9th grader expelled for kissing a girl

[Ksyrup]

Anyone see the most recent Family Guy? How many volunteers do we have in this thread to be the camera man for Quagmire?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I'd really have to hear more specific details about the alledged incidents, especially the all-girl sleepover. Preferably from both points of view and step-by-step.

Again, possibly acted out by porn stars on Cinemax or something more hardcore?

SI

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

From a legal standpoint, I think that the school is going to have to prove that a girl kissing another girl at a slumber party is clearly a violation of the "spirit of the school standards".

I agree in general that this private school should have the right to dictate standards of behavior for their students and be able to remove students that violate those standards (so long as said standards don't break the law), but the school also has the responsibility to clearly define what constitutes unacceptable behavior. Not knowing this school, I have no idea whether the girl's actions were clearly a violation of school policy.

Who told the school what happened at the slumber party to begin with? That's what I wonder?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Who told the school what happened at the slumber party to begin with? That's what I wonder?

In high school, it's not like secrets are good at being kept. Probably some girls were talking about it at lunch or in class or something and a teacher overheard or even something as silly as a girl in the hall yelling that someone kissed someone else. Remember, these are high school girls.

SI

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by BrianD

So you aren't against the idea of the contract or the school expelling someone for violation of the contract, you just don't like the fact that a girl kissing another girl is considered against their contract?

I don't disagree with you, I'm just looking to get at the heart of your argument.

I disagree with the contract if it includes private things done off of school grounds that bring no harm to anyone or do not promote negativity or hatred or violence. If someone participates in a KKK rally, yes - the school should be able to expell the kid, but for a kiss? I just don't agree that the school/church should be able to dictate such matters.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I disagree with the contract if it includes private things done off of school grounds that bring no harm to anyone or do not promote negativity or hatred or violence. If someone participates in a KKK rally, yes - the school should be able to expell the kid, but for a kiss? I just don't agree that the school/church should be able to dictate such matters.

Um... but why does it matter if they participate in a KKK rally versus kissing another girl. Both are prefectly legal if done outside the school?

SI

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Um... but why does it matter if they participate in a KKK rally versus kissing another girl. Both are prefectly legal if done outside the school?

SI

The difference is that she approves of one action, whereas the other offends HER moral sensibility. She doesn't care that other people have different moral sensibilities.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The difference is that she approves of one action, whereas the other offends HER moral sensibility. She doesn't care that other people have different moral sensibilities.

We....have......a........WINNAH!!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

I disagree with the contract ...

But you weren't the one who agreed to the contract, the girl/parents of the girl in question did.

(Apparently, however, they aren't real inclined towards following the agreements they make either, but that's a whole other thread)

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Anyone see the most recent Family Guy? How many volunteers do we have in this thread to be the camera man for Quagmire?

Gigggiggiggity!

[oliegirl]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The difference is that she approves of one action, whereas the other offends HER moral sensibility. She doesn't care that other people have different moral sensibilities.

No, I could care less if someone wants to participate in a KKK rally...my point is that promotes hatred, which goes against everything a Christian school is supposed to teach, therefore it would be obvious why that was a violation of their rules or code of conduct.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Fyi,
while I agree that its the church's right and what not and the girl knew the rules - would we be okay with this if the girl was expelled for kissing a black or jewish boy ? I think CW may have alluded to this earlier, but church rules do not override the law.

Being black isn't a choice. Being gay is. Worlds of difference.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Being black isn't a choice. Being gay is. Worlds of difference.

*ducks out of way of thread exploding*

SI

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Anyone see the most recent Family Guy? How many volunteers do we have in this thread to be the camera man for Quagmire?

Not to threadjack, but my DVR box failed to record any shows on Sunday night. When are Family Guy and American Dad replayed on Cartoon Network?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Being black isn't a choice. Being gay is. Worlds of difference.

I fail to understand how people still equate "being gay" with "homosexual behavior." This incident is about behavior not about a state of being.

Being black isn't a choice. Engaging in homosexual behavior is. Worlds of difference.

Fixed it for you.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Being black isn't a choice. Being gay is. Worlds of difference.

Can of worms - opened.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, I TRIED to close it.

[jeff061]

Well you steered around it, it's still there waiting and calling out to people .

[Solecismic]

One thing I'd like to point out:

A person can not change being black. However, two black people getting together and producing a black child have chosen to add another black person to the community.

Therefore, the Church of Discrimination would be legally justified in kicking the parents out of the church, but not the newborn child. It's very simple.

Hate the spin, not the spinner, please.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Well, I TRIED to close it.

Sort of. If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, then engaging in homosexual behavior is no more a choice than engaging in heterosexual behavior - it's simply engaging in sexual behavior, with the orientation of said behavior governed by your genetic makeup.

There, that should help pry the can open further...

[Drake]

With the obligatory Hitler reference, a KKK reference and finally the Is-Gay-a-Choice? trifecta, I'm officially out of this thread.

Last thought: I want to be st. cronin when I grow up.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Sort of. If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, then engaging in homosexual behavior is no more a choice than engaging in heterosexual behavior - it's simply engaging in sexual behavior, with the orientation of said behavior governed by your genetic makeup.

There, that should help pry the can open further...

Engaging in sexual behavior is certainly a choice, is it not?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Drake

Last thought: I want to be st. cronin when I grow up.

uh oh

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I fail to understand how people still equate "being gay" with "homosexual behavior." This incident is about behavior not about a state of being.

Being black isn't a choice. Engaging in homosexual behavior is. Worlds of difference.

Fixed it for you.

Thank you. That's what I meant.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Engaging in sexual behavior is certainly a choice, is it not?

While it's less voluntary than eating or drinking, it's considered one of the primary drives in human behavior.

So, yes it's a choice, but not all choices are equal. I can choose to eat today and I can choose whether to trim my fingernails. One choice carries a hell of a lot more primal incentive than the other.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Sort of. If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, then engaging in homosexual behavior is no more a choice than engaging in heterosexual behavior - it's simply engaging in sexual behavior, with the orientation of said behavior governed by your genetic makeup.

There, that should help pry the can open further...

If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, that still doesn't *force* homosexual or heterosexual behavior. Last time I checked, I had the option to choose whether or not to engage in heterosexual behavior. I made the choice not to engage in said behavior until May 16th, 1998.

{Pushes can lid down....}

[dacman]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So, yes it's a choice, but not all choices are equal. I can choose to eat today and I can choose whether to trim my fingernails. One choice carries a hell of a lot more primal incentive than the other.

Yeah, you're gonna die if you don't have sex.

[Solecismic]

Some people are born stupid. Should a private school (or even a public university) have the right to create admissions standards discriminating against kids who will never be able to meet them?

Should they have the right, down the road, to kick out students who they thought could meet the academic guidelines, but clearly are incapable?

Should they be forced to determine which failing students are failing because they're innately stupid and which are failing because they won't put in the necessary study hours?

Even in cases where people are expressing the inevitable manifestation of their genetic or environmental makeup, we can't focus on determining why the behavior took place, we can only observe and react to the behavior itself.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, that still doesn't *force* homosexual or heterosexual behavior. Last time I checked, I had the option to choose whether or not to engage in heterosexual behavior. I made the choice not to engage in said behavior until May 16th, 1998.

{Pushes can lid down....}

I get your point, but two things to consider when relating this to the story at hand:

1. When you chose not to engage in heterosexual behavior until you were married, did said behavior include kissing girls? What about petting/groping? Any other forms of foreplay? (Note: I don't actually need to know details - I'm simply trying to establish a point in defining what constitutes "sexual behavior" and what you actually chose to put off limits until marriage).

2. You also had a defined end date to your abstinance. If one frames the argument in the context of "homosexual behavior is a choice, and you can choose not to ever act on it" then a more appropriate comparison is to a heterosexual that chooses lifelong abstinance. I will charge that such people are a very rare breed.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by dacman

Yeah, you're gonna die if you don't have sex.

Yeah, I haven't heard of anyone dying from lack of sex. I must have missed that episode of ER or House.

SI

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

If you believe that one's sexual orientation is defined or largely defined by genetics, that still doesn't *force* homosexual or heterosexual behavior. Last time I checked, I had the option to choose whether or not to engage in heterosexual behavior. I made the choice not to engage in said behavior until May 16th, 1998.

{Pushes can lid down....}

If you had waited just another three-four months, I would have had FOF1 ready and you could have held off all the way into mid-2004.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by dacman

Yeah, you're gonna die if you don't have sex.

So, you'd have no problem never having sex (again?) in your life?

No, it's not a life or death thing - that's why I said it's not as primal as eating or drinking. But it's a lot more primal than other kinds of choices. Or are you seriously denying that there is a major incentive wired into human brains to engage in sex?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

If you had waited just another three-four months, I would have had FOF1 ready and you could have held off all the way into mid-2004.

zing

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, I haven't heard of anyone dying from lack of sex. I must have missed that episode of ER or House.

SI

Here's what I said:

"While it's less voluntary than eating or drinking, it's considered one of the primary drives in human behavior."

I did not say sex is an equivalent drive to eating or drinking or that it was a life or death thing. But are you going to argue against the contention that engaging in sex is a much stronger human drive than say cutting your hair?

[st.cronin]

We've wandered way off course here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect kids to not engage in any sexual behavior through their high school years.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

We've wandered way off course here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect kids to not engage in any sexual behavior through their high school years.

I don't necessarily disagree, but that depends on how you define what constitutes "sexual behavior". Does this mean vaginal intercourse? Oral sex? Heavy petting? Kissing?

[dawgfan]

Dola (maybe) -

I also don't think this is way off-topic here. What if this girl had kissed a boy - would that have been grounds for expulsion from her private Christian school?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Dola (maybe) -

I also don't think this is way off-topic here. What if this girl had kissed a boy - would that have been grounds for expulsion from her private Christian school?

I'd say that depends on the school's level of conservatism. Bob Jones University and Columbia Bible College both outlawed heterosexual HAND-HOLDING at one time. (I haven't checked lately, so it might still be against the rules for all I know.)

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Dola (maybe) -

I also don't think this is way off-topic here. What if this girl had kissed a boy - would that have been grounds for expulsion from her private Christian school?

Who knows. There's no way to tell from the article.

[Neon_Chaos]

Being Chinese-Filipino ain't my choice either....



What were we talking about again?

[TRO]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

Being a Christian is living a life that is accepting of others, despite their differences. Living the best life you can every day and trying to be a good person and make the right decisions regardless of the temptations. I would hope that most people consider themselves a Christian even if they don't associate with a specific religion. It's not a bad thing to be a Christian, but people like the idiots at this school seem to be trying really hard to make it into a bad thing.

Actually, I consider this being a "Good Person" not a "Christian".

I would hope that people would strive to be a Good Person no matter their religious background.

There are Christian's that are good people and Christian's that are bad people.

There are Buddhist's and Hindu's, etc that have good and bad representation.

Not slamming on you specifically, it just always irks me when I hear being a Christian represented like this.

Carry on.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Drake

Define tolerance.

(And no, this has nothing to do with the female on female action -- of which I'm a big fan.)

I hear lots of people talk about how Jesus preached tolerance, but I'm not sure that the tolerance we talk about and the tolerance He talked about are the same sort of thing.

Jesus's 'tolerance' was a very mixed thing ...

On one hand he couldn't stand false Gods and quite happily tore up their temples etc.

But he was cool with mixing with prostitutes and such like .... hmmm wonder if that school allows them?

[Marc Vaughan]

Not slamming on you specifically, it just always irks me when I hear being a Christian represented like this.

But your interpretation of that being a definition of a 'Good' person doesn't make it any less valid - the general gist of being a christian is to encourage people to be 'good' ...

That other religions are also in the same vein doesn't make that definition any different, it just shows that other religions also have the same positive message .... and indeed many aetheists live by the same sort of personal rule-base (many arguably adhering to it better than the relgiious people imho ).

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by oliegirl

No, I could care less if someone wants to participate in a KKK rally...my point is that promotes hatred, which goes against everything a Christian school is supposed to teach, therefore it would be obvious why that was a violation of their rules or code of conduct.

I think you keep missing the point.

YOU don't think that girls kissing girls is harmful like a KKK rally is.

However, this school apparently does. While you (and many of us) may not agree with it, it is their right to believe so.

I could VERY easily argue with you that kicking someone out for participating in a KKK rally is just as discriminatory if not moreso than kicking this girl out for kissing another girl.

st. cronin is hitting it this on the head... you can't seperate what challenges your sensibilities from this discussion. It doesn't matter legally whether we think girls kissing girls is wrong, it matters whether it is against the schools rules. And if part of their teaching is that homosexuality is wrong, then this goes within the rules they stated (although as some said, they may get hit on a technicality about it being vague).