolerant. That's completely different than claiming that he can't be homophobic because of it, IMO.
Just because I actually DO have a lot of black friends doesn't mean I AM bigoted. In fact, a large part of WHY I am not bigoted is BECAUSE of my black friends. I can't believe stereotypes that run so completely counter to my actual experiences with people of different races, the cognitive dissonance is too great.
I believe that it is far harder to judge people based on race, religion, and sexual preference when you don't know anyone who fits into whatever group you are bigoted against. I don't have a poor view of other people based on race because of how I was raised, but also because I have had friends from all over the world all of my life, so when I DID experience bigotry it just didn't fit my world view, even as a kid.
I don't think that Alpha's original post was bigoted, and his clarification was clear as day to me.
YMMV.
Yes, exactly. That's what I was shooting for. Thank you.
Alpha
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kwea,
I agree with much of what you're saying, though I think you're misinterpreting some of it.
I don't think having exactly one minority friend or relative is some sort of magical guarantor of prejudice. That'd be pretty silly. I was talking about, with AlphaEnder, what sounded anti-homosexual and explaining why. In this case it was citing one's gay uncle as credibility in a conversation that had, to me, a few other remarks that were pretty uncertain on an anti-/friendly- scale (examples being 'whatever anything like that is called', don't ever hit on me (or my family). Those remarks have since been gone into greater detail.
Or as Foust said, 'tone-deaf'. Personally I hadn't made up my mind, when I made my initial post, whether AlphaEnder was anti-homosexual in his politics or whether his remarks were simply tone deaf. I was only ever posting, as I said, about how they sounded.
For example, the citation of the gay uncle. It's just the sort of factoid that, brought up in the way it was - and in this case, it was specifically used to point out, "I didn't intend to sound like that." - having the gay uncle isn't what sounds anti-homosexual, obviously. Referencing the gay uncle as a source of credibility is what sounds, not bad exactly but...sketchy. Because it comes in a context of a host of other remarks that also sound sketchy.
You see the distinction? I'm specifically not cross-examining AlphaEnder, btw. That's not my job, I'm not entitled to do so, I'm taking a much narrower and for me right now more interesting approach: discussing how things sound. "I didn't mean to sound anti-homosexual. If I did sound that way, it was unintentional, because I'm not anti-homosexual. I've got a gay uncle!" The proper (to me) way not to sound anti-something is to simply not speak in ways that are likely to be taken that way, rather than having a genealogical boilerplate.
More relevant to that discussion of how things sound would be talking about, for example, how much interest is expressed in the uncle's personal life and the ways homosexuality impacts it compared to other relatives-ideally other uncles of similar closeness, for comparison's sake. Would the gay uncle, if invited over for dinner, be frowned upon actively or subtly for bringing a partner (of whatever duration) with him? How would any physical affection between the two be tolerated-in front of or not in front of any children? Open discussion of the two of them as a couple? Etc. etc. These are the kinds of things that serve the purpose AlphaEnder intended by mentioning a gay uncle, the answers to these and similar questions. (I'm not asking them, btw.) Not just having the uncle in the first place.
Much like the classic 'some of my best friends are black' line. The natural follow-up to that is, "When was the last time you had a black man over to your house for dinner, or for any occasion at all."
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Why clubs and after school activities are worth your tax dollars?
Do you know when the most dangerous time to be out on the street is?
Its not after midnight.
Its not at dark.
Its between 3-5pm. FBI Statistics show this.
Do you know why? Its because those same kids who could be making kites or acting or throwing the football around, are to often totally unsupervised between the end of school and the time parents get home from work.
The conservative response to this being (I've heard it many times), "Fine, so we need good after school activities. Let private money pay for it!"
Except that, well, that's a great big leap of faith, ain't it? Not that the private money is there, but that it would be given in sufficient amounts to fill in the gaps.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Some of my best friends are jamaican neighbors
quote:Much like the classic 'some of my best friends are black' line. The natural follow-up to that is, "When was the last time you had a black man over to your house for dinner, or for any occasion at all."
does a black woman count? That cuts me down from two months to three days.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's pretty harsh, Samprimary. I don't know if AlphaEnder knows who you're referring to, but I don't think the conversation has risen (well, sunk really) to even that neighborhood yet. Really does just seem like, as Foust said, tone-deaf to me.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... The proper (to me) way not to sound anti-something is to simply not speak in ways that are likely to be taken that way, rather than having a genealogical boilerplate. ... Would the gay uncle, if invited over for dinner, be frowned upon actively or subtly for bringing a partner (of whatever duration) with him? How would any physical affection between the two be tolerated-in front of or not in front of any children? Open discussion of the two of them as a couple? Etc. etc. These are the kinds of things that serve the purpose AlphaEnder intended by mentioning a gay uncle, the answers to these and similar questions. (I'm not asking them, btw.) Not just having the uncle in the first place. ...
Rakeesh, I think you are doing a phenomenal job of explicating an important concept that is often difficult to catch. Stellar!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
my state
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So, I am pretty impressed you managed to give the response you did cause your level of exasprated and sarcatic is pretty low.