Gay-rights decision protested at E. Kentucky school

No, I know, transportation isn't a valid comparison as far as law is concerned (no one has to leave their homes). However, much of the issue seems to be about paying for something you don't use, so in that context, transportation seems perfectly comparable. So it seems that either we do away with the current tax system and all the programs that go along with it, or we stop complaining about paying "double" when we choose to go outside the system that has been set up.

Maybe another thread for tax issues, huh?

 

Christian GLBT community - These are not compatiable. Being a born again Christian by the grace of God and homosexuality cannot go together. The Bible clearly states its a sin against nature and an abomination against God.

If my kids went to public school I would pull them out and homeschool them or send them to a private school. My word for public school education is government indoctrination centers.

 

Thanks for the welcome back, Joseph.

It is true what the government giveth the government can taketh away.

But it is also not fair our taxes go for education with a lean or bent which is diametrically opposed to Christian values & morals.

Here's a for instance:

Know someone who was a public school teacher in Minnesota (biology) who was going to be required to teach homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle to 7th & 8th graders. This was a requirement. Her only option was to quit public schools and go to work in a private Christian school.

So, who is to blame for all of this? The lawyers once again?

For Christians to pay for public education which is diametrically opposed to our moral beliefs & to then pay for private schooling or homeschooling in addition to that seems like a double taxation in my mind. I can, however, see both sides of the issue.

But also, I think the voucher system would put pressure on public schools to perform better and produce better educated students because of the competition.

Like nearly everything else in our society, another can of worms.

 

I pretty much agree with your assessment of public education. But handing private education over to the government by having them fund it is not the answer. I agree it isn't fair. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Those who sow to the flesh reap disaster. Thus sayeth the Lord.

Jerusalem staggers, Judah is falling; their words and deeds are against the LORD, defying his glorious presence. The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them!
They have brought disaster upon themselves (Isaiah 3:8-9).

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

In the Father,

Russ <><

 

The government was not established by God for the education of children, it is there to enforce rules and laws. To punish those who are evil and reward those who do good. That is what my Bible says.

Romans 13

 

Perversion is perversion. Period. Sin is sin. Period.

Please, spare us.</font>[/QUOTE]Hello Rev. G,

You said it all in those few words. I say Amen to ya Brother! I would also add... Sexual Immorality is Sexual Immorality. If anyone doubts that homosexuality is sexual immorality simply read Leviticus 18:22 (read the whole chapter for context), "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Lev. 18:22, KJV). Now I am sure that the Liberal Theologians out there will attempt to work up some great "hermeneutical gymnastics" to get around that verse; however, the Word of God could not be clearer.

[ November 08, 2002, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

When it comes to clubs in public schools, though, is sin the lens through which we should look to determine which clubs are legal and which are not? That is the issue, it seems, of this thread, after all.

[ November 08, 2002, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: stubbornkelly ]

 

Good point Kelly. There's no argument from secular morality (which is the ethos that is - appropriately - taught in public school) against such a school group.

Joshua

 

You're wrong once again. In a free society, public institutions have no right to indoctrinate people with any ethos at all. If you accept the premise that it can then the Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc. ethos is just as proper as any other.

 

Yes. Schools should not teach promiscuity of any sort. I do not advocate "safe-sex" education since it gives kids a basis for rationalizing immoral and still unsafe behaviour. The effects of sex outside of God's design whether hetero or homo are terrible.

Your application of my logic is faulty. A marriage in which both the man and woman are faithful physically, mentally, and emotionally is the right answer. Extra-marital sex of any kind is always a wrong answer... and will predictably bring sorrow, guilt, unhappiness, and other negative consequences.

Statistics would suggest that there is.

... then the question would be what type of "Christians" you are experienced with rather than "Is this or that a sin?"

Before you go off, I know that most people today have deviated from the biblical model for sexual purity and morality. I am not talking about should we forgive. I am talking about what we should approve and promote.

[ November 08, 2002, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

A school should not do anything to promote any group that is based on sexual activity. They should be promoting sexual purity. I don't agree with homosexuality (Scripturally based reasons) and for the same reason do not agree with premarital sexual activity; the school has no place promoting either one.

 

But a Gay Straight Alliance isn't a club based on sexual activity.

Further, following logic, the school shouldn't be promoting abstinence, either. Give facts and information - comprehensive sex education doesn't inherently promote sex (and it include study of abstinence), and if they promote abstinence, they're still promoting a behavior and moral code. It just happens to be one you agree with.

Sexual education should not be about promoting any sort of sexual morality; simply about presenting all the information in an unbiased, factual manner.

[ November 08, 2002, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: stubbornkelly ]

 

Little Johnny tells his teacher he wants to rob a bank. The teacher tells him it is wrong - not because of the Judeo-Christian ethic but because it violates the general, secular morality of our culture.

Should the teacher simply change the subject to avoid "indoctrinating" little Johnny?

As for your "statistics" - correlation is not causality. By your logic, heterosexuality inherently leads to promiscuity because of the high level of promiscuity among heterosecual couples.

The answer is not in promoting a particular sexual orientation, but rather in teaching a Christian sexual ethic of fidelity (regardless of the sex of the couples).

Joshua

[ November 08, 2002, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]

 

I will just take your word on that one since I have never been to one of their meetings and don't plan to. My point was that the reason for their existance was due to nothing else but their sexual position. can you really say that this is false?
Murph

 

There is no Christian sexual ethic of fidelity toward homosexual couples. There is a Christian sexual ethic on homosexuality , it is an abomination. Of course you already knew that.
Murph

 

Rev. Joshua said:

The answer is not in promoting a particular sexual orientation, but rather in teaching a Christian sexual ethic of fidelity (regardless of the sex of the couples).

The "Christian sexual ethic of fidelity" when it comes to homosexuals is "Not Applicable."

[ November 08, 2002, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

I have to agree with JB on this one.

Julia