Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Gay School Opens in NYC

By McBain in News
Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:25:31 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

November 27 1978, Harvey Milk, a pioneering gay activist, is murdered in San Francisco City Hall. September 2003, America's first publicly1 run high school exclusively for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) students will open in New York City - called the Harvey Milk School. It has been a program running for two decades, but this news marks it's expansion into a proper stand-alone high school. However, the development has not come without controversy and criticism.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
It is generally accepted that homophobia is widespread in American schools. These surprising statistics show just how prevalent and ingrained it is. Virtually all gays and lesbians regularly hear homophobic remarks from their peers - for example, "gay" is a common schoolyard insult. 45% of gays and 20% of lesbians were verbally and physically victimized in school. Additionally, one in three gay bashers is under 18. In some cases the perpetrators are not fellow students but actually school officials. All this is evidence that normal high schools are hostile, violent and unsafe places for LGBTQ students.

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, cites this amongst the reasons for the $3.2 million (USD) development of the school.  "I think everybody feels that it's a good idea because some of the kids who are gays and lesbians have been constantly harassed and beaten in other schools. It lets them get an education without having to worry. It solves a discipline problem." But the announcement has been met with criticism from commentators and conservative groups.

The chairman of the New York state Conservative Party, Mike Long, called the school a waste of taxpayer's money and "social engineering". He also made the point that if LGBTQ students can have their own schools, other discriminated students should be catered for similarly. He told the New York Post: "Is there a different way to teach homosexuals? Is there gay maths? This is wrong. This makes absolutely no sense. There's no reason these children should be treated separately. What next? Maybe we should have schools for chubby kids who get picked on. Maybe all kids who wear glasses should have special schools. It's ridiculous."

This editorial in the New York Post opposes the school on the grounds that it "instutionalizes" a way of life condemned by "the Bible, the Koran and the Buddhist scriptures".  Others have compared the school to the black schools of segregation, claiming that such schools avoid dealing with the real problems of discrimination. Questions have also been raised about the $3.2 million that has been granted to the school whilst the New York school system as a whole is strapped for cash. Commentators have noted that young students can't be expected to know whether they actually are gay or lesbian, and may have their choice influenced by attending such a school. It's doubtful that other cities will follow the lead of the more socially liberal New York.

There's is the additional issue of logistics, training, specialisation and the duty of care. A specialist school can provide the necessary resources and staff to deal with the unique problems of LGBTQ students, which regular schools struggle to provide. For example, statistics show that one in six high school counsellers thought there were no lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender youth in their school and that one in five believed they were incompetent at counseling gay students. This mishandling has led to expensive lawsuits. Perhaps in the long term the $3.2 million spent on the school will actually save the NYC school board money that would otherwise be spent settling and paying damages.

This news comes as poll results show that American tolerance of homosexuality and support for gay rights has waned significantly. The poll (sample size 1006) shows that 49% of Americans believe that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle, increasing from 42% in May.

1. A private LGBTQ school already exists in Dallas.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Exclusive LGBTQ schools?
o Should be accepted 22%
o Unsure 22%
o Should be stopped 55%

Votes: 120
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Harvey Milk
o 1
o will open in New York City
o Harvey Milk School
o surprising
o statistics
o common schoolyard insult
o gay bashers
o under 18
o school officials
o This editorial
o compared
o expensive
o lawsuits
o poll
o results
o already exists
o Also by McBain


Display: Sort:
Gay School Opens in NYC | 302 comments (278 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden)
replace 'gay' (4.06 / 16) (#2)
by Work on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 08:56:38 PM EST

with 'black'. Replace the word 'fag' with 'nigger'. It's segregation.

Homosexuality still isn't accepted in the mainstream, but segregating homosexuals isn't the answer.

indeed (4.75 / 4) (#8)
by fae on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 10:10:14 PM EST

Imagine how bad it would be if the queer kids were forced to attend the school!

-- fae: but an atom in the great mass of humanity
[ Parent ]
of course they'll be kicked out (none / 0) (#10)
by treat on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 10:20:17 PM EST

Imagine how bad it would be if the queer kids were forced to attend the school!

Do you think they won't be? It's pretty easy to kick a student out of school in the US (they're almost always sent to a different school, however). It doesn't need a just reason. In most school districts, pregnant girls will be kicked out so that they don't tempt other girls to become pregnant.

[ Parent ]

hah (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Suppafly on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:18:42 AM EST

In most school districts, pregnant girls will be kicked out so that they don't tempt other girls to become pregnant. Do you have any proof of that happening in the last 20 or so years?
---
Playstation Sucks.
[ Parent ]
come on (none / 0) (#271)
by treat on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 09:39:07 PM EST

Do you have any proof of that happening in the last 20 or so years?

I think most USians are truly unaware of just how bad our public school system is.

One free link, for more you can do your own web search:
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/04.10.03/pregnant-teens-0315.html


[ Parent ]

I suppose that's why (none / 0) (#28)
by needless on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:37:07 AM EST

... you see more day care centers being opened in schools these days.  I also find it hard to believe that pregnancy was ever a fad.

[ Parent ]
Pregnant Girls (none / 0) (#170)
by Legato Bluesummers on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:23:42 PM EST

In most school districts, pregnant girls will be kicked out so that they don't tempt other girls to become pregnant.

Yeah, I can't really see how this would happen in the past few years. And, teen pregnancy sucks. It's not as if the other girls would be encouraged to become pregnant.

Despite this, most pregnant teenagers seem to mysteriously vanish from high school. They usually reappear at McDonald's, but I don't believe that is the doing of the school.
--And many people have ended up looking very stupid, or dead, or both.
[ Parent ]

Yeah: (1.00 / 1) (#199)
by laotic on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 07:35:41 AM EST

But mammy, I WANT to go to that date with Chris!

Shut up Dora, why don't you hang out with girls from the class more? Shirley is cute, isn't she? Look, I'll tell you how I and your second mom met...

:)

Sig? Sigh.
[ Parent ]
Err (4.85 / 20) (#3)
by Fredrick Doulton on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 09:04:29 PM EST

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole point of gay liberation/acceptance to make it so that homosexuals wouldn't have to live apart from the rest of society the way coloured people once did(anyone else remember the whites only restaurants/washrooms)? This whole Segregated school/special treatment thing is surely a step in the wrong direction.

Bush/Cheney 2004! - "Because we've still got more people to kill"

Amen (3.66 / 3) (#21)
by bobpence on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:01:29 AM EST

Separate is not equal. But for $3 million bucks, I'm sure the place will be fabulous.
"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
[ Parent ]
Maybe some gay people don't want to be accepted? (3.83 / 6) (#27)
by egg troll on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:12:59 AM EST

While it would be a wonderful worlds if we could all just hold hands and get along, reality is far from that. I'd imagine that some gay teens are tired of the constant harassment and bullying they receive, and just want to go someplace where they can be themselves.

Gay liberation isn't about not being able to have your own group. It means going into that group is a choice and not something you're pushed into.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late for the Barbara Streisand film festival.

He's a bondage fan, a gastronome, a sensualist
Unparalleled for sinister lasciviousness.

[ Parent ]

hrrmm. (5.00 / 1) (#153)
by Wah on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:13:49 PM EST

I'd imagine that some gay teens are tired of the constant harassment and bullying they receive, and just want to go someplace where they can be themselves.

A closet, perhaps?  Not a bad place to hide until you are a legal adult.  At least if you don't have the strength of character to face down the entire pseudo-society that is high school.
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]

this is great news (1.17 / 41) (#4)
by DJ Glock on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 09:05:21 PM EST

now that those aids carrying freaks have been put away in a special school, they will all butt fuck themselves and kill eachother off.

i hope my son will be able to attend a school which is exclusively for heteros!

*** ANONYMIZED ***

Oh, be nithe. (3.42 / 7) (#9)
by kitten on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 10:20:01 PM EST


mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
Damn there are sure a lot of rednecks on this site (2.00 / 4) (#31)
by morkeleb on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:13:26 AM EST

Liberal bias of the majority of K5 users be damned. An article like this gets posted and all the Klan members come out of the woodwork. Where in the hell do you guys come from?


"If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know that is poetry." - Emily Dickinson
[ Parent ]
Damn there are sure a lot of rednecks on this site (2.25 / 8) (#32)
by morkeleb on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:18:02 AM EST

Liberal bias of the majority of K5 users be damned. An article like this gets posted and all the Klan members come out of the woodwork. Where in the hell do you guys come from?


"If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know that is poetry." - Emily Dickinson
[ Parent ]
Billy Goat Gruff (3.00 / 4) (#90)
by Lacero on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 11:39:58 AM EST

Where in the hell do you guys come from?
They come from underneath bridges.

(I hope)

[ Parent ]

sigh (2.40 / 5) (#91)
by DJ Glock on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:08:48 PM EST

you wouldn't be able to spot a real troll if he came on your nose

*** ANONYMIZED ***
[ Parent ]

It's sad... (none / 0) (#277)
by tekue on Sun Aug 03, 2003 at 10:39:18 AM EST

...but I think it's overall a good trend that people would rather be considered stupid than trolling.
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and
[ Parent ]
another place (4.37 / 8) (#16)
by zephc on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 10:57:21 PM EST

where you wouldn't want to drop the soap in the shower :P  Course, I guess if you were going there, you might want to.

Seriously, segregation is segregation.  These students will have to deal with homophobes in their life, which sucks, but it's reality.  They might as well get used to the worst of it (High school)

ahhh... (2.70 / 10) (#18)
by Danse on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 11:04:21 PM EST

Is there where you go to learn how to lick carpet?




An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
I'm 1/4 Lesbian (from my father's side) (3.66 / 3) (#124)
by decaf_dude on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:12:07 PM EST

Do I qualify for priority admission?


--
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89158&cid=7713039


[ Parent ]
You could cross-dress-up for the occasion... (none / 0) (#201)
by laotic on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 07:39:21 AM EST

...to cement your chances :)

Sig? Sigh.
[ Parent ]
Type-R: do not rate when lacking a clue (none / 0) (#215)
by decaf_dude on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 11:16:16 AM EST

This is a reference to South Park, you moron!


--
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89158&cid=7713039


[ Parent ]
The New York Post and the Middle Path (4.76 / 13) (#19)
by Pac on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 11:10:31 PM EST

I read about it earlier at Mefi, and found the whole idea absolutely idiotic. Besides being segragationist, it gives all other schools an excuse not to deal with the integration problem. "Boys will always be boys, said the principal, just send that beaten, humiliated fag to the fag school".

But I would like to point that the Post is trying to use its readers ignorance to fake support for its own bigotry where there is none.

While the Bible and the Koran (these two are like Episode I - The Conquer of Rome and Episode II - The Desert is Boiling, really) have explicit rules against homosexuality, Budha never said anything about it - the most he said was making one of the five precepts "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from sexual misconduct". He refrained from defining "sexual misconduct".

Traditionally the Southern School (Theravada) defines it as "coercive sex, sexual harassment, child molestation and adultery". Zen Buddhism does not "make a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual" sex. It encourages sexual relationships that are "mutually loving and supportive.".

Even the Dalai Lama, who in the past declared homosexuality as a "misconduct", has recently took a large step back (forward?) by expressing "willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context", something we will probably have to wait a thousand years to hear from a Pope.

Evolution doesn't take prisoners


Misinterpreting the Bible (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Bad Harmony on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:52:20 AM EST

The Bible doesn't say that homosexuality is wrong, or that homosexuals are evil, it says that male homosexual acts are forbidden. It is silent on the subject of female homosexuality.

5440' or Fight!
[ Parent ]

So what's yr hermeneutic? (4.20 / 5) (#43)
by goatherd on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:51:12 AM EST

Since you seem to believe to have the One True Way of interpreting the Bible and believe the vague mention of "explicit rules against homosexuality" in the Bible is somehow contrary to the One True Way, can you explain what sort of interpretive framework you're using?

In my arrogant troll-like opinion, the reference to the Bible in the parent post is not so much a reference to the book itself but to the Christian tradition of the past 2000 years, which has been fairly unanimously, in all times and all places [at least until the past few decades], asserted homosexual acts were sinful, being a species of lust. But, here's the kicker: the tradition of the Church has interpreted the Bible to say so.

Frankly, it seems to make sense to me to interpret a document through the lens of the tradition which produced it, and that the "meaning" of the text is that which it has been given through time in the culture using it, ie, the Christian tradition of the past 2000 years. But you can think otherwise. I'm just a troll account.
---
Loud was the voice of the lonely goatherd
Folks in a town that was quite remote, heard
Lusty and clear from the goatherd's throat heard...

[ Parent ]

Christian Interpretation (4.75 / 4) (#49)
by Bad Harmony on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 05:32:25 AM EST

I'm not a Christian, so the traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible is irrelevant to my beliefs. I'm a Jew and I tend to view any Christian interpretation of the Torah/Bible/O.T. with suspicion. Christian theologians have their own agendas and axes to grind. Jewish tradition emphasizes behavior over belief. Articles of faith have never been an important or universally accepted part of Judaism.

Here is a good summary of the traditional Jewish perspective:

Sexual relations between men are clearly forbidden by the Torah. (Lev. 18:22). Such acts are condemned in the strongest possible terms, as abhorrent. The only other sexual sin that is described in such strong terms is the sin of remarrying a woman you had divorced after she had been married to another man. (See Deut. 24:4). The sin is punishable by death (Lev. 20:13), as are the sins of adultery and incest.

It is important to note, however, that it is homosexual acts that are forbidden, not homosexual orientation. Judaism focuses on a person's actions rather than a person's desires. A man's desire to have sex with another man is not a sin, so long as he does not act upon that desire. In fact, Jewish tradition recognizes that a person who chooses not to do something because it is forbidden is worthy of more merit than someone who chooses not to do it because he doesn't feel like it; thus, a man who feels such desires but does not act upon them is worthy of more merit in that regard than a man who does not feel such desires.

Jewish Virtual Library


5440' or Fight!
[ Parent ]

Sorry, I should have included the First Book (none / 0) (#78)
by Pac on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:25:12 AM EST

My fault. I believe that would be "Episode IV - A New God".

In a more serious note, this is more or less the present Catholic position - Catholic homosexuals are told to abstain. But I think even having desires for people of tha same sex is still a (lesser) sin.

Evolution doesn't take prisoners


[ Parent ]
I lack the specific refernce... (4.00 / 2) (#232)
by silk on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 02:21:28 PM EST

but I believe that Jesus taught that a sin in one's mind was just as bad as one carried out, something along the lines of "whomever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" or something like that.  This would seem to say that Christians ought to consider homosexual urges similarly to homosexual actions.  

[ Parent ]
serious answer: i agree (none / 0) (#81)
by goatherd on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:35:17 AM EST

...and so do all the sane Christians. Generally speaking [except for foolish wonks who don't represent the tradition of orthodox Christianity at all], when a Christian interpreting Scripture says, "Homosexuality is a sin," they refer to the behavior, and not the inclination. If you read carefully, for instance, the controversies over gay bishops, the controversy isn't that they are men who are attracted to men, but that they commit homosexual acts. I did not have a beef with your saying it is homosexual acts and not the inclination which is sinful, but rather [my incorrect perception of] your hermeneutic. It is a fundamental teaching that temptation is not sin. An attempt to judge the inclination as "unnatural" [as those who within Christianity say homosexuality itself is sinful almost inevitably do] miss the point that in the "fallen world" of Christianity questions over what's "natural" or not are not applicable.

Please forgive my previous polemical tone, I'm used to people who give a once-over reading of five verses and therefore disprove all Christian interpretations as misguided. I couldn't tell at first that you were in fact reading it within the Jewish interpretive tradition.

cheers,
a goatherd
---
Loud was the voice of the lonely goatherd
Folks in a town that was quite remote, heard
Lusty and clear from the goatherd's throat heard...

[ Parent ]

is it a sin? (none / 0) (#144)
by anon 17753 on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 06:30:12 PM EST

IIRC, there are 2 references in the O.T. where homosexuality is condemned - the Leviticus passage mentioned previously and the story of Lot in Sodom. My understanding is that the first refers to certain Canaanite rituals and the second is a condemnation of rape, not homosexuality - the townsmen wanted to force sex on the visiting angels.

The reason that I don't want a practicing homosexual as a minister is because I believe the clergy should be held to a higher standard than the layity - I want a priest who is modeling the positive examples for leadership given in the NT.

Personally, I do not believe that a homosexual union is ever blessed by God. However, I don't have a problem with worshipping and fellowshipping with believers who are practicing homosexuals. We all struggle with ongoing patterns of sin in our personal lives - in the end, God may judge my sins to be worse than homosexuality.

[ Parent ]

as a troll account, i'm more concerned... (5.00 / 1) (#228)
by goatherd on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 01:17:19 PM EST

...about my own incivility and dishonesty than my neighbor's homosexuality. It is not my place to judge others or prioritize sins.

With respect to the sinfulness of the practice of homosexuality: as I said before, it is justified within the tradition of the Church, if not within the literal text of the Scriptures. One can deny it if one wishes based on an absence of explicit, unambiguous condemnations of the practice, but doing so requires some extreme rhetorical gymnastics to develop a consistent "biblical" sexual ethics. One might as well drop the pretense.

I hate having to be serious with this account, it's supposed to be my pompous troll account. I also hate having to dwell on such minor, unimportant details for so long. It is far more productive to discuss a life of thanksgiving and love...
---
Loud was the voice of the lonely goatherd
Folks in a town that was quite remote, heard
Lusty and clear from the goatherd's throat heard...

[ Parent ]

Question (none / 0) (#205)
by Simon Kinahan on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 09:35:15 AM EST

The recent fuss over gay bishops in the UK centred around a man who was openly homosexual, had a commited life partner, with whom he had been sexually active in the past, but had decided that as a member of the priesthood he should refrain.

I believe the official Anglican position is that homosexual activity is OK for the laity, provided it is within a loving relationship, but that homosexually oriented priests should be celebate, which implies that there is no reason a celebate homosexual should not be a bishop.

Would you generally agree with that ? Or would you say that since homosexual activity is sinful, the man concerned should repent first ?

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]

in my own personal opinion... (5.00 / 1) (#224)
by goatherd on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 11:55:41 AM EST

...as a troll account and non-Anglican and one who is not well-acquainted with the controversy, I cannot comment on the specific details of the case. If what you outlined is the official Anglican position, I must respectfully claim that the Anglican position is a break from the orthodox Christian tradition. As far as I can tell, the consensus of the Church's tradition believes homosexual activity is a sin, even in the confines of a "loving relationship" between laypersons.

But I agree that there is no reason why a celibate homosexual could not be a bishop merely for the reason of being homosexual. However, unrepented sin of any sort is a matter of concern and may be a reason to deny appointment. At least, as far as I can tell.

I am obliged to point out here the above remark applies to heterosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, etc, and is not unique to sexual sin. It breaks my troll-heart to have to point out a pitfall one might fall into as a result of this argument, but every once in a while even a troll account must be honest...
---
Loud was the voice of the lonely goatherd
Folks in a town that was quite remote, heard
Lusty and clear from the goatherd's throat heard...

[ Parent ]

That's my interpretation too (5.00 / 3) (#136)
by gidds on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:44:10 PM EST

(I'm a practising Christian, FWIW.) But it's worth stressing that the Bible DOES say an awful lot about hatred, intolerance, bigotry, gossip, greed, adultery, slander, deception -- oddly enough, the people using the Bible to justify their own hatred and intolerance never seem to notice those parts...

Andy/
[ Parent ]
Prepare to be pleasantly surprised... (4.80 / 5) (#40)
by Pervy Hobbit Fancier on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:03:33 AM EST

Even the Dalai Lama, who in the past declared homosexuality as a "misconduct", has recently took a large step back (forward?) by expressing "willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context", something we will probably have to wait a thousand years to hear from a Pope.

Addressing the 'Pontifical Academy of Science', in 1981, Pope John Paul II said:

"Sacred scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expressed itself in terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is so alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven."

(My emphasis)

The Young-Earth/Anti-Evolution/Biblical-Inerrancy guys tend to be Fundamentalist Protestants (note that this is a small but vocal subgroup - I wouldn't want to tar all Protestants with the same brush). The Catholic church has officially recognised evolution and the big-bang as being scientific and logical.

[ Parent ]

what? (none / 0) (#61)
by tetsuwan on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 08:02:49 AM EST

This hasn't anything to do with the issue of homosexuality, the papal stand-point being: if you practice sodomy and do not repent, you will go to hell.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance
[ Parent ]

Umm... (none / 0) (#266)
by LilDebbie on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 05:22:28 PM EST

I thought Buddhism defined sex of any kind as bad. I mean, from the four precepts we have desire == pain; you're not going to convince me the sex != desire (especially homosexual sex, as there is not chance of producing a child). So I can't see Buddha supporting it at all. Remember, one of his disciples was denied Nirvana for loving a woman. I'm pretty sure he would have been denied for loving a man as well.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
common misconception (none / 0) (#280)
by boxed on Sun Aug 03, 2003 at 08:54:34 PM EST

I've also heard people believe that buddhism says you need to supress all your emotions etc etc. Let's get this straight once and for all: buddhism is a method to become sane. You are not sane if you are attached to feelings, things etc. Desires have nothing to do with it except it happens to be the thing that makes people start with attachment. Even buddha had desires, and he did not ignore them or try to destroy them, he lived in harmony with them. If you are hungry, you have a desire. If you ignore that desire you are an idiot. As for that desciple: you aren't "denied nirvana" in buddhism. Ever. The goal of total enlightenment of all beings goes above any such silly thing as a rule. The desciple obviously was attached to that woman and thus could not achieve enlightenment. Love is a Good Thing. Attachement to that love is a Bad Thing.

[ Parent ]
Again, umm... (none / 0) (#293)
by LilDebbie on Tue Aug 05, 2003 at 04:04:43 PM EST

I'm pretty sure the Buddha sat under that tree for so long so he could get beyond his desires, including those "necessary" one's like hunger and thirst. I suppose this is to be expected though, as it is with all prophets. Has anyone else noticed how Christianity stopped following the teachings of Christ once Constantine took over? Oh well, on to the next failed prophet.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
eh? (none / 0) (#297)
by boxed on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 09:25:31 PM EST

Well sure, I bet he got beyond his desire for food and such, since he lives as a pretty successful ascetic for several years. He just found that it was a pointless excersise. Buddhism expressly states that ascetism is NOT the way to happiness, just as it states that gluttony is not the way to happiness either. It is the Golden Middle Way. The desires are not the problem, they are just functions of your body. You can train to be immune to thirst mentally, but what's the point? You'd still need to drink to stay alive. Suffering comes from attachment, this is what you need to do something about, not desires. Translations from sanskrit to english usually fucks this up and writes "desires" when the buddha actually meant "attachment".

[ Parent ]
Imagine (4.69 / 23) (#20)
by godix on Tue Jul 29, 2003 at 11:48:17 PM EST

Imagine a school system where the teachers were more interested in educationing students than classifying them. Imagine a system where students had to learn to live with the people they don't like/don't like them, just like in the real world. Imagine a politician interested in childrens best wishes rather than sucking up to voters. Imagine a school board that spends as much for education material as it does bowing to the popular fad of the month. Imagine a system that treats people as equal instead of 'seperate but equal(kinda)'. Imagine a city that wouldn't let amature psychologist use children as test subjects. I can imagine these things, but unfortunately not in America.

On the other hand, I'm sure some will like that all the fags will be in one place instead of spread out and infecting the 'normal' kids. I wonder if that was a central selling point of the idea or if it's just considered a fringe benefit?


"I think you're right"
- Rusty speaking about godix
Hey, it's my damned

are you running for political office? (none / 0) (#60)
by infinitera on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:59:27 AM EST

Or is that your canned stump speech?

Godix for President!

[ Parent ]
Nope (4.50 / 2) (#165)
by godix on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 09:21:09 PM EST

I can't get all that many people to support me. They just don't seem to like my central positions of a national STFU day, making goatse.cx and tubgirl the official national webpages, and automatically vetoing any bill that doesn't start off with "Having read and understood the Constitution, I (sponsoring congresscritter) propose....." and have the full penalty of perjury if it turns out they're lying.

"Fuck... may be appropriate in certain venues... (Florida Elections Commission, speed eating contests, public defender offices) and may be inappropriate in
[ Parent ]
Imagine a school system... (4.00 / 1) (#126)
by decaf_dude on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:17:19 PM EST

...where the teachers were more interested in teaching students how to spell big words like "educating".


--
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89158&cid=7713039


[ Parent ]
Tribute to Walt Kelly? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
by godix on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 09:16:59 PM EST

I assume you're refering to 'educationing'? If so that was my tribute to Walt Kelly's Pogo comic. No, really, this isn't some half assed lame excuse to make it sound intentional instead of just a stupid mistake. It's Pogo damnit, it's Pogo.

"Fuck... may be appropriate in certain venues... (Florida Elections Commission, speed eating contests, public defender offices) and may be inappropriate in
[ Parent ]
I might say that you're a dreamer. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
by kitten on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 06:40:03 PM EST

But you're not the only one.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
I've always like Lennon better than Lenin (n/t) (none / 0) (#149)
by shigelojoe on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:02:16 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Yeah, well. (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by Mr Hogan on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 08:36:46 PM EST

If I were gay - WHICH I AM NOT - I would prefer attending a school for gays - or at least a school without science and math classes - because - and I think my forceful reasoning is obvious to teens - teens being what they are if you hear what I'm saying - there wouldn't be hardly any action in a school filled with stodgy breeders and assorted sticks in the mud like for example geeks.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.
[ Parent ]

It's not a matter of imagining (none / 0) (#168)
by Wah on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 09:31:41 PM EST

but of remembering.  All of those things exist in many places in this country.  But you seem to have inserted an imaginary 'all' (or perhaps a 'most') in your laments.

Imagine a school system where all the teachers were more interested in educationing students than classifying them.  Imagine a system where all the students had to learn to live with all the people they don't like/don't like them, just like in the real world.

I dunno, maybe I'm too tired right now to be quite so cynical, but in my experience each of the things you have listed exists, often in large numbers, in this country.  

I wonder if [having all the fags in one place] was a central selling point of the idea or if it's just considered a fringe benefit?

To which side of the argument?
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]

Irreversible label (4.14 / 7) (#22)
by bobpence on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:15:40 AM EST

Hopefully high school students today will experience less stigma than ever before for being part of any minority. But in line with the dream of every one of us being judged by the content of his or her character, isn't it nice to put the identity away once in a while?

Say a transgendered male has gender reassignment at 25. An HR person in California may not know that St. Peter's in Ohio is an all-boys school. Now take the case of a straight male who misidentifies in high school. (Many gays discover their orientation after marrying and having children in a heterosexual setting; while there are good reasons for the reverse situation to be rarer, it should be conceded as possible.) But people who see "Harvey Milk" on his resume or application may start setting him up with their gay cousins.

What is more, being gay or lesbian seems to me on a different situation than being transgendered, which really has to do with being uncomfortable with yourself absent any failings. I don't want our schools involved in determining these labels for kids of 15.
"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender

An opposition opinion (4.00 / 5) (#24)
by John Milton on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:48:13 AM EST

Martin Luther King said that people should be judged by the content of their hearts rather than physical differences. The content of our hearts is judged by our actions, because ultimately our actions are the only things we truly own. Homosexuals are not physically different. Their actions are different. I believe people have as much right to dislike homosexuals as they do anyone else who acts in a way that they find immoral. If we shouldn't judge people by their actions and how we perceive them morally, how should we be judging them.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
well (4.20 / 5) (#66)
by ShooterNeo on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 08:41:41 AM EST

There is evidence that homosexuality may have a physical cause and may be fundamental to who someone is.

Please try to see past your prejudice for a moment. Think of the human body as a replicating machine. It should seem clear that it must have a physical piece of hardware...a lump of brain tissue...that actually does a set of calculations to determine how attractive another human is as a potential mate.

This study suggests this nucleus in the hypothalmus plays some role in performing these calculations. It seems also neccesary for this brain region to become 'programmed' in some way with a set of values (represented as actual electrical potentials) that will enable it to correctly determine how attractive any human being is as a mate. It's possible that these values are stored in the human genetic code somewhere, and at some point during development the actual differentiating cells in that area read the data somehow and use it.

Since male and female humans mostly share the same code, it seems possible if there were a 'mistake' during this process this region of the brain could develop the female version for this nerve center, or some other possibility. Portions of the actual process used during cell differentiation related to genetics are unknown, but from your experiences with other machines (if you have any) you must realize that some types of flaws can create intermittent, inconsistent problems.

If you can allow your rational mind to see past your prejudice, you must realize that the above explanation, which may some day be detailed to the point of actually allowing for genetic or other testing for the trait, is a definite possibility in the physical world we live in. Because homosexuality still enables reproduction (it is just less likely), the trait might not necessarily be selected against. In addition, since inheritence is evidentally more complex than simple dominant/recessive, this suggests that even in small groups of humans the trait would not become overly prevalent, which could impair the groups survival.

In fact, natural selection pressures might actually favor a limited amount of homosexality, as the human beings the genes code for would be less likely to produce more young and in a societal setting would provide labor for the reproducing humans. Basically, if a tribe of 200 humans had a dozen 'queers' those individuals would be more likely to provide more labor yet not produce as many young that require resources to care for.

Some homosexuals report finding themselves 'sexually aroused' (meaning some part of their nervous system has made a determination) by physical features of members of their own sex. The ones I have talked to describe attraction to features many females describe as appealing, such as erect genitals, muscles, and vocal tones.

The ones I have talked to feel little attraction towards women, sometimes even revulsion...perhaps some region of the brain gives negative feedback regarding less optimal mates. Obviously if the actual hardwere were 'flipped' then they might see women the same way men usually see others of their own sex. They usually report noticing these feelings during puberty.

Sexual attraction of course plays a critical role in human relationships and almost certainly affects perceived pleasure from sexual activities. Preaching to gays that it is morally wrong and that they should remain asexual or consort with women could be considered analogous to telling certain men they must only mate with those they find unattractive : for instance elderly or obese women.

Sure, it might be morally wrong or extremely detrimental to society to allow homosexual behavoir. I am explaining the facts and a few well grounded theories here, not arguing social sciences. Certain individuals may feel intense pleasure or release harming/killing others (psychotics) but that doesn't mean it is practical to allow them freedom to commit such acts.



[ Parent ]

blah arf (5.00 / 2) (#140)
by Battle Troll on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 05:40:48 PM EST

Please try to see past your prejudice for a moment.

There was no prejudice in Mr Milton's comment. It was straightforward ethical speculation.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

eh? (none / 0) (#191)
by ShooterNeo on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 05:06:33 AM EST

He's clearly prejudiced towards assuming there is no possible physical cause for homosexuality, that all humans have total free will and are completely responsible for all actions, ect.

[ Parent ]
sir, (5.00 / 1) (#210)
by Battle Troll on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 10:46:06 AM EST

He was speculating about those points; and even if not, those are not prejudices, those are opinions.

...all humans have total free will and are completely responsible for all actions...

Now I've heard everything: believing in free will makes you a bigot.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Here we go again... I disagree (4.00 / 1) (#195)
by bob6 on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 06:11:55 AM EST

Sure, it might be morally wrong or extremely detrimental to society to allow homosexual behavoir. I am explaining the facts and a few well grounded theories here, not arguing social sciences.
You exposed a fistful of a posteriori scientific argumentation of your own opinions, and certainly not "facts and well grounded". The studies you linked were unreproducible.
As a matter of fact any study trying to link genotype to behaviour are confronted to the fact that behavioural traits cannot be objectivised as genes are. In the topic we're interested in, even the existence of hetero-/homo-sexual people may be questioned; for instance, I suggest reading The Invention of Heterosexuality by Jonathan Ned Katz and Gore Vidal.

More generally, don't try to present the result of any scientific study as opinion-neutral facts. I've expressed this several times on this site: science necessarily involves at some time some kind of choice based on belief, opinion and "religion" (sensu largo).

Cheers.
[ Parent ]
Hmm (none / 0) (#202)
by ShooterNeo on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 08:25:59 AM EST

Theories, not facts.  And whether or not the study is reproducible unless you believe in something unusual you must acknowlege the human mind probably works using some sort of physical circuitry, with discrete regions for each function.  

You must then acknowledge that sexual behavoir must have an inherited, 'instinctual' component as observed in all other mammals, and therefore it is POSSIBLE, even LIKELY something could go wrong in this process of actually programming the circuitry.  One of those possibilities is almost certainly of males receiving the female version, and vice versa.

Its possible that it isn't that way at all.  My point is it is pretty likely it is : there is almost certainly a definite, probably inheritable component that can lead to homosexual behavoir.

Human behavoir CAN be objectively studied, you just have to use statistical methods which admittedly are less rigorous as the probability of error tends to remain high (so it is difficult to move a theory to 'fact' using statistics)

I am heterosexual myself, and have observed the same type of urges starting at puberty as practically all other males.  The shape of female legs, breasts, ect suddenly acquired sexual significance.  Homosexuals report the inverse, and since their experience is qualtitavely similar to mine I'm willing to allow that its quite likely they are telling the truth.  

Even on a vast, statistically sound scale such reports may not meet your definition of objective science...but then if you are that rigorous you probably don't believe in colors either.

[ Parent ]

How should we be juding them? (2.50 / 2) (#138)
by Daniel Yokomiso on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 05:15:54 PM EST

Don't. It's very easy to point fingers and say "immoral, unclean, burn them all", but it's saner to understand that nobody has the wisdom to judge others. Didn't someone once said "throw the first rocks those who never sinned"? I think it was about 2000 years ago.
I'm not saying that we should tolerate everything from murderers to drug-dealers, but instead of hating them for their actions we should just try to make them pay for breaching the social contract.

[ Parent ]
Homer knows who you're talking about (none / 0) (#151)
by shigelojoe on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:09:18 PM EST

"He had long hair and some wild ideas, and he didn't always do what other people thought was right and his name was... I forget... but my point is... I forget that too... Marge, you know who I'm talking about... he used to drive that blue car... "

[ Parent ]
a very reasonable response (4.00 / 1) (#240)
by Battle Troll on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 04:39:08 PM EST

Yours, I mean, not mine.

we should just try to make them pay for breaching the social contract

The problem is that these social contracts are defined by consensus, and right now there is an influential minority opinion that fagosexuals should be burned, neutered, etc. (Note that I'm paraphrasing here.) The laws of any particular time arise from the opinions of the day as they interact with established precedent. I'm probably not saying that you don't already know here.

So, unless you want the people to adopt an entirely value-free concept of their opinions, there are always going to be laws that offend against the public sentiment of the day. Fifty years ago, homosexuality was generally unmentionable in mixed company. From that to, for instance, the newly constituted institution of gay marriage (Canada, Belgium, Holland) is obviously a step more easily taken by members of political and educational elites than by members of the general public. So, the law's mixed state is a demonstration of the tension between modernity and legitimating tradition that we expect to exist, unless a country's social system has been completely destroyed (for instance, through foreign invasion.)

While nobody has the wisdom to judge others as God does judge them, people are required by the mere fact of living to live by their judgments. You must decide if you will eat a salad or a steak; you must decide whther drug dealers, Christians, gays, or Lyndon Larouche are people with whom you care to associate. So your post contains a veiled implication that one's sexual orientation is not a very just or useful metric of judgment, which is fine to claim, but you ought to claim it overtly.

Sorry for the long post, I'm doing several things at once. Thanks for writing on this topic with decency.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

there is a difference (4.50 / 2) (#246)
by darqchild on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 07:52:08 PM EST

between seeing somone as immoral, and treating them poorly because of it.

Every day I meet people, some of them i think are very nice people, some i think are totally immoral. But i treat them all equally anyway.. I'm polite, and try to make sure that nothing i do makes people fell bad about themselves.

if everyone could do that, we wouldn't need schools like these

~~~
Death is God's way of telling you not to be such a smartass.
[ Parent ]

Careful... (none / 0) (#275)
by slur on Sat Aug 02, 2003 at 08:19:37 PM EST

...Your avarice is showing.

|
| slur was here
|

[ Parent ]
Mixed Feelings (3.63 / 11) (#26)
by dasunt on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:04:37 AM EST

Ideally, all schools should be a safe and non-hostile environment to all students, regardless of creed, gender, or sexual orientation.

However, currently, they are not. Any attempt at fixing the problem via non-segregational will probably result in non-heterosexual students being tormented and teased.

An argument can be made that by segregating the schools, we will be continuing the problem, and that argument has some merit. An integrated environment can force the bigotted to come to terms with their misconceptions.

OTOH, the hostility that comes with a non-segregated school is probably part of the reason why the homosexual teenage suicide rate is so high. The time we need to solve the problems of homophobia, people will die in segregated schools.



Looking forward (3.00 / 1) (#150)
by arcterex on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:02:20 PM EST

I'm sort of looking at it this way.  School is like prison, most people understand and accept that it is that way regardless of the programs and whatnot that are in place to prevent this.  This is life.  Deal with it.

Once you are out of school you are in the Big Wide World (tm) which is a lot kinder.  Going to college you are surrounded by other people who want to be there.  "Adults" (defined as people not in high school anymore) are on a whole, far more forgiving, understanding, and sane as compared to the asshats that you find in high schools.

So if we fast forward to when the kids get out of the "gay school", what is it like?  Assuming that they aren't taught completely anti-social or backwards behaviour in the school, it's normal.  They go into the big wide world where they aren't judged on the types of shoes they wear or if they are the teachers pet or not.  

They get out of prison.

I'd be willing to bet that there'll be just as much taunting and being made fun of at the "gay school" for the simple reason that kids are kids.  Maybe you won't hear them call each other "gay" but maybe the <insult> will be "straight" or simply "asshole" just like the rest of the kids in the n.american school system.

[ Parent ]

Well-intentioned, but IMO misguided. (4.50 / 22) (#29)
by Kasreyn on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:57:29 AM EST

For one thing, if anyone went and created a "hetero only" school, we'd hear a major squawk. Yet reverse discrimination is fine? I know: let's put some "BLACKS ONLY" signs at lunch counters, and make whites sit in the back of buses, since we all know that racism and prejudice against blacks is "prevalent and ingrained".

Another thing I'd like to point out: Aside from their common background of persecution, what makes these people think GLBT have anything in common? Gay men and lesbian women happen to be people who have suffered for NOT desiring people of each others' gender. I've known several lesbians who were utter man-haters, and a few gay men who loathed women. What makes them think gay men and lesbians would get along any better than gay and straight men?

(note, I'm using "men" here advisedly; I'm aware the people in question are children)

Another thought: if they're children, how can they be said to have a sexual orientation? I mean, by our tenuously maintained, polite fiction, they haven't had any experience of sex. (NOTE: I said by our polite fiction) So either this school openly acknowledges that the children attending it are already sexual beings, thus adults, OR that the labels GLBT have nothing to do with sexuality, which is moronic.

Frankly, I think whenever anyone proposes any kind of segregation or ghettoization, it's a bad thing. Humans will never learn to stop fearing and hating each other until we learn to stop dehumanizing each other. If hetero kids have no gay kids nearby, for them to observe and realize they're human too, they'll be free to invent a false idea of gays as subhuman creatures. And if gay kids have no hetero kids nearby to observe, they may grow up with equally false notions about straight kids.

The way I see it, the strife between Israeli and Palestinian will die down if they're forced to live together for a few centuries; soon enough they'd all be interrelated, and no one wants to make war on their family. Same with gender relations. If gay and straight people share a community long enough, and people are free to openly choose to be either gay or straight, then eventually everyone will have a friend, sibling, or child who is gay. Then how could they hate them?

Segregation is NEVER the answer. At best it is a futile stopgap measure to fight the symptoms of hate. At worst it is a backslide into incomprehension and dehumanizing of the other group.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Well, they're actually not children. (4.83 / 6) (#33)
by toy on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:27:49 AM EST

Sure, children in comparison to your everyday thirtysomething, but it's inappropriate to label them "children" so decisively here. Or are you talking about the seven-year-olds who swallow semen and wear strap-ons?! No matter, those ones don't go to this high school. That's for the Harvey Milk elementary school discussion. I should note anyhow, particularly as a result of your bit about GLBT not having to do with sex, that one doesn't require sex to be aware of orientation, even if it might help etch it in stone some people. Trust me.

Children, however, might oughtn't have a sexual orientation as of yet. Puberty helps to clarify urges. Fortunately for irrelevance, these are not children: they are young men and women. Of course, just as one can decide their sexual orientation is of a different color when they're in their 30s, it's quite common for an individual to simply be wrong, especially during the teenage years. For this instance, your point approaches validity, particularly in the vein that's already been mentioned with reference to the stigma the school's going to place upon any former homosexual's record.

I believe the school intends to operate under the assumption that the majority but not entirety of orientation reversals are directed from heterosexual to homosexual as opposed to the other direction and it undoubtedly considers its affairs unrelated to those of children. Keep in mind, by the way, that it's not just for homosexuals: it's also for "questioning" and bisexual. By acknowledging particularly the former breed, the school is quite aware of the possibility that the young man or woman has made a severe miscalculation. However, as the students most likely won't be attending before coming out to themselves, it's a safe assumption that the school believes the students will have made their decision about their own sexuality regardless of whether or not they attend the school. Nobody is forcing anybody into implementing labels, just making better use of them when they are acquired.

For differences as mentioned, it's ordinarily an important consideration that they've little in common. A school for blacks today, I'd say, would likely be as ridiculous in terms of uniting similars as a school for whites. However, homosexuality is still condemned in a large part of the mainstream; being black isn't, regardless of whether that's the source of my upcoming observation. Often, gay students simply don't require themselves to have anything besides orientation in common to get along. Not being an anthropologist, psychic or psychologist I've no certified account of what will actually happen but I suspect that, at least for the first group of students and especially with such a small school, the kinship will be apparent. Sure, homosexuals fight with each other, kill each other like anyone else, directly or indirectly, but the initial bond is there. For an institution designed to bring together people of the same orientation on the basis of safety and freedom from persecution, it strikes me as likely that the kinship two negroes or two chinks have for each other in a room full of honkies or ABCDs will manifest itself sufficiently to develop a clear common interest.

Sounds like a lot of virginity loss! Would've happened either way. But it's better this way, because there's scarce chance that you've an inevitable rejection on account of your crush being straight. Way to go. A-OK.




My buddies



[ Parent ]

Although it may seem like it, (4.00 / 1) (#57)
by danni on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:37:59 AM EST

this isn't really reverse discrimination, as the situations are different, for some thoughts on this head over to metafilter and see the discussion on Straight Pride.

Having a "gay only" school is different to a "straight only" school because the gay school is a haven, somewhere to go if they were bullied or persecuted. You'd hear a squak over a straight school because - well what would the reason for it be? They aren't bullied like gay people are, so why?  

However, I agree that segregation could have its downside. How are you going to feel if you are in the closet in a "normal" school and there are less gay people around you. I think there is possibly an argument in "exposure". Imagine if you lived in a city where you had never seen a black kid before, and then saw one?  So yes, I agree with you that "integrating" society, having everybody knowing someone gay or something like that is positive, and would help more than this.

The solution?

Education?


[ Parent ]

It is discrimination (5.00 / 2) (#62)
by Viliam Bur on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 08:23:37 AM EST

if the school is by the rules "gay only".

However, if it is by the rules only "gay friendly/supporting" then it is a haven.

Who should decide which groups of people deserve such a haven and who don't?

[ Parent ]

and by the way (2.75 / 4) (#63)
by Viliam Bur on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 08:25:14 AM EST

if you change your xxx orientation during study, do you have to leave?

[ Parent ]
I do not know what this particular (none / 0) (#65)
by danni on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 08:38:06 AM EST

school's policy is, ( i just called it "gay/straight only" to make an anology clear) but I think it should be as you said gay-friendly, just like a gay-friendly bar. Just a normal school, but publicises the fact that it is a good place to go if you are LGBTQ becuase they have a tough policy on bullying, ample counselling, LGBT issues in sexual education and lots of other things.  Or something like that.

Wouldn't this be an adequate solution?  Wouldn't it feel good for somebody to be in a school where they feel safe coming out?

[ Parent ]

well (4.33 / 3) (#75)
by tps12 on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:16:54 AM EST

if anyone went and created a "hetero only" school, we'd hear a major squawk
I have to say that every time I read or think about this school, I have thoughts along these lines. Then I remind myself that I've never been a gay person before, so I should not be too quick to judge. I tend to feel like high school kids are already too segregated socially, but I guess that's just how people are at that age.

Also, it seems like black universities have been a positive force in improving education for a marginalized group, as have women's colleges and all-girls preparatory schools. Self-segregation really can help remove impediments to learning, and it's a bit ingenuous to equate it with segregation imposed by the majority.

Probably my only lingering objection is to the emphasis on sexuality, which seems out of place in an educational institution. But that's probably just my being old fashioned.

In this, as in all else,—
Y'r obd't s'v't.
tps12.—
[ Parent ]

Good article, stupid idea. (3.33 / 6) (#38)
by AvT232 on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:51:23 AM EST

This is such a typical quick solution to the problem.  Instead of trying to tackle the roots of the discrimination country wide or estate wide: Just open a school for gays.  Job done!!  

What about when they leave school?
What about the others that can't make it into the school?
Putting them all togather behind some high fences will make things even worse anyway.

"Oh you don't want to go around there, its full of fags inside.."

etc...

OTOH, a quick solution (none / 0) (#64)
by Viliam Bur on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 08:28:43 AM EST

is at least a solution.

Later, some better solutions may be found.

[ Parent ]

Like a FINAL solution! (nt) (none / 0) (#268)
by LilDebbie on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 05:35:34 PM EST



My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Okay, listen up you morons. (3.52 / 23) (#41)
by Osama Bin Fabulous on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:26:53 AM EST

Read the goddamned links. Then come back and stop throwing out the same old tired and specious analogies. Such as:

"This is just like segregration." No. Segration was the forceful separation of a group of people into seperate and often sub-standard schools. This is a program that lets kids at risk of dropping out due to harassment continue their education. There's no comparison, unless all you read of the article was the title.

moving on to address the Washington Post editorials. From the second linked one: If sexual orientation and/or lifestyle justify a segregated school, why not life experiences? How about a school for Haitian kids? Russian immigrants?

This is just slippery slope nonsense. There is an existing program for gay students facing excessive harassement that is being expanded. If there was a similar program in place for Russian immigrants, and if that program was being overloaded, then yes, it might make sense to expand it.

From the first linked editorial: I have no problem - and neither does about 90 percent of this population - with a person being gay. But you in that crippled Department of Education - together with Mayor Mike - are institutionalizing a way of life which has been roundly condemned by the Bible, the Koran and the Buddhist scriptures.

Spot the cognitive dissonance here. "We don't have a *problem* with people being gay, it's just that we condemn it." Wow. Seriously, I don't think it's the greatest idea in the world to have a "gay school," but how the hell can anyone side with the troglodytes at the Washington Post? Go read that editorial, it's content-free and practically devoid of any intelligent thought.

Bleah. We now return you to your regularly scheduled jokes about how HMHS doesn't have a football team, but they do put on the best rendition of Guys and Dolls of any high school in the country.

Next up in the world of Osama Bin Fabulous (4.00 / 4) (#44)
by Michael Moore on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:53:11 AM EST

"The Chicks Police Force" and "Nigger Marines". Don't worry though, this isn't segregation! It's just providing an alternative for groups of people who would otherwise be forced to leave the military or police force.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Next up from the world of retarded analogies (3.00 / 2) (#130)
by Osama Bin Fabulous on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:50:54 PM EST

Thank you, that's a good example of what I was talking about. Let's see, why might the police force not be same thing as a high school's student body? Some reasons:

One is composed of adults, one of children.

One is an elected profession, while one is mandatory.

One is a right guaranteed to all people, while the other is again, a job.

One is one per city, while the other is many per city.

Oh, but other than that they're practically the same thing.

[ Parent ]

Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#171)
by Michael Moore on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:53:38 PM EST

But I don't notice any of points in the definition for segregation.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
post about post vs. post (5.00 / 5) (#54)
by mlc on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 06:41:45 AM EST

moving on to address the Washington Post editorials.
just for the record, the linked articles are in the New York Post, not the Washington Post. The Washington Post is a reasonably well-respected, relatively mainstream newspaper and the "paper of record" for Washington, DC. The New York Post is a poorly-written right-wing tabloid which is almost certain to misreport any vaguely controversial story.

--
So the Berne Convention is the ultimate arbiter of truth and morality. Is this like Catholicism? -- Eight Star
[ Parent ]

d'oh! (none / 0) (#128)
by Osama Bin Fabulous on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:36:41 PM EST

Yes, I misspoke. Er, twice. Okay, I'm an idiot. And yeah, that just about sums it up about the two Posts.

[ Parent ]
Umm (none / 0) (#143)
by riceowlguy on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 06:11:39 PM EST

The Washington Post is a reasonably well-respected, relatively mainstream newspaper

And so is the Houston Chronicle.

"Unfortunately, that meant spending the night in the living room with Frank watching over me like some kind of Lovecraftian soul-stealing nightmare creature
[ Parent ]

Very informative (3.85 / 7) (#42)
by President Saddam on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:47:17 AM EST

for example, "gay" is a  common schoolyard insult.

Who'd have thought it!?

But God, I'd give my left testicle to be a fly on the girl's bathroom wall.

---
Allah Akbar

Loser (1.00 / 1) (#105)
by Kax on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:18:00 PM EST

.

[ Parent ]
I will glady arrange this for you (none / 0) (#106)
by danni on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:27:52 PM EST

as the US government will pay me hansomly for giving them your left testicle.

[ Parent ]
So Common it's lost it's meaning (none / 0) (#146)
by arcterex on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 06:45:14 PM EST

Last time I was in high school was over 10 years ago, but I remember being called "gay" and a "faggot" many times.  I did the same to others as well.  I referred to assignments, silly rules and bad art as "gay".

I'm sorry that kids in school who are gay are offended, but I think that most of the references to "gayness" are nothing more than an insult.  Maybe some kids are actually questioning another kids (or maybe an ugly school logos) sexuality, but I'd be willing to bet that when the kids called me "a dumb fag" they were really saying "<insult>"

Maybe this isn't true elsewhere, or maybe it wasn't true before I was in school or now, but I don't remember ever thinking about homosexuality in school in any concrete terms, other than knowing it existed but not really understanding it.  I certainly wasn't making any sort of insult against gay rights when I said "man, that's so gay".

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#217)
by virg on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 11:22:27 AM EST

> I certainly wasn't making any sort of insult against gay rights when I said "man, that's so gay".

The problem is that you were, even though you didn't mean to. The easy test for this is to insert some epithet that isn't socially accepted, and see how much worse it becomes. It's easy for people in our age group to see that saying, "man, that's so Jewish" or calling someone (even someone white) a "dumb nigger" would be very insulting, and very degrading, to the group being insulted (calling a white kid a "dumb nigger" would be degrading to all of the black kids in the area, even though the insult was not directed at them). It's made even more so by the simple fact that many people don't recognize that they're being degrading.

There's a reason why the suicide rate for gays is so high, and much as I try not to insult you, you're part of the problem. Think on it for a while.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Yeah. You're totally right. (5.00 / 1) (#229)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 01:20:38 PM EST

And anyone who thinks different is just being black.

What? It's just an insult, man, no racism there.

Seriously, people, imagine how many people in highschool would be on fire RIGHT NOW if people went around there saying
"Hey, you fucking nigger!" as a universal insult, and then defended it with "hey, it's not dissing black people, it's just a meaningless insult!"

So why is it an insult? Because the people who use it see gayness as a bad thing. Simple.

I saw a statistic the other day that 44% of Americans don't think homosexuality is an appropriate lifestyle. You can't deny that there's still huge prejudice there.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

I (partially) disagree. (none / 0) (#254)
by irrevenant on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 06:30:13 AM EST

I agree that using 'gay' and 'fag' as insults is inappropriate.  Your analogy with 'nigger' is fitting.

But, I disagree with your assumption that the terms are used "because the people who use it see gayness as a bad thing".

From what I remember of my primary school days, at least, you essentially used the same words that the other kids did without giving them a great deal of thought.  There was sometimes even a couple of years lag between bandying a word about and learning its meaning!

By the time you reached high school, you usually knew what the words meant, but might keep using them out of habit anyway - especially if your peers did too.

In short; in my experience, the original poster is right: kids bandying the words 'gay' and 'faggot' about often don't indicate homophobia - just mimicry of the other kids and linguistic laziness.

Note that I am _not_ supporting use of the terms and don't use them myself.  But IMO it is naive to automatically assign homophobic motives to kids just for using the same language as their peers.

[ Parent ]

The humanity (4.33 / 15) (#45)
by SanSeveroPrince on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:53:19 AM EST

Really, this is taking it too far. This is intollerance paraded in the streets, with unthinking righteousness by its side.

How does the procedure for accepting 'gay' pupils in a high school go? Do they ask the girls to lick a carpet? Do they ask the boys to polish knobs? COME ON.

Besides, has anybody thought of the sheer suicidal nature of sticking a bunch of people whose sexual choice has this much discrimination against it, painting them red, and pointing a BIG SIGN over their heads saying 'HERE BE HOMOS'?

Really. Some people should be forced to crochet or something. That way they would not have quite so much time on their hands.

----

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think


Running away from the problem is always best (4.66 / 33) (#46)
by Random Number Generator Troll on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:58:53 AM EST

So now instead of schools dealing with the source of homophobic behaviour, they can send the kids to a Gay School where they can pretend that everyone is gay and that everything is ok! While they are there in their idealogically lopsided palace, they can distil and refine their hatred and ignorance of the anti-gay, heterosexual world outside. Meanwhile, gay-bashers can go about their work with their beliefs unchallanged. Best of all, no-one gets hurt!

Once they finish school of course, and are forced into the real world, where people are unfairly discriminated against about every facet of their being, they can be sent to a Gay Island, an entire island of gays. This is situated comfortably distant from Ethnic Island for ethnics who have had enough, Ginger Island for those disabled by their hair colour, Powerful Female Island for women who feel that equality should be selective, and the most loathed island of them all, Open Source Island.

+1 FP. Please have my babies. -nt (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Kasreyn on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:12:53 AM EST

nt
"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
Lets have... (3.85 / 7) (#47)
by nobbystyles on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 05:17:41 AM EST

A high school for geeks, for social misfits, for the completely stupid as well. They all suffer at least as much persecution as gay and lesbians during high/secondary school.

 

Throw out the stupid (none / 0) (#52)
by morkeleb on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 05:52:55 AM EST

Normal hs does just fine with them. Other than that....I think it's a great idea.


"If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know that is poetry." - Emily Dickinson
[ Parent ]
hm (none / 0) (#77)
by tps12 on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:22:22 AM EST

In the US, we already have public high schools focussing on art, music, science, and technology. There aren't really any schools "for" the completely stupid, but there are plenty that are full of them, where I'd guess they could learn (or not learn) free from persecution.

[ Parent ]
What about schools for (none / 0) (#82)
by nobbystyles on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:48:03 AM EST

The social misfits though? We've got to exclusively inclusive these days...

[ Parent ]
Stupid high schools (5.00 / 2) (#101)
by edo on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:01:06 PM EST

> A high school for [8<] the completely stupid
> as well.

From the news I get over here, I'd say that's what American high schools already are: brawn seems to be valued over brains in most of them.

I visited a number of high schools in the US in 2000 with a drama tour (yes, I am gay) and I couldn't believe the homophobia prevalent there. As I am neither slender nor particularly well-dressed, nobody ever pegs me as gay, which meant I was privy to some students' private (and not so private) thoughts on the subject. Scary, just scary.

The question that remains for me is: why do so many people hate homosexuals so much? (But that's anotehr discussion altogether.)

I think this gay school is a really bad idea, but I am glad it's getting some attention in the press. Something is rotten in the (United) States of America, and rampant homophobia is one of them.
-- 
Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
 - Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

Question: (none / 0) (#158)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:55:34 PM EST

What area did you tour?

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

Northeastern states (none / 0) (#182)
by edo on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 03:12:12 AM EST

Northeastern states, primarily New York.

What really shocked me is that the first thing many students asked us was, "So, you're from the UK. Is it true that 'fag' means cigarette over there?"

They simply didn't seem to realize that a drama group is almost bound to contain a few gay men and happily referred to people (even to me on one occasion, for no other reason than that I was wearing a deerstalker) as 'faggots.'

The odd thing is, that in my experience Americans are very hospitable people. I just couldn't believe how rude (not to mention naïve) these ones were. The US are doomed if they do not educate their young in the ways of the world...
-- 
Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
 - Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

Bloody hell (5.00 / 1) (#184)
by nobbystyles on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 04:35:22 AM EST

What UK school did you go to?

To think that UK teenagers are any more tolerant of homosexuals or refrain from making jokes about them is wildly off the mark.

[ Parent ]

I'm from the Netherlands (none / 0) (#186)
by edo on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 04:45:56 AM EST

Sorry to have confused you. Our drama group was affiliated with Cambridge University, but I am from the Netherlands myself and went to school there. Nobody ever hassled me there in any way, except for some guys who threw a gay porn mag at me during lunch hour once. I leafed through it and decided to keep it. :)

On a related note: I remember of my Cambridge friends (who went to Winchester) saying he found it very amusing that as a straight man he'd had sex with more boys than I. Damn those liberal Dutch for not having public schools! ;)
-- 
Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
 - Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

That would explain it (none / 0) (#187)
by nobbystyles on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 04:50:14 AM EST

Apart from the old style private boarding (public) schools, I'd think you'd find the level of toleration about the same in the UK as the US. Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries are probably much better in that respect.

[ Parent ]
Public schools (none / 0) (#190)
by edo on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 05:04:10 AM EST

You're probably right. From what I've heard and read, it's okay to have boy/boy sex at public school, but if you ever let on that it means more to you than mere physical release you're in trouble. I guess that's no real surprise, though, as most boys (and men) are scared to death of feeling.

The Netherlands is probably the best country in the world for gay people. Canada's probably in second place. Scandinavia has a reputation for being a tolerant part of the world, but I wouldn't be too sure in the case of Sweden, for example, where they have a hysterically anti-drugs government and allegedly quite happily sterilized the mentally handicapped until quite recently. Germany's more than likely not too bad either, depending on where you live (Bavaria is admittedly a right-wing-lunatic, religiously fundamentalist area, but Hessen, for example, is much more cosmopolitan and open-minded).

The US, however, are in the process of adopting an anti-gay-marriage law. Sounds like a great way to improve your economic prospects, eh: just make sure all the DINKies (double income, no kinds) move to Canada! Just wait until there are no interior designers, hairdressers, male nurses or stage actors left, you bastards! ;)
-- 
Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
 - Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

What about Iceland? (none / 0) (#235)
by silk on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 02:55:32 PM EST

I've heard that Iceland's best.  I know that in Iceland there are gay marriages with full rights to have children and it's illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. At least that's what I've read.

[ Parent ]
Highest AIDS concentration among youth (1.32 / 28) (#48)
by tofubar on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 05:24:40 AM EST

Come here thexy thailor!

The Pansies football team (1.40 / 22) (#50)
by tofubar on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 05:34:21 AM EST

Highest concentration of lisps in one school.

I suppose this is a good idea... (1.20 / 25) (#51)
by GRiNGO on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 05:35:51 AM EST

...since if they're all thrown in school together, they cant corrupt the normal children and turn them into fucking fruits.

--
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


Wow.... (1.58 / 12) (#92)
by GRiNGO on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:16:21 PM EST

...judging by the ratings to the above comment, there sure are a lot of faggots around here.

--
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


[ Parent ]
Oh, I see what you've done there, (3.00 / 2) (#99)
by danni on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:37:00 PM EST

you put faggots in bold, in order to sarcastically point out that your comment will be immediately zeroed.

Well you are a Serial Rapist.

[ Parent ]

You too? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by RyoCokey on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:03:56 PM EST

I'm a Cereal Rapist. That's not milk, pal.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
I am? (none / 0) (#259)
by GRiNGO on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 10:11:23 AM EST

Cool...

--
"I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


[ Parent ]
Actually, most would be... (none / 0) (#230)
by Russell Dovey on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 01:33:57 PM EST

faggot-lovers, in your bigoted lexicon.

(I just hate to see someone being lexologically incorrect when they're being a homophobic pointy-head nazi redneck.)

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

For all those slamming this idea, (1.57 / 7) (#53)
by Akshay on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 06:28:49 AM EST

I urge you to consider this.

A recent study shows that most people want the the lead female character (who is a lesbian) in a recent movie, be shot to death, maimed, blown up or somehow killed. This, despite the fact that both the male and female leads are very popular in real life.

Shocking, I tell you, truly shocking. Surely, if a couple as popular as this themselves can't bring about more tolerance and understanding, we have to look at radical options, no matter how tough-sounding they are.

hm (3.00 / 2) (#59)
by EMHMark3 on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:47:28 AM EST

Sorry, I can't tell.. are you being sarcastic or retarded?

T H E   M A C H I N E   S T O P S
[ Parent ]

Oh boy, that's tough. (3.00 / 2) (#83)
by Akshay on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:53:15 AM EST

If I say 'retarded', then obviously I'm being sarcastic, because, as my shrink will attest to, medically, I have no mental disability.

OTOH, to say that I'm being sarcastic would be retarded thing to say simply because it is not politically-correct and the morally upright hate that. Besides, I wasn't being sarcastic; at least, didn't intend the contempt and ridicule bit in the term's meaning.

How about if I weasel out of your two options, and ask you instead if you are always this serious (-sounding?) on K5?

[ Parent ]

hm (1.00 / 1) (#117)
by EMHMark3 on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:25:30 PM EST

I see.. So I'll say you *have* to be sarcastic, because no person whose shrink insists on their clean bill of mental health would possibly use The Onion as a source. :D

T H E   M A C H I N E   S T O P S
[ Parent ]

Yes, let's take the radical approach (none / 0) (#74)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:07:57 AM EST

In an effort to foster tolerance for gay and lesbians, let's make it so that everyone must be only allowed a same-sex partner for the rest of their life.

In this way we shall have perfect harmony and tolerance in the community, and at the same time we'd be able to deal with the vexing issues of population control, overcrowding and abortion.

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú

---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]

How about Liberia (none / 0) (#88)
by sellison on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 11:21:19 AM EST

you want tough? Why not send the Gays to establish their own colony like we did with the former slaves in Liberia?

Well maybe Africa is a bit crowded but perhaps the Gays could volunteer to serve as a buffer between Israel and the terrorists and move into the Occupied Territories, you wanted tough, right?

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Gayberia? (5.00 / 1) (#208)
by TheReverend on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 09:58:57 AM EST

nt

---
"Democratic voting is specifically about minority rights" --Infinitera
lol
[ Parent ]

another ghetto (3.37 / 8) (#56)
by jope on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:15:54 AM EST

This will only prolong homophobia. Like race or shoesize, sexual preference should not be of relevance in schools. It surprises me that in the US, it obviously seems to be.

What about the kikes, darkies, and little women? (4.43 / 16) (#69)
by thelizman on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 09:07:43 AM EST

I mean, if it is okay - even necessary to segregate homosexuals from society, then by all means lets go full tilt and identify everyones difference. We can have a gay school, then it's time for black schools, separate schools for women - and why stop at returning to how it was ca 1910? Hell, we could have separate schools for the Irish, and for Arabs and Jews...my kids would get to go to Hairy Fat Bastard school!

Shit, that will get expensive. I got an idea...lets all just try to get along...seriously, allowing "separate but equal" is a proven way to prolong a social ill.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
Hey yeah this could work, (4.50 / 2) (#193)
by kuro5hinatportkardotnet on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 05:41:48 AM EST

and we could use different colored triangles to identify people!

 

Libertarian is the label used by embarrassed Republicans that long to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
[ Parent ]
my thoughts: (3.71 / 7) (#70)
by reklaw on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 09:07:57 AM EST

Having a special "gay school" is probably not a good idea for the children involved, generally, as they won't learn how to deal with the attitudes that some people have.

However -- if it's perfectly fine and acceptable to have, for example, Catholic schools, then I see no problem with having a gay school.
-

bah (4.75 / 4) (#71)
by SlamMan on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 09:46:03 AM EST

Catholic schools aren't paid for by taxpayer money.  You can go to al all white school to if you really wanted to, but don;t expect me to pay for it.

[ Parent ]
A Few Questions (none / 0) (#214)
by virg on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 11:00:54 AM EST

> Catholic schools aren't paid for by taxpayer money. You can go to al all white school to if you really wanted to, but don;t expect me to pay for it.

Aren't the same people who want this school abolished also pushing for education vouchers? If they use those vouchers to send their kids to private schools that are Catholic in nature (and all of the voucher proposals specifically state that the state is not allowed to forbid religious schools from voucher use) then aren't your tax dollars being used for the Catholic schools?

The second question is, if the Harvey Milk school didn't exist, where would these kids be getting their education? In a regular public school, you say? And you're not paying for them in that school? If you're paying for them anyway, why does it matter which public school they attend?

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Publically funded religious schools (2.66 / 6) (#87)
by sellison on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 11:12:44 AM EST

would be nice, though it would be better if the government got out of the business of education completely.

However, funding a school where immoral and dangerous behavior is encouraged is exactly the opposite of funding a religious school for teaching moral values and decency!

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

immoral and dangerous..? (4.33 / 3) (#141)
by Mizuno Ami on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 05:43:07 PM EST

You mean like having sex before marriage and getting pregnant and all kinds of STDs.. oops.. that's what happens in normal schools. Thank goodness no one's going to be getting pregnant there.

[ Parent ]
Public schools are certainly cesspools of evil (1.25 / 4) (#154)
by sellison on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:20:40 PM EST

where dangerous and immoral ideas like evolution, birth control, abortion, and sex "education" are preached.

But this Gay school would add a whole new level of school supported & encouraged sin (presumably the lies of Darwin and Sanger would still be spread in addition to those of Milk), thus putting the poor young souls in the care of the city of New York all the moreso in danger of eternal damnation!

Ideally, all state supported education would be stopped, so that parents have the choice of whether to expose their children to the temptations of sinful ideas, but until that glourious day, surely all sane Americans can agree that we should not be adding yet another state supported sin to the burden the young are forced to be exposed to?

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Deal with it? (none / 0) (#236)
by smithmc on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 03:02:47 PM EST


Having a special "gay school" is probably not a good idea for the children involved, generally, as they won't learn how to deal with the attitudes that some people have.

Some people hate gay people so much that they gang up on them and beat them to death. How is one supposed to "deal" with that attitude?

[ Parent ]

And (5.00 / 1) (#245)
by darqchild on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 06:57:20 PM EST

Some people hate black/asian/white/native/arab people so much that they gang up on them and beat them to death.  Seperate schools for them as well?


~~~
Death is God's way of telling you not to be such a smartass.
[ Parent ]
uhhh...wha??? (3.00 / 1) (#73)
by VoxLobster on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:05:24 AM EST

doesn't this violate desegregation laws in the US?  If they are not allowing straight students to attend...that constitutes segregation, doesn't it?

VoxLobster
I was raised by a cup of coffee! -- Homsar

technically, no. (none / 0) (#89)
by Work on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 11:26:04 AM EST

Sexual orientation isn't covered by the various discrimination laws written back in the early 60s. This is one of the larger-picture debates that continues on. Some, of course, want to add sexual orientation to them, but other, more conservative groups are opposed to it.

[ Parent ]
ah (none / 0) (#103)
by VoxLobster on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:07:23 PM EST

I was unsure about that, as I am not from the US.  thanks for the clarification.

VoxLobster
I was raised by a cup of coffee! -- Homsar
[ Parent ]

although (none / 0) (#108)
by Work on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:34:59 PM EST

some locales this might indeed be considered discrimination. San Francisco comes to mind, I believe has included sexual orientation in a protected status. Some federal departments have their own internal rules regarding it. But there is no all-encompassing federal law regarding sexual orientation.

It'll come around eventually though. Probably in a few years.

[ Parent ]

Write-in vote (3.88 / 9) (#76)
by leviramsey on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:17:45 AM EST

Should be accepted, but not created by government.



Gay maths (4.80 / 15) (#79)
by Big Dogs Cock on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:25:28 AM EST

Brian and Derek have a joint income of $4,000 per month. If they spend half of this on rent and food, $600 on socialising and 15% on clothes, how long before they save enough to re-decorate the appartment?
People say that anal sex is unhealthy. Well it cured my hiccups.
that's it? (3.00 / 1) (#161)
by ibsulon on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 08:34:27 PM EST

600 bucks for socializing?

Oh, you're not talking about the vacation account... I don't see that anywhere in there.

BTW, 2000 sounds right in the Bay Area. I know you meant for it to be funny...

[ Parent ]

The answer (5.00 / 1) (#172)
by mfk on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:55:28 PM EST

Assuming that re-decorating the apartment costs $2,000, we know that Brian and Derek spend $3200 per month on living expenses. This leaves them with $800.

Therefore, we can conclude that Brian and Derek will be re-decorating the apartment in roughly 2.7 months, assuming they don't pick up a extra pair of pink shirts or shiny loafers.

HTH

[ Parent ]

Sorry but (2.22 / 36) (#80)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:30:57 AM EST

if anything gay people should learn to suppress their gay impulses, if they cannot get rid of them altogether.

A school like this, where the whole school is gay, only encourages already gay students to become even gayer, and try to outgay each other. (Acting more flamboyant, etc.)

Obviously, this runs counter to society's norms. In conclusion gay people should try to conform to society rather than society trying to cater to gay people.

You don't see a lot of gay chinese people.

I thought you and rusty (4.00 / 4) (#85)
by danni on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 10:56:43 AM EST

were gay? Lead by example.

[ Parent ]
Please downmoderate the parent comment (1.78 / 14) (#86)
by Tex Bigballs on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 11:05:23 AM EST

or this one if you want to officially come out of the closet on K5.

[ Parent ]
I have a dilemma. (5.00 / 2) (#98)
by danni on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:34:44 PM EST

I also want to rate these comments 5 for their genius.

Please tell me Mr. Tex, what do I do?

[ Parent ]

interesting fact (2.00 / 16) (#93)
by DJ Glock on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:21:12 PM EST

92% of the world's gay, bisexual, and transgendered population are white Americans.

so you can clearly see that homosexuality is an American fad perpitrated in general by only white people.

which leads us to the following conclusions:

  • white is the gayest race
  • america is the gayest country
  • if someone is gay or a transexual, there is a 95% chance that they are white and American
these are just the facts. disturbing, aren't they?

*** ANONYMIZED ***
[ Parent ]

out of curiosity . . . (3.00 / 1) (#115)
by Gumpzilla on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:22:45 PM EST

. . . where are you getting these facts? Statistics about homosexuality get bandied about a lot (where the hell does that not infrequently quoted figure of 10% of people are homosexual come from? I've never believed that to be accurate) and I'd like to read something from an original source to better see precisely what the assertions being made are.

[ Parent ]
my sources (2.83 / 6) (#118)
by DJ Glock on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:27:55 PM EST

various government reports, research, the news, etc.

*** ANONYMIZED ***
[ Parent ]

What reports? (4.00 / 1) (#120)
by Gumpzilla on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:32:11 PM EST

I'm not holding my breath waiting for the news, but if you've got links to said government reports, I'd be happy to see them.

[ Parent ]
guffaw (3.14 / 7) (#121)
by DJ Glock on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:41:28 PM EST

this is the only one i could find in electronic format. the rest are on my bookshelf back at the firm.

*** ANONYMIZED ***
[ Parent ]

nice link, though not unpredictable. (none / 0) (#127)
by Gumpzilla on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:24:03 PM EST

I particularly liked the title.

[ Parent ]
So how's it going.... (4.25 / 4) (#102)
by morkeleb on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:04:01 PM EST

if anything gay people should learn to suppress their gay impulses, if they cannot get rid of them altogether.

The supressing I mean....having a user id that sounds like a big gay porn star and being from Texas and all I just assumed....well you get the idea ;)
"If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know that is poetry." - Emily Dickinson
[ Parent ]
I think this attitude is disgusting (2.75 / 4) (#116)
by phred on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:22:51 PM EST

Why do you insist on beating up on gays.

Do you want to live in a world decorated by heteros? Think about it.

[ Parent ]

Piss poor idea (4.75 / 8) (#94)
by hamsterboy on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:24:14 PM EST

I'm seriously amazed that anybody in their right mind thinks this is a good idea.

Let's address the point that the new school is a "haven." Everybody is tormented in high school, to one degree or another. Schools are like prisons, and any confinement where there is no overarching goal which is both difficult and worthwhile, there will be pecking orders and torture of the lower castes. Imagine that you take all those LGBTQ kids who feel tormented in a regular high school and put them in a new place alone. Now tell me you think this place will be a utopia of free thought, discussion, and peace, where previously tormented kids will not find that they can now be top dog, venting their tortured frustration by torturing those weaker than themselves. If you're founding a school to provide a haven for all those tortured high school souls, you'll end up with public high schools with nothing but football players and cheerleaders.

Food for thought: what if a straight kid wants to go to HMHS? If straight kids can't go to this school, isn't that discrimination based on sexual preference? If they can, what's the point? Will you only allow straight kids who aren't homophobic? How can you tell?

If political pressure doesn't shut this school down, I give it five years before litigation does.

Hamster

I think they're relying on fear. (3.75 / 8) (#95)
by Michael Moore on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:30:09 PM EST

No hetero kid would want to go there, out of pure fear for his anal virginity.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
Purely Unfunny (4.20 / 5) (#211)
by virg on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 10:49:04 AM EST

I know you tried, but there's a few things to toss your way:

1.) Not all gay kids are male. Bad doggie.

2.) Not all gay males have sex. Why do you think it's different from straight males? Because Oral Roberts said so?

3.) Not all gay males that have sex are rapists. Again, the thing to remember is the Oral Roberts is an idiot.

Carry on.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
What? (5.00 / 1) (#251)
by Michael Moore on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 10:50:31 PM EST

Can you please tell me when exactly they changed things so that jokes had to be factually flawless (not even to the point of omission)? Maybe I missed something.

--
"My life was more improved by a single use of [ecstasy] than someone's life is made worse by becoming a heroin addict." -- aphrael
[ Parent ]
It Happened... (none / 0) (#257)
by virg on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 09:20:47 AM EST

...at about the same time that jokes had to be funny, which is never. I didn't say you didn't make a joke, just that I didn't find it funny, for the same reason that I don't find jokes about Polish people funny.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
good points, and also (3.00 / 2) (#96)
by collideiscope on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:30:21 PM EST

If you knew LGBTQs like I knew LGBTQs, you'd also know that the discrimination, torture and torment of the lower castes by the upper will most likely be worse in an all-LGBTQs environment. The amount of internalized sexism and homophobia in some of these younger LGBTQs is just immense. They will turn on each other and themselves like a pack of sun-crazed jackals.

Anyone who wants LGBTQs to be able to lead something resembling a peaceful life can easily see that this is an exceptionally bad idea.

-------------------------------
Hope is a disease. Get infected.
[ Parent ]

that's a good point about the frustration venting (1.58 / 12) (#97)
by DJ Glock on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:34:03 PM EST

i mean, what happens if locking these kids up together causes some sick hurricane of a rape culture right in the heart of the homeland?

these kids are already angst-ridden. if you put them all together, there will be competition to see who can be the gayest.

and also, what about sports? a gay varsity boys basketball team would be better matched up against a straight girls freshmen team, and the lesbian freshmen team vs. varsity straight boys.

sigh....

*** ANONYMIZED ***
[ Parent ]

football players and cheerleaders? (none / 0) (#114)
by tps12 on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:21:09 PM EST

What is this, 1953? Was anyone's high school actually like that?

[ Parent ]
It's just a metaphor. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
by kitten on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:39:53 PM EST

Maybe at one time it was actually like that, but I think the idea is that it's the big jock guys and the pretty, vacant girls that are at the top of the social order.

They may not actuallly be football players and cheerleaders, but they should be.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
even so (3.33 / 3) (#132)
by tps12 on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:21:13 PM EST

I mean, I guess pretty girls are always going to be popular, vacant or not. But the big jock guys are usually just...big jock guys, no? I mean, they have their circles of friends and everything, but I don't know that they're seen as "at the top" by any other group. Except maybe the moody goths looking for people to hate. I'd guess that drug dealers probably have the most "friends," with intelligent, friendly kids being the most well liked and respected.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps (4.00 / 1) (#147)
by kitten on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 06:50:33 PM EST

But the big jock guys are usually just...big jock guys, no? I mean, they have their circles of friends and everything, but I don't know that they're seen as "at the top" by any other group.

I haven't done any intense analysis of it, but, let's look at it briefly. You accept (and I think we can all agree) that pretty girls - vacant or not - are always going to be popular.

Now, be realistic, and consider what kinds of guys the pretty girls go for, in general. (I said, in general.)

Hint: It's not the quiet guy in the back row. It's not the math wizard in the front. It isn't the dork in the computer lab.

They go for the studly jock. In general.

By association, his social standing just went to the top of the pecking order.

In America anyway, sports are way more important than academics. The ridiculous extra emphasis on how great the sport teams are also goes a long way. How many fucking pep rallies did I have to sit through, for no other reason than to parade the jocks around like we were supposed to respect or look up to them? I can't even count that high. Thank god my friends got cars by junior year so we could leave during that crap. (By the way, classes would be cancelled for this - they'd cancel first and second period classes, to make time for a fucking pep rally.)

With that sort of thing going on, is it any wonder the jocks are tops?
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
hm (4.00 / 1) (#175)
by tps12 on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 11:24:56 PM EST

Well, maybe our high schools were different. As much as the administration tried to get students at my school to care about sports, athletes were just normal kids. Some of them were cool, some of them were losers. Some had pretty girlfriends, others didn't. Maybe Tacoma was just ahead of its time.

[ Parent ]
yes... (2.50 / 2) (#152)
by rmg on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:13:13 PM EST

well, i went to the freak school in my district, but the main school where i took most of my classes was very much in line with this sort of stereotype. it sounds like you were in high school in the early to mid nineties. then, it was not fashionable to dress nicely or play sports. now it is.

the whole abercrombie image is what's fashionable with high school kids now. at least it was a few years ago when i was in high school, and from what i can tell it still is. it is exactly a throwback to the 50s as you suggest.

on a related note, i think this has something to do with the revival of conservatism in america. i think it is the younger generation that is making the kind of stuff you see from republicans these days fly.

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

Depends where you go (2.75 / 4) (#157)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:52:09 PM EST

But being a gangsta ghetto nigga from the ghetto is quite popular too.

I even talked to a girl from Maine who said there were kids trying to act ghetto in her school, in MOTHERFUCKING MAINE. I laughed for like a minute straight.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

this is true... (1.00 / 1) (#159)
by rmg on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 08:04:54 PM EST

i'm not sure what the deal with all of that business is. it always seemed like a grotesque charicature to me, the whole suburban ghetto-style...

i take a much dimmer view of the jock/cheerleader style though. the ghetto style is mostly popular amongst miscreants (at least where i went to school) who will ultimately have little impact on society. the abercrombie style, though, will have a much more profound influence on the opinions of younger generation. the affirmation of money, upper middle class mores, and to a lesser extent white america is leaves a bad taste in my mouth. it really surprises me that it hasn't inspired more criticism...

oh well...

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

"sultry preppy" (none / 0) (#174)
by tps12 on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 11:11:37 PM EST

Or at least, that's what J. Crew called it a few summers ago. Just because it's an old fashioned look doesn't really mean anything about the people who follow it, though. If you ignore fashion then you stand out and look weird, whether you play sports or not.

[ Parent ]
that's not all there is to it. (5.00 / 1) (#176)
by rmg on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 12:45:11 AM EST

high school students are much more polite and amiable to authority than they were ten years ago. it is much more than just a look. the kids who listened to nirvana and pearl jam in the early nineties never would have dressed in abercrombie shit, but not because it wasn't stylish. what it represents is the exact opposite of the attitude of young people of that time. wearing abercrombie, even if only in a weak sense, is an acceptance of a particular set of values, or at least a failure to reject it.

it is not simply an old fashioned look. it is marketed using old fashioned ideas. it may be that for you people your age, the image behind it is not as important as the fact that it is in style, but for high school students, it is really the cultural valence of styles that is important.

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

Hmm. (4.00 / 1) (#169)
by Legato Bluesummers on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 09:49:05 PM EST

Varies quite a bit from school to school. At my high school, the jocks, preps, and cheerleaders were the most popular. Just like everyone other school, I suppose. But, most of these same people were extremely intelligent, and very mature compared to most of the other students. (I.E., they didn't participate in bullying and such, they made a good amount of effort on their schoolwork.) The kids at the middle-lower popularity range seemed to be the major bulliers. I suppose they were trying to claw their way to the top.

Then again, it was a small rural school with only 600 students. There wasn't really any geek or nerd groups.
--And many people have ended up looking very stupid, or dead, or both.
[ Parent ]

In the UK currently, schools are attaining (4.00 / 3) (#100)
by danni on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 12:44:11 PM EST

statuses(?) e.g. My old secondary school became a "Technology College".

So here's the plan, if schools felt like it, they could become gay(or LGBTQ or whatever)-friendly. e.g. "Worzledun LGBTQ-friendly College of Technology". Being friendly would include an active stance against homophobic bullying, and whatever criterier you can think of. You decide.

Shouldn't this be the default stance everywhere? (3.50 / 4) (#104)
by hamsterboy on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:12:03 PM EST

The root problem isn't that gays are being tormented and persecuted. The root problem is that kids in school have a strange pecking order, and those that aren't "popular" are tormented by those who are. Solving this problem requires a genuine rethinking of the whole school system, not just a new school under the old system.

Hamster
[ Parent ]

INCORRECT (4.00 / 5) (#134)
by Random Number Generator Troll on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:37:56 PM EST

Solving this problem requires a genuine rethinking of the whole school system, not just a new school under the old system.
Solving this problem requires man to re-evolve from primitive single-cell lifeform to his present state without the use of survival of the fittest, from whence the above problem stems.

[ Parent ]
SOCIAL DARWINIST! (3.00 / 2) (#155)
by greenrd on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:38:03 PM EST

Is it inevitably due to our genes that we have to be brutal to one another? Can't we all just get along?

Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, thinks the answers are: No, and yes. "Selfish genes" (in Dawkins' sense, not in the sense of "genes that make people selfish") are no excuse for selfish behaviour.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Horrible f*cking idea (4.78 / 19) (#107)
by BushidoCoder on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:31:36 PM EST

This is a horrible idea. Lets not get into the discrimination legalities involved, but lets just focus on the social impact.

A) You're teaching the kids at the school that its NOT okay to be different. You're teaching them that they are different from everyone else, and that they need to be set aside. You're also hiding from them the inevitable fact that, realistically, they will be insulted and tormented by people; You're just delaying it until they're older and in the workplace with no time-developed means to cope.

B) There will be gay students who don't go to the school, either because they're unsure of themselves, their parents or families don't allow it, or they're embarassed. Such a school steals a sizeable portion of their peer and support base, and leaves them only with...

C) Everyone else not only loses exposure to gay friends to help them learn to be tolerant, but also learns that people who are different from the norm are exiled to their own place and segregated away. So when they leave school and enter the workplace, they've learned no tolerance or acceptance. What do we do at this point? Does GE or IBM set up gay divisions for people to work in too?

I'll admit, its sad that near 50% of gay students are verbally or physically abused in school, but I'd be willing to bet 33% of non-gay students are too. A gay school is still going to have its jocks and dweebs, popular people and unpopular people, and there will always be bullies and the "oppressed", unless you want to make it a standard school policy to move a child to a different school every time he or she is picked on. By making a school for gay kids, you trade lower volume of sexual discrimination crimes now for five times as much later.

Well, you also get a school that can report damned near zero percent teen pregnancy.

\bc

Response (4.40 / 5) (#112)
by jayemm on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:11:04 PM EST

I liked your comments, by and large, but I wanted to just make a couple of small points.

>A) You're teaching the kids at the school that its NOT okay to be >different. You're teaching them that they are different from everyone >else, and that they need to be set aside. You're also hiding from them >the inevitable fact that, realistically, they will be insulted and >tormented by people; You're just delaying it until they're older and >in the workplace with no time-developed means to cope.

They're still going to be harassed, and insulted.  I don't think a school, just because it is homosexually-oriented, will quickly transform into a everyone-loves-everyone idyll.

While being gay (eg) will be a common bond for many students, I guarantee that there will still be cliques, and sub-classes/groups within.  

>B) There will be gay students who don't go to the school, either >because they're unsure of themselves, their parents or families don't >allow it, or they're embarassed. Such a school steals a sizeable >portion of their peer and support base, and leaves them only with...

True.  Well, they can always make non-gay friends elsewhere.  Like, Boy Scouts?  Oh.. guess that's a no go.

>C) Everyone else not only loses exposure to gay friends to help them >learn to be tolerant, but also learns that people who are different >from the norm are exiled to their own place and segregated away. So >when they leave school and enter the workplace, they've learned no

Excellent point.

>I'll admit, its sad that near 50% of gay students are verbally or >physically abused in school, but I'd be willing to bet 33% of non-gay >students are too. A gay school is still going to have its jocks and

33%?  I'd put that number a helluva lot higher.  At least, it was at my school. And damnit, I'm Canadian.

Peas,
jarett


[ Parent ]

[more] (4.50 / 2) (#137)
by BushidoCoder on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 05:03:31 PM EST

Oddly enough, its not unthinkable that the more "hidden" gay students could eventually begin to verbally abuse the more visually gay kids. I doubt there would be any violence between such groups, but I never put an upper limit on a kid's capacity for cruelty, especially with words.

I wonder what happens when a teenager who thinks he or she is gay decides its not their lifestyle. I mean, its not like teenagers change their minds frequently or go to outlandish extents to aggravate their parents or anything. Are they expelled? What about bisexual students?

\bc

[ Parent ]

Bisexuals (3.66 / 3) (#203)
by Koutetsu on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 08:53:38 AM EST

Bisexual students are already to be included in this school, if the article's mention of LGBTQ is to be trusted.

m(y) d.n.e. Me in terms of You does not exist.
[ Parent ]
"White Pride March" (3.93 / 15) (#109)
by Silent Chris on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:44:53 PM EST

Someone I knew (actually, a boyfriend of one of my friends) used to say he wanted to start a "White Guy Pride march".  "Only white, straight guys would be encouraged to attend".  

Kind of reminds me of this.  Maybe there should be a "straight" school that only straight people could attend?

Let him join the KKK! (2.00 / 10) (#110)
by edo on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 01:50:46 PM EST

> Someone I knew (actually, a boyfriend of one of
> my friends) used to say he wanted to start
> a "White Guy Pride march".  "Only white,
> straight guys would be encouraged to attend".

Let him join the KKK!
-- 
Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
 - Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

Wow, a zero for that (2.33 / 6) (#131)
by Silent Chris on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:51:24 PM EST

Zeros are generally reserved for comments with no value whatsoever.  Good going, TPS12.

[ Parent ]
what was the value of the comment ? n/t (2.80 / 5) (#135)
by asad on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:40:23 PM EST



[ Parent ]
The point (1.00 / 1) (#196)
by Silent Chris on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 07:23:38 AM EST

Most groups (including gays) want to have the same rights as others and be treated "equally" to the majority.  The majority doesn't have pride marches to bolster its cause.

It's similar to Susan B. Anthony.  She was arrested because she wanted voting rights for women.  The judge "understood" her plight, and was willing to grant her an easier sentance.  She argued for the original sentance.  She didn't want to be treated better then men in her position, she wanted to be treated the same.

[ Parent ]

the majority doesn't need marches (3.00 / 2) (#225)
by asad on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 12:25:29 PM EST

since it's by definition the majority.  

[ Parent ]
That's the Silent Chris I know and love! (5.00 / 1) (#222)
by eSolutions on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 11:31:05 AM EST

Good to have you back, Ether Al.

How's the War on Acne going?

[ Parent ]

Beats the hell out of me (none / 0) (#247)
by Silent Chris on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 09:39:13 PM EST

I'm not entirely sure why someone chose Carrot Top to be my Official Picture Spokesman on the K5 Fotopages (that's Fotopages with an F, not a Ph, remember that).  On the other hand, I don't even have the Etheral account on Xbox anymore, so if you want it it's up for grabs.

[ Parent ]
You believe me now? (none / 0) (#285)
by RyoCokey on Mon Aug 04, 2003 at 12:49:51 PM EST

Wait and see.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
That may have been a joke (none / 0) (#198)
by calimehtar on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 07:34:54 AM EST

But this is not. At least I don't think it is. See also straight pride t-shirts. Via Metafilter.

[ Parent ]
See, Here's the Problem... (3.66 / 3) (#209)
by virg on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 10:34:41 AM EST

Here's the problem with your suggestion. All of the schools are straight schools. To counter your friend's boyfriend's suggestion, I have to ask you:

Do straight white guys get assaulted more than any other group? The answer is no.

Do straight white guys have three times the suicide rate of other groups? Again, no.

How many straight white guys get epithets yelled at them, every day, by strangers?

Do principals, teachers and counselors stand by and watch straight white guys get beaten because (as they later testify in court) the SWGs "had it coming for being freaks"? Didn't think so.

When you can compare apples to apples, you can comment further.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
All of the schools are straight schools? (3.00 / 2) (#212)
by Silent Chris on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 10:56:24 AM EST

Uh, since when?  If ever?  Every school I've ever been too had a mix of straights, gays, blacks, whites, etc.  It can't be a public institution in the US unless it allows all.  There may be "straight schools" somewhere else (I wouldn't really know), but to say all schools are "straight schools" is ridiculous.

[ Parent ]
Terminology (3.00 / 2) (#233)
by virg on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 02:31:38 PM EST

Um, the Harvey Milk School is predominantly gay students, but they specifically allow anyone who is gay-friendly to attend. If this can be described by you as a "gay school", then by changing gay to straight I can do the same to every other school in the U.S. Perhaps if you didn't make statments like, "Maybe there should be a "straight" school that only straight people could attend?" which are inaccurate when reversed, then you'd be better qualified to comment on ridiculous statements.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Ok, let's reexamine (4.50 / 2) (#248)
by Silent Chris on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 09:42:58 PM EST

So, basically you're saying that most schools are not gay-friendly.  I know for fact this isn't true.  My college, Sarah Lawrence, was extremely gay-friendly.  They were "pro-rights-of-everyone" friendly.  If you want to be an educational institution nowadays, you pretty much have to under fear of lawsuits.  

My high school was not "gay-friendly" but rather "gay-indifferent".  If a person was being beat up, it really didn't matter if that person was gay or not: the person doing the beating was punished.  I think most academic institutions are like this, and I'd like to see some hard numbers that say most principals will let gays (for example) be beaten and turn a blind eye.

[ Parent ]

Uh (none / 0) (#250)
by aphrael on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 10:41:56 PM EST

How can you possibly extrapolate from your personal experience with a gay-indifferent school to "knowing for a fact" what is or isn't true with most schools?

I agree that some statistics would be nice. But they're hard to come by; all we have at the moment is anecdotal evidence on both sides. There's sufficient anecdotal evidence to suggest that *some* schools are actively gay-unfriendly; and I think there are good reasons to get gay kids away from such institutions.

[ Parent ]

Swing and a Miss (4.00 / 1) (#258)
by virg on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 09:32:38 AM EST

> So, basically you're saying that most schools are not gay-friendly.

Incorrect. First, to properly reverse your earlier comment, I said that most schools are straight-friendly, which is to say that being straight doesn't get you persecuted. Second, colleges are not high schools, insofar as there's no such thing as compulsory colleges. Everyone who is there specifically asked to attend, so there's a level of maturity that simply does not exist in high school, not to mention that there's more maturity for the simple reason that college students are more mature.

> I think most academic institutions are like this, and I'd like to see some hard numbers that say most principals will let gays (for example) be beaten and turn a blind eye.

Again, you hyperextend my statement to ridiculous levels. I did not say, or imply, that most or even many principals would ignore gay-bashing, just that more of them tolerate gay-bashing than straight-bashing. Since you started out seeming to imply that gays and straights are on even footing in "normal" high schools (your statement of creating a sraight school indicates you see no reason why a gay school might exist) I moved to point out that, on average, gay students are subjected to more abuse, at all levels, than straight students.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
go team go (4.00 / 10) (#111)
by Lenny on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:04:20 PM EST

I'll bet their football team is going to suck!


"Hate the USA? Boycott everything American. Particularly its websites..."
-Me
Suck what? <nt> (5.00 / 2) (#166)
by godix on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 09:26:29 PM EST



"Fuck... may be appropriate in certain venues... (Florida Elections Commission, speed eating contests, public defender offices) and may be inappropriate in
[ Parent ]
Fashion (3.00 / 5) (#113)
by jayemm on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:12:51 PM EST

Well, if nothing else, I bet they'll have one of the best-dressed schools going.

j

Faggots (1.63 / 22) (#119)
by Rush Limbaugh on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:28:57 PM EST

Faggots are now running schools. Faggotism is purely against the moral frabric of America. If we allow these faggots to live then they will eventually spread to more schools and therefore gain more ground.
  God, as well as America, hates faggots. Unfortunately, HIV will not completely wipe out this population of faggots even with their constant anal sex.
  Only Right wing ideals should be adopted in America, not faggot ideas such as running this grotesque school. If we conservatives gain ground, as we will given last year's election results, we will sentence these faggots to death by excessive anal bleeding.

Repressed Emotions (1.60 / 5) (#125)
by virtualjay222 on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 03:13:28 PM EST

It sounds like you might have some unresolved feelings with regard to your sexuality. Maybe we could talk about it sometime *wink wink*

---

I'm not in denial, I'm just selective about the reality I choose to accept.

-Calvin and Hobbes


[ Parent ]

moral fabric of America? (4.00 / 1) (#253)
by mrchaotica on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 01:25:37 AM EST

You're full of it. The "moral fabric of America" is the following:
  1. The right to life
  2. The right to liberty
  3. The right to property
And that's ALL! You can rant and scream about "moral fabric" all you want, but the idea that "Only Right wing ideals should be adopted in America" is the most dangerous and un-American phrase I've heard in a while (see "right to liberty" above). If that's really how you feel, America isn't the right country for you. Maybe you should try a more repressive country, like Iraq or Vatican City or something (not that I think Vatican City is all that repressive; but it is a theocracy and more aligned with your morals). You're entitled to your opinion, but so is everyone else. Feel free to give up your citizenship if you don't like it! Oh, and have a nice day.

[ Parent ]
this is bullshit (5.00 / 6) (#122)
by crazycanuck on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 02:49:48 PM EST

what kind of message is this sending to homophobes?

this is not solving any problems, it's hiding the symptoms.

It sends them the following message ... (1.00 / 1) (#244)
by BlowCat on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 06:20:33 PM EST

"crazycanuck cares more about homophobes than about abused children"

[ Parent ]
no, I think the message is (5.00 / 1) (#249)
by crazycanuck on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 10:13:26 PM EST

"BlowCat needs to work on his English reading comprehension skills"

[ Parent ]
Verbally victimised?????? (3.87 / 8) (#133)
by phlux on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 04:30:40 PM EST

Bull. 45% of gays and 20% of lesbians were verbally and physically victimized in school What idiot wrote this. 100% OF KIDS ARE VERBALLY VICTIMISED IN SCHOOL Boo Hoo for them - every kid is teased, made to feel small and treated like crap from other kids. It sucks - but enough bitching about it already. I was constantly teased when I was a kid - but I grew up to be able to kick some serious ass, both physically and intellectually. everyone is teased - so there is no point in making this statement - and even less point in starting their own school for them. Retarded.

yeah.. (3.75 / 4) (#139)
by Mizuno Ami on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 05:29:52 PM EST

But then you get the administrators, counselors, and parents in on the violence, games of "smear the queer," and getting humilated in front of class by the teacher for no other reason that someone thought you hit on them, and you've got another picture entirely.

[ Parent ]
Not really (none / 0) (#281)
by epepke on Mon Aug 04, 2003 at 01:22:47 AM EST

Unpopular kids get called "gay" or "queer" irrespective of their actual sexual orientation. Gay kids may have a higher probability of this, but that has to be demonstrated, not just assumed.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Segregation? (4.40 / 10) (#142)
by spcmanspiff on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 06:01:53 PM EST

As far as I can tell, the students choose to go. Likewise, they can choose to stay in a "normal" school. It's not like gay kids are forced onto the gay bus and sent to the gay school by the riot police, is it?

Life really, really, sucks in high school if you're out of the closet and the vultures are circling. I imagine this is worse in a place like, say, Wyoming, than New York City, but it probably stinks ass in NYC nonetheless.

Yes, change is needed, and yes, change won't happen without integration -- but why not let those students who don't want to play the martyrdom game opt out?

 

I agree 100% [n/t] (none / 0) (#200)
by livus on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 07:37:27 AM EST



---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
What's next, for Christ's sake? (2.66 / 9) (#148)
by DJ Glock on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 06:56:22 PM EST

Emo University?

*** ANONYMIZED ***

Meh (5.00 / 5) (#156)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 07:49:02 PM EST

Having a LGBT school and an Emo school would be redundant!

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

A few things... (3.20 / 5) (#160)
by ibsulon on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 08:27:35 PM EST

"Commentators have noted that young students can't be expected to know whether they actually are gay or lesbian"

I knew I was gay at 12.

Most males (females have a different story altogether, and I won't get into the distinctions here) have a very good idea of their sexuality as of puberty.

"This news comes as poll results show that American tolerance of homosexuality and support for gay rights has waned significantly. The poll (sample size 1006) shows that 49% of Americans believe that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle, increasing from 42% in May."

Check out the full study. There are a few possible causes for the spike:

  1. People less inclined to answer the study beforehand (finding it distasteful) may have been more likely to answer it now (finding it important)
  2. This could be a temporary blip. Let's watch over the next few months.
  3. Looking at the historical charts, acceptance was at 55% as of the mid 80s but went through a long dip. Again, let's watch over the next few years.
_

Finally, I had my share of harassment in high school for a suspicion of being gay. (though I denied it the whole time) Even had I been in a position to come out of the closet, I still would not have chosen to go to and exclusive LGBTQ school. The less exposure one has with a group, the more likely one is to develop prejudices. I would never be a willing party to that.

Do you have a cite for that? (5.00 / 1) (#178)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 01:18:23 AM EST

Most males (females have a different story altogether, and I won't get into the distinctions here) have a very good idea of their sexuality as of puberty.
That seems counter-intuitive to me.

[ Parent ]
The age thing (4.00 / 1) (#183)
by edo on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 04:18:52 AM EST

> Most males (females have a different story
> altogether, and I won't get into the
> distinctions here) have a very good idea of
> their sexuality as of puberty.

Thank you for daring to be politically incorrect and pointing that out. In my experience, if you ask a gay man when he knew he was gay, you 'll get a reply along the lines of 'Oh honey – when I was seven.' (I knew boys were 'special' to me when I was about that age; my Mum claims she had me figured out by the time I was five.)

For lesbians, one of the typical stories is: 'Well, I was 23 and on my third boyfriend and suddenly I figured guys could never give me what a woman could.' I have never heard the male equivalent of that.
-- 
Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
 - Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

So I hear. I'm yet to have any proof. (none / 0) (#194)
by kesuari on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 05:48:12 AM EST

Most males (females have a different story altogether, and I won't get into the distinctions here) have a very good idea of their sexuality as of puberty.

If you can tell me how to know either way, or both, or neither, I would appreciate it. But for most of my life* I've  carefully avoided answering questions about. my sexuality.

*The exception being a phase last year when I was on antidepressents and mood stabalisers that totally fucked me up, and is a time I prefer to pretend doesn't exist.

Tristan.

[ Parent ]

look (4.14 / 7) (#162)
by circletimessquare on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 08:35:45 PM EST

i'm all for gay rights- gay marriage, full equality, all that

but isn't this just segregation?

do gay kids need to be handled with kid gloves for some reason, no pun intended?

if you believe this to be so, can't you make the case that anything that makes anyone a subset of homogenized society means they need to be treated with kid gloves?

black kids can be teased: give them a special school

handicapped kids can be teased: give them a special school

how do you educate gay youth? you educate them by teaching them to read and write and understand math and chemistry, that is all

everything other "lesson" in highschool is pure socialization amongst their peers. there is no controlling and channeling that, it is just something teenagers do. and any well-meaning interjection by adults into this process, especially segregatin for any reason, can only eventually defeat whatever noble purpose the adult had in mind.

and gay youth, at age 14 or age 24, are going to have to learn to get along with hetero america, in all of it's stupid judgmental ugliness, and with all the gems of hetero's like me who just don't give a damn what you do in the privacy of your bedroom as long as you are a human being around me. don't you think they need to learn to find this kind of thinking themselves? or do the asshats who promote this idea of this school think that be segregating gay youth they are going to somehow produce adults from these schools that automatically have these lessons learned about human nature by only interacting with other gays? doesn't a special school only serve to create young gays with bad ideas about heteros, since they aren't allowed to socialize with them? what the hell does that purpose serve? and by denying heteros exposure to gay kids, aren't you reinforcing prejudices against the gay community by heteros who never ge tot interact with them? isolate communities from each other and watch stupid prejudices develop. this seems like sociology 101 to me.

the beauty of an integrated society is you learn to interact with all other segments of society as you should: each and everyone of us as being equal.

as soon as you single some out one group for special treatment, no matter how noble the aim, you have defeated the original purpose of educating our children about the must important virtue of them all: we are all equal. and you do that by sticking all of them in the same damn school, period, end of fucking story. any reasons to break this principle defeats any noble purpose of instilling confidence or pride or whatever, that some misled educator obviously had in mind when promoting this stupid idea.

this just ostracizes gay kids further- or any subset of children who some fuckhead adult with a lot of degrees and no fucking common sense somehow posit as needing a special school for. it puts them in an environment where they don't develop any skills to deal with the hetero community. they'll be put in a microcosm of society, and well-meaning gay teachers will fill their heads with perspectives that will only build a wall between them and the rest of their hetero peers. they will carry this isolation with them into adult life. it will create an us versus them mentality.

i thought we needed less of that kind of mentality in modern society.

geez what a stupid idea.


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Why do they get thier own damn school? (3.90 / 10) (#167)
by gnovos on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 09:28:57 PM EST

I was attacked when I was growing up, not because I was gay, but because I was smart.  I'm sorry gay folks, if you think you have it bad, try being a nerd with coke-bottle glasses in today's high schools.  At least you have your defenders, your granola crunchy protesters who will happy wave cardboard signs at passing motorists in front of your school every time some jock chuckles at the mention of dikes in Holland.  

You have your sensitivity training videos, your after-school specials, your "very special" episodes of Bernie Max, your grainy 1970's-like videos of why it's ok to have two mommies...

You can even pretend to be straight.  You can doff your pink taffeta biker shorts and matching skin-tight sleeveless white tee and go preppie.

But we, we nery ones, have nothing and no one.  And we can't even hide our intellect...  Not that we don't try, mind you.  We do try to act dumb.  We'll do anything to stop the constant, daily parade of societally condoned beatings and endless cruel verbal and mental torture.  

But all it takes is one slip up, a perfect score on an unannounced pop-quiz, the casual accidental usage of the word "phrenology", a slightly less than enthusiactic bounce in your step on the way to the hell that is physical education class... and you cover is blown, and the rain of invective begins to fall anew.

Why are you so damn special that you get your own school?  When will be the day that we see a school for the scholarly?

A Haiku: "fuck you fuck you fuck/you fuck you fuck you fuck you/fuck you fuck you snow" - JChen

plenty of "scholarly schools" (2.00 / 3) (#173)
by tofubar on Wed Jul 30, 2003 at 11:03:01 PM EST

And while I think a gay school is a stupid fucking idea, I think you should have learned that people hate those who are arrogant and think they're better than others, like some MENSA geek. So really, you brought it on yourself.

[ Parent ]
Arrogance or jaunty sarcasm? You decide [nt] (none / 0) (#189)
by gnovos on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 04:56:59 AM EST



A Haiku: "fuck you fuck you fuck/you fuck you fuck you fuck you/fuck you fuck you snow" - JChen
[ Parent ]
sure (none / 0) (#223)
by kableh on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 11:32:22 AM EST

If your parents can send you to a private school. I assumed we were talking about public education.

I was a shy, introverted person in middle school, and never did anything to provoke anyone, and got picked on daily.

So really, go fuck yourself.

[ Parent ]
Just a thought... (4.50 / 2) (#231)
by gnovos on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 01:54:51 PM EST

I think you should have learned that people hate those who are arrogant and think they're better than others, like some MENSA geek.

If I am a black man, and I am very proud of my dark skin, and think it's beautiful -- and get discriminated againt in the process -- I will be held up as a champion of virtue.

However, if I am a smart man, and I am very proud of my mind, and think it's beautiful -- and get discriminated against in the process -- I will be told "you got what's coming to you you arrogant prick!"

So, in our society, "nigger" is a no-no, but "nerd" is A-OK?  Just want to make sure I've got that straight.

A Haiku: "fuck you fuck you fuck/you fuck you fuck you fuck you/fuck you fuck you snow" - JChen
[ Parent ]

Hah! That's great :) (none / 0) (#177)
by Golden Hawk on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 01:04:17 AM EST

Have you ever thought of posting an opionion piece here on kuro?
This topic of intellegence discrimination is a great one.
-- Daniel Benoy
[ Parent ]
IHBT. IHL. (3.14 / 7) (#179)
by LittleZephyr on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 01:36:17 AM EST

FUCK   YOU

Try bring a smart person AND being totured. I may be a girl, but it's not all macho buff guys that like to gaybash. i was TORTURED in middle school for being bisexual. In addition to that I was the smartest kid in the freaking class. I was also a year yonguer than everone lse. I started school early. Being hated for being different from THREE sides of the room. I was the single most EVIL person there, because I was the single least overwhelmingly average.

I dealt with it. Sure, I had my problems, and there's more to come. I was too smatrt for the school, now I'm getting homeschooled. I still don't like telling people in Real Life i'm bi, because people don't understand it. Am I running away from the problems? NO, I'm solving them.
(\♥/) What if instead of posting that comment,
(0.-) you had actually taken a knife and stabbed
("_") me in the eye? You murderer. ~ Rusty

[ Parent ]

Whiney bitch (2.33 / 3) (#180)
by Golden Hawk on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 01:38:29 AM EST

"I dealt with it."

APPARENTLY NOT, judgeing by the tone of your post.

Let go, damn it.
-- Daniel Benoy
[ Parent ]

*sigh* (none / 0) (#242)
by LittleZephyr on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 05:02:15 PM EST

There's a differance between dealing with something and accepting it. I deal;t with it by seperating myself from it, not by say "it's ok" and feeling good about it.
(\♥/) What if instead of posting that comment,
(0.-) you had actually taken a knife and stabbed
("_") me in the eye? You murderer. ~ Rusty

[ Parent ]
YWCTTBT (3.75 / 4) (#192)
by gnovos on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 05:09:44 AM EST

O K,  NAME  THE  PLACE

Forgive me if it's a little hard to believe...  Bisexual women getting disgriminated AGAINST?  I can understand bisexual men getting bashed, but women?  Come on, that's like the single biggest turn on for redneck guys since sheep!  Look in any Playboy or Penthouse in recent memory, and there you go...

No, I'm sorry, you must have either been way too smart, way too ugly, or else you weren't as "bi" as you thought you were (i.e. only dating girls is not "bi").

Guys don't like hard-core lesbians, sure, but that's just because it's like an insult to them.  It's saying, hey Mr. Cockenballs, we don't need your kind round here!  But a bisexual woman?  No problemo!

A Haiku: "fuck you fuck you fuck/you fuck you fuck you fuck you/fuck you fuck you snow" - JChen
[ Parent ]

She's definately not (none / 0) (#255)
by 5pectre on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 08:13:55 AM EST

"way too ugly"...

if her photo is anything to go by.

"Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

[ Parent ]

Well that settles that... (5.00 / 1) (#269)
by bugmaster on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 06:40:38 PM EST

...She is definitely too smart :-)
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]
you knew you were bi in middle school? <n/t> (none / 0) (#221)
by kableh on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 11:30:13 AM EST

Man, where were these girls when I was in school?

[ Parent ]
Bisexual ? (none / 0) (#206)
by bugmaster on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 09:47:06 AM EST

I was actually wondering about that. A friend of mine who is bisexual was complaining that they are being ostracized by both the straight and the gay communities.

My question to the gay community is, therefore: Hello ? McFly ? Anybody home ? I mean, didn't you people suffer enough ? Must you now pass your abuse on to someone else ? Did all the torture you have received in high school teach you nothing ?

Ahem. That is, of course, assuming that bisexuals really are shunned by both sides... are they ?
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]

Wrong Parent (none / 0) (#207)
by bugmaster on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 09:48:21 AM EST

Sorry, this was meant as a reply to LittleZephyr's comment, below... That's what happens when you post when half asleep.
>|<*:=
[ Parent ]
why not? (none / 0) (#220)
by kableh on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 11:28:51 AM EST

Thats what various sects of Christianity have been doing for years.

[ Parent ]
Re: Bisexual ? (none / 0) (#289)
by Chronos Tachyon on Mon Aug 04, 2003 at 08:35:30 PM EST

Re: anti-bi bias among gays, it's rare, but it happens. Mostly it takes the form of a snooty attitude along the lines of "you're really gay but you just don't want to give up society's pat on the head for liking the opposite sex". This attitude is, of course, bullshit, as bisexuality generally gets lumped in with homosexuality by most of society. A Straight Person's Guide To Gay Etiquette touches on this in the bisexuality chapter, albeit from the other side of the coin.



[ Parent ]
Wah! Wah! Wah! Discrimination! (3.44 / 9) (#181)
by guidoreichstadter on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 01:54:43 AM EST

For Christ's sake! All of you so damned worried about a little bitty school that's gonna enroll 100 LGBT kids! God forbid they not be forced by law, by the damn POLICE if necessary, into the life threatening vulnerable minority status they will enjoy in the public schools our oh, so, thoughtful,justand compassionate society has carefully and painstakingly crafted for their edification and enjoyment! For Christ's sake! After all, who gives a fuck if they feel so welcome in this beautiful little society we've contructed for them that they're three times more likely to leave it via suicide than their straight pals?

After all, they're only fags, right?

I'm sure you all raised such a fuss when the first same-sex public schools opened. OH my GOD, boys and girls going to different schools! If we don't do something, they're going to shred the 14th Ammendment! Quick!

What? Did I just insinuate that you all got so riled up over your mean double little standards simply because gays were involved? [flash!]you are homophobic! you are mentally unequipped to accept moral equivalency between yourself and gays![/flash!]Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, that's where I remember you all from- last week's picket of the same-sex public schools.

Bullshit. When this half-assed excuse for a society and the rest of you get up from the TV long enough to finally get around to guaranteeing gays, oh I don't know, how about a little federal antidiscrimination protection in the workplace, hmm, how about a little legalized marriage, (well you could just enforce the Constitution on that one, what with States' "full faith and credit" and so on) hmm, adoption would be nice, hey, I know, what about full and equal civil rights? Oh, my God, what a novel idea! A "democracy" where the citizens are putatively equal! then maybe your pathetic priviledged whiny crap will mean something other than the imperturbable mass of the densely ignorant majority it is today.

Excuse me while I go untangle the twisted black barbed wire in my thought balloon.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.

*shrugs* (none / 0) (#219)
by kableh on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 11:27:26 AM EST

I'd imagine if you weren't picked on in school you were doing something wrong. That is the only reason I have a problem with this, it seems unnecessary. And as another poster pointed out, it may be detrimental in the long run.

Keep in mind I'm a fairly liberal person, and I'm not coming from the same angle as the Bible-thumping homo-hating crowd. I suppose it could be argued that getting picked on at that age is setting one up for emotional issues later, but again, the real world will do that well enough.

[ Parent ]
Sigged (none / 0) (#256)
by Gully Foyle on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 09:02:33 AM EST

Thanks.

If you weren't picked on in school you were doing something wrong - kableh
[ Parent ]

Seems necessary to me. (5.00 / 1) (#279)
by guidoreichstadter on Sun Aug 03, 2003 at 01:57:24 PM EST

Seems necessary to the kids who want to go to this school. Most of these kids are in this program because they were so persecuted that they felt they had to drop out of school. Can you begin to wrap your mind around that? Due in large part to legal and socially-approved persecution, gay kids experience suicide rates three times higher than straights. Getting picked on in school because you are gay is not like getting picked on in school because you are a geek. In the US, LGBTQ people are in the position of being LEGALLY DENIED FULL CIVIL RIGHTS. From this point of view, being picked on in school becuase you are gay is a form of political persecution. It is the reaffirmation by the politically dominant part of the society of your legalized inferiority.

You say that you are a fairly liberal person. I imagine that means you support full civil rights for LGBTQ people? That is awesome! I support you and commend you for the time and effort you are putting into the fight for full civil equality, and I encourage you not to give up the fight.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

equivalency? (5.00 / 1) (#252)
by mrchaotica on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 01:04:45 AM EST

Quote from parent:
you are mentally unequipped to accept moral equivalency between yourself and gays!

Please explain how segregation promotes equivalency.

I have no problem with homosexuals (despite the fact that I'm not one myself), but I don't understand how putting gay kids in a seperate school helps reduce discrimination. It seems to me that all it has several effects, such as:

  1. making them even more different because they go to the other school.
  2. making some people think they're being elitist (analogous to private or gifted schools)
  3. making others think there's something wrong with them (analogous to special-ed schools and juvenile detention centers)
  4. making bigots and homophobes feel warm and fuzzy because they don't have to deal with the "fags" anymore
  5. making the bigots and homophobes pissed off because the objects of their ridicule have escaped

I fail to see how any of these effects of a separate school are beneficial to society, or to the students themselves. Moreover, I can't think of any effects that are! (some people use the theory "it keeps them from getting teased and such", but, conversely, it shelters them and makes them less prepared for the discrimination they will face once they graduate... and it also fails to prepare their straight peers to be tolerant of them.

So, did you actually have a point, or was that just a self-defeating meaningless rant?



[ Parent ]
LEGAL anti-gay discrimination exists NOW (5.00 / 1) (#278)
by guidoreichstadter on Sun Aug 03, 2003 at 01:45:48 PM EST

I'm trying to get you to look at the big picture. If you try to live a the life of a normal citizen right now in the United States and you are gay, YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW. In essence, BEING GAY IS ILLEGAL. This is the U.S., year 2003. It is illegal for gays to marry. It is illegal for them to adopt children. They can legally be fired for being gay. This is the legal reality in most states in the Union. So, once society fixes these PRETTY BIG issues, we can begin to talk about whether 100 gays are 'priviledged' in New York because they get to go to a school where most of the students are gay.

What I'm saying is that most of the sentiment against Harvey-Milk is coming from a point of view that wants to deny gays legal existence as people. Yes, people who are against gay marriage, who are against FULL CIVIL RIGHTS for gays, are trying to deny them their existence as people, because without full equality there is not equal freedom, and freedom is one of the central and defining qualities that affirms our existence as people.

This is what I mean by moral equivalency- you claim that you have no problem with homosexuals. I do have a problem with them- that is, we have a problem together: we are denied full equality. When someone says, "I don't have a problem with homosexuals," I imagine that means they respect them as equally human. Naturally, anyone who claims that must actually be spending their time and efforts fighting for full equality for homosexuals, or they are lying. IF you are not fighting against the legalized discrimination gays face, you are giving your tacit approval and support to the way things are run right now- a system that denies gays personhood by denying them full civil rights.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

First of all, I aplogize... (none / 0) (#301)
by mrchaotica on Sun Sep 14, 2003 at 09:34:12 PM EST

for not responding in a more timely fashion. I agree with your position, except for the following:

  1. The legal discrimination against gays sucks, and should be abolished. However, seperate schools aren't going to accomplish that.
  2. "If you aren't for us, you're against us" is bullshit. You can't fight ALL your battles, you have to pick and choose the most important ones. I'll vote for pro-gay politicians, but I don't have time to stand on street corners shouting at people.


[ Parent ]
sorry for being a dividifier, not a uniterizer... (none / 0) (#302)
by guidoreichstadter on Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 11:21:23 PM EST

Mutual sympathy as regards the temporal noncoincidence.

You have good, perfectly valid points.

I reckon if you live according to your lights you'll probably die with a peaceful soul or something like that.

tangentially, are you the type with battles to fight? with whom, I'm wondering, and what are your priorities? just curious...


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

Wonderful, another rant (4.00 / 2) (#284)
by RyoCokey on Mon Aug 04, 2003 at 12:48:33 PM EST

For Christ's sake! All of you so damned worried about a little bitty school that's gonna enroll 100 LGBT kids!

A little unintentional irony before we begin.

God forbid they not be forced by law, by the damn POLICE if necessary, into the life threatening vulnerable minority status they will enjoy in the public schools our oh, so, thoughtful,justand compassionate society has carefully and painstakingly crafted for their edification and enjoyment!

Yeah, public high school sucked for me too. Didn't need my own school just because I couldn't deal with people who didn't agree with me, though.

After all, who gives a fuck if they feel so welcome in this beautiful little society we've contructed for them that they're three times more likely to leave it via suicide than their straight pals?

The only guilty party in the a suicide is the killer himself.

After all, they're only fags, right?

Yeah, we don't like cigarettes in NYC.

I'm sure you all raised such a fuss when the first same-sex public schools opened. OH my GOD, boys and girls going to different schools! If we don't do something, they're going to shred the 14th Ammendment! Quick!

Yeah, no one ever protests sex segregation.

What? Did I just insinuate that you all got so riled up over your mean double little standards simply because gays were involved? [flash!]you are homophobic! you are mentally unequipped to accept moral equivalency between yourself and gays![/flash!]Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, that's where I remember you all from- last week's picket of the same-sex public schools.

Good, then you'd care to explain why all the name callers and ranters in this thread are pro-gay, with the exception of obviously tounge-in-cheek posts.

Bullshit. When this half-assed excuse for a society and the rest of you get up from the TV long enough to finally get around to guaranteeing gays, oh I don't know, how about a little federal antidiscrimination protection in the workplace, hmm, how about a little legalized marriage,

I don't get protection for my political views, why should you get protection for your recreational pursuits?

I know, what about full and equal civil rights? Oh, my God, what a novel idea! A "democracy" where the citizens are putatively equal! then maybe your pathetic priviledged whiny crap will mean something other than the imperturbable mass of the densely ignorant majority it is today.

Completely correct. We need to lose hate crime laws, affirmative action, and discrimination laws. Getting the government out of regulating marriage would be nice too.

Excuse me while I go untangle the twisted black barbed wire in my thought balloon.

That's a terrible metaphor.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
Thanks for your time. (none / 0) (#286)
by guidoreichstadter on Mon Aug 04, 2003 at 03:59:02 PM EST

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

Briefly, here are some ideas whose clarification you might (?) appreciate.

I don't consider compulsory public education of any kind to be legitimate. I completely oppose the use of the state to enforce the power hierarchy of "students" subjugated under "teachers" that exists in the US public schools. This is not any kind of human relationship, being based primarily on force for the purpose of imposing the value of others, rather than a relationship of free association for the purpose of mutual development and self-determination. I's bad enough that the state is still permitted to create an artificial minority by denying gays equal civil rights, it's bad enough that the state is permitted to employ force to control the educational process of children, and finally it's intolerable that the state presumes to force the youngest partisans of that minority into a position of physical vulnerability, where the hostility and physical violence that they encounter really are a form of political persecution directly endorsed and perpetuated by the state.

So, my view repesents a compromise between the present and what ought to be. I see Harvey Milk as a kind of triage- reaffirming the values of self-determination, free association, and physical security for the members of the politically pesecuted minority who choose to go there. Obviously, the existence of Harvey Milk is not the ideal outcome for "society" or the people involved, but the ideal is not immediately realizable. The deeper issues of the lack of civil rights for all people and the insidious prevalence of a force-based, undemocratic social order are fundamental.

I'm a little confused by your statement:
I don't get protection for my political views, why should you get protection for your recreational pursuits?
Which particular political views are you referring to? Do you mean people are persecuting you for your views? What recreational pursuits are you referring to? I'm afraid I just don't catch the argument or the logic.

Re: the earlier points, obviously I reject enforced sex segregation. My point was that many of the people against voluntary self-segregation of gays probably don't give a damn about the forced sex segregation of boys and girls (much more prevalent) in US public schools. Hell, they probably didn't even know it exists. I think this shows people weren't really concerned about freedom or segregation per se, but more with maintaining a social order that relegates gays to a position of legal inferiority and physical vulnerability.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]

By the way, do you know this Miranda fellow? n/t (none / 0) (#287)
by guidoreichstadter on Mon Aug 04, 2003 at 04:01:39 PM EST




you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
You should have posted this instead (none / 0) (#288)
by RyoCokey on Mon Aug 04, 2003 at 04:45:18 PM EST

The reply was far better than the original rant. I concur with you completely on the subject of public education. However, I don't think segregated public schools are the way to go.

Far better would be the plan that the Right (obviously not for the benefit of homosexuals, but still) is proposing with the concept of school vouchers. This allows school choice for whatever views one holds, without the all-private side effect of leaving the poor uneducated. Rather than try to expand the existing structure in more bizarre manifestations, we should go in that direction. However, the public education lobbies generally are on the other side of politics, and thus (ironically in my opinion) are against such actions.

As to the political beliefs, there is no federal protection, and in states like Texas, if I recall, which has "At Will" employment you can be fired for them.

No, I've never seen that Miranda user before.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
I can support some kind of voucher system (none / 0) (#292)
by guidoreichstadter on Tue Aug 05, 2003 at 10:41:43 AM EST

Although the caveats I mentioned before still stand- the choice to enter or leave any program must lie with the student. The only "force" that others may apply (teachers and parents) to try and modify the student's (nonthreatening) behavior should be the force of reason or moral persuasion. The ability to articulate an objection to a unilateral system of control constitutes the right to be free from it.


you are human:
no masters,
no slaves.
[ Parent ]
I Have a Dream (3.80 / 5) (#188)
by mideast on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 04:50:57 AM EST

I have a dream that one day little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together teasing gays and lesbians. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will find a common purpose in defending their common culture against the impositions of homosexuals. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the queer places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, knowing that we will be free of this one day.

When do this we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Join the Revolutionary Communist Party and help us CREATE PUBLIC OPINION and SEIZE POWER!

I have a dream (none / 0) (#261)
by starsky on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 10:23:40 AM EST

of black girls and white girls playing together.

Hey, it's a great dream.

(C) Ali G

[ Parent ]

Grow up weaklings... (5.00 / 2) (#213)
by tfandango on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 10:57:32 AM EST

How is this different from making a new school just for black kids?  Or a school for just white kids?  I can only imagine the outrage that would be caused by the latter.

You could make the same argument that white kids in black neighborhoods get tortured and harassed all the time too.  So why don't they start up a white only school?

We can't help what we are, true.  I'm a white guy and I couldn't be black if I tried.  If you're gay, you're gay.  But what makes us strong is how we deal with the lives we are given to live.  Eventually, you are going to have to enter the real world, and you will be totally unprepared if you're spending all you're time hanging out in some gay utopian collective.

It's time to stop nursing the weak and let them become strong.

T.

very true (5.00 / 1) (#218)
by kableh on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 11:23:27 AM EST

I find the "statistic" about gay bashers amusing. Kids are mean! Duh! Almost EVERYONE gets picked on at one point in their schoolyears, and like you say, it only prepares you in a sense for the cruel, cold place the real world is.

And hell, even gay people call stuff gay.

[ Parent ]
Calling stuff gay (none / 0) (#260)
by edo on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 10:14:57 AM EST

> hell, even gay people call stuff gay

I guess you're right: I have been quoted as saying 'Girls are so gay!'
-- 
Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
 - Oscar Wilde
[ Parent ]

heh (none / 0) (#264)
by kableh on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 02:50:38 PM EST

A gay friend has been quoted as calling a relative's Vespa (scooter) gay. More accurately, "gives a gay first appearance". =)

[ Parent ]
Yes, you could (none / 0) (#283)
by RyoCokey on Mon Aug 04, 2003 at 12:24:55 PM EST

I'm a white guy and I couldn't be black if I tried.

You could, although you wouldn't be the first to write a famous book about it.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
Not the same (none / 0) (#290)
by Jarad on Tue Aug 05, 2003 at 04:29:28 AM EST

There is a distinct difference between looking like a minority, and actually being one.

Sure, any man off the street can be perceived to be gay. He could even be treated as being gay; the joy of discrimination and hatred from people whom you believed to be your friends or collegues.

But that man, unless he is bisexual, will never actually be attracted to another man - he will never undergo the exact same thought processes as an actual gay man.

[ Parent ]
That's not right (none / 0) (#291)
by RyoCokey on Tue Aug 05, 2003 at 09:34:32 AM EST

There is a distinct difference between looking like a minority, and actually being one.

Only genetically. The difference in experiences is unavoidable, even between people within the same race.

Thus, the only thing missing from such an experience would be the memories of early time in such a state. As for being homosexual, I suppose it's debatable. However, for what purposes do you need to experience their attraction towards men? Surely you could theorize what that's like without actually experiencing it.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
Theorizing... (none / 0) (#295)
by Jarad on Wed Aug 06, 2003 at 05:16:29 AM EST

Surely you could theorize what that's like without actually experiencing it.

And therein lies my point. A straight man can only theorize as to what a gay man is thinking or feeling, or react appropriatly. He will not actually feel any attraction to the same sex. He won't walk down the street, and think the guy in the muscle-shirt passing by is hot. He won't be aroused by, for example, seeing Arnie's naked buttocks in T3. A truely straight man will never feel the attraction to men that a gay man feels. If he feels any sort of attraction, then he is by definition bisexual.

Here's a simpler example. Take someone who has lived on the most northern tip of Scandanavia all their life, and introduce them to someone who has lived in the Amazon all their life. Try to get them to agree on what temperature 'cold' would be. They simply will not be able to do it; they both come from opposite extremes and so have different views of 'cold'.

[ Parent ]
However, you still could be accurate (none / 0) (#296)
by RyoCokey on Thu Aug 07, 2003 at 10:31:24 AM EST

The man from the Amazon could still accurately assess what being in such temperatures would feel like, even if he had never experienced them. Thus, human experience can be understood, even if it cannot be directly experienced.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
This is a stupid idea. Period. -nt- (3.00 / 2) (#216)
by Suppafly on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 11:17:10 AM EST


---
Playstation Sucks.
Worst Idea Ever (4.50 / 4) (#226)
by CENGEL3 on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 12:43:31 PM EST

I want to see this school sued into oblivion for discrimination the first time a straight kid applies and is turned down on the basis of sexual oreintation.

Either discrimination is wrong or it isn't. If it's wrong to discriminate against one person then it is wrong to discriminate against ANYONE (straight, gay, white, black, purple, etc).
Make up your minds either it's wrong or it's not... none of this "Well if it's tuesday and your feeling oppressed it's ok to discriminate against southerners wearing blue shirts".

Personaly I think discrimination should be allowed (though not encouraged) in private life...however EVERYONE should be assured equal treatment by thier government and the law. As long as this school is paid for with public funds and run by public officials it should not be allowed to determine student enrollment on the basis of sexual orientation. I'd have no problem with it if it were a Private Institution. I'd even have no problem with allowing parents to use School Vouchers to send thier kids there (since I am generaly supportive of school voucher programs). However an institution established with public funds, administered by public officials and run soley by public funds should not be allowed to discriminate in this manner.


we discriminate against unintelligent ppl tho [nt] (none / 0) (#238)
by zzzeek on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 04:27:01 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Gay High School, oh boy... (2.71 / 14) (#227)
by Psycho Dave on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 01:03:10 PM EST

Most gay people I know do nothing but gossip about other gay people about stupid shit like who's "really" a lesbian, who's got AIDS, who got a fucking jar of peanut butter stuck in their asshole cause they didn't use enough Crisco. Gay people emotionally torture each other in ways most heterosexuals can't begin to imagine. I don't see how an all gay high school would be a place where any kid could buckle down and get a real education. I think gay high school, I think DRAMA...

...I bet a cup of coffee that most of the kids that go to that school will be rich, overweight, white girls playing lesbian to piss off daddy and get on an MTV documentary before their off and running with their trust funds.

The others will be gay boys too strung out on drugs to hack it in "any" normal school. Is it really a good idea to put them around other drug addled gay boys? Christ, they'll be doing Ecstacy every other study break...

The music at the prom will suck (can you imagine dancing to C + C Music Factory and Ani Difranco? Neither can I...) and the punch will be spiked with GHB. One of the lesbian girls will get pregnant, she'll be kicked out of the school for being straight, her daddy will pay for the abortion, then fly her to Spain to "summer". One of the more promiscuous gay boys will catch AIDS, his yearbook photo will be of him, weighing 95 lbs, covered in lesions with the caption saying "We're gonna miss you, Junior Class".

This could be a TV series...

Yeah (none / 0) (#237)
by Bill Melater on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 04:23:27 PM EST

But I bet the school plays would be exceptional. "Hello Dolly" and "A Chorus Line" with a cast of 500. Show tunes galore!

[ Parent ]
The classrooms would be well decorated too...(nt) (none / 0) (#241)
by Psycho Dave on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 04:40:45 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Not exclusive (5.00 / 1) (#234)
by xunker on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 02:33:34 PM EST

It's not "exclusively for LGBTQ"; there is nothing preventing anyone from attending Harvey Milk based on on sexual orientation -- at least, nothing in a legal sense.

hi kids (none / 0) (#239)
by zzzeek on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 04:36:49 PM EST

while i may not agree with the concept of an all-gay school in nyc (although the unbelievable homophobia apparent on K5 seems to bolster its position), id like to throw out the fact that "discrimination" by itself is not necessarily wrong.  Acceptable discriminiation occurs all the time, such as when learning disabled kids get to go to their own school, etc.

What you are all doing is confusing discriminiation in general with discrimination against a certain group to the detriment of that group, which is the case in the all familiar racial discriminiation against blacks (i.e. jim crow laws), women (couldnt vote, dont get promotions), homosexuals (cant marry, cant join the military, get randomly murdered), etc.

Different Definitions (none / 0) (#262)
by CENGEL3 on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 11:35:04 AM EST

I think we are dealing with different definitions of "discriminiation" here. In it's most basic meaning "discriminiate" essentialy means to be able to discern a difference or to select based upon a difference. We do this all the time, in many contexts it's both natural and beneficial. Most people would agree that in selecting starting players for a softball team there is nothing wrong with discriminating against bad softball players.

What our society has a problem with and whats usualy meant by "discriminiation" (when that buzz word is used today) is to select against (or for) some-one based upon a factor which is unrelated to the persons relevent abilities.

Furthermore the foundation upon which our whole society is based upon is the notion that we are all equal before the eyes of our government (equal protection under the law). That means that I am not granted different rights and privilages then you are simply because I am different (outside of ability). For example, I am not denied the right to vote simply because my eyes are green instead of brown. I am not turned down for a civil service job (that I am well able to perform) simply because my hair is brown instead of blonde.

Therefore I maintain that "discrimination" (when used in this context) is unacceptable whether it is against a white person or a black person, whether it is against a straight person or a gay person. It is not relevent that white people and straight people have traditionaly been regarded as more "acceptable" by society at large. Discrimination based upon race is still discriminiation even when the persons race is white and discriminiation based upon sexual orientation is still discriminiation even when the persons orientation is straight.

To deny a straight kid the opportunity to go to a public school or say that school is not "geared toward them" is wrong. It is just as wrong as denying a gay kid the opportunity to go to a public school or to tell them that such a school is not "geared toward them". This is not the same as differentiating upon peoples abilities to learn. Gays and straights are equaling capable of learning... it is not a relevent factor.

I'd have no problem with creating a special school for people who have severe problems with being victimized and are unable to cope with it. However that applies to far more then just gay kids...there are plenty of straight kids who would (for various reasons) fall into that catagory, where is the special school for them?

[ Parent ]

oh yes absolutely (none / 0) (#263)
by zzzeek on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 01:14:58 PM EST

if it could be determined that any group of any kind needs some special treatment, then they should get it.  the gays seem to have gotten it in new york probably due to their numbers and the fact that they can be unambiguously identified.

but im not sure if gays really need their own school.  similarly, im not really sure if the sensitive nerdy kids need their own school either; as a card carrying member of this demographic, i would have preferred a little more guidance and role-model figures to teach me how to interact with everyone else.  

[ Parent ]

Two sides of a coin (none / 0) (#294)
by Woundweavr on Tue Aug 05, 2003 at 10:54:00 PM EST

A lot of this was covered in the sibling comment but I'd just like to add....

Whenever one discrimates against a group, it can just as easily be seen as in favor of another group. For instance, men were given greater political power (a positive) before women's sufferage. However, when looked at holistically, its clear that it wasn't right to give an advantage to men by denying power to women. All discriminatory policies that give an advantage to one group, necessarily (in nigh all realistic cases) puts the opposite group at a disadvantage.

For instance, you used special-ed as your "of course" argument. However, this needs to be examined. Considering that as many as 12.5% of students are recommended for special needs, and the per-student cost is 2-2.5 times the cost.

Now these programs will often prove beneficial and necessary. The blind kid needs special help and can use it. However, many times kids will be diagnosed with ADD falsely (due to discipline problems and/or lazy parents/doctors/teachers) and then cost signifigantly more to educate. Thus even with a beneficial and necessary program close attention is needed.

Furthermore, in situations that require students to be transported across district lines can be huge. In Massachusetts, for instance, it costs 200,000 US$ for each special-ed student who goes to an out of district school (on top of normal special ed costs). Similar costs might well occur in the NYC school.

While the two situations are dissimilar in that special ed is necessary and (most people would agree) a "gay school" is not (and detrimental), all the cost run-ups, red tape, and poor administration will likely be shared.

And when you increase funding to a school (or create one), you have three options. Increase taxes, increase educational funding (same problem but on a larger scale), or cut funding to other schools. While this is just an unfortunate side-effect with special ed, its not with the LGBT school.

In a place like NYC, where school conditions can be really poor, and funding extremely tight, don't you think they can come up with a better use of money than a place to seperate LGBT from the people they'll have to live with the rest of their lives?

[ Parent ]

Bad Idea (5.00 / 3) (#243)
by darqchild on Thu Jul 31, 2003 at 06:06:25 PM EST

rather than give us a school,
how about trying to teach gay people and straight people to live together peacefully?
Creating  a seperate school  might be a short term solution to the problems that exist, but it does nothing in the long term.  

What we need is for schools to introduce the idea that a homosexual relationship is no better or worse, nor more right or wrong than a heterosexual relationship.  And they need to start at an early age.

Sadly, i doubt that will happen, because like governments, school boards prefer a short-term impressive solution that makes everyone happy, and gives the illusion that they're doing somthing good, rather than actually fixing the problems that exist with their system.

~~~
Death is God's way of telling you not to be such a smartass.

sadly... (none / 0) (#276)
by Samiti on Sat Aug 02, 2003 at 10:11:11 PM EST

I fear that it will take a long time for people to even comprehend the idea that it "is no better or worse, nor more right or wrong." We are probably the most opinionated country in the world, we sometimes even pride ourselves on such things as independant group rights...INSTEAD of priding ourselves on EQUAL rights.

Gah...it's like the cliques that we all faced in high school are still here, in the form of ethnic and social groups. Each fighting for their own rights instead of equal for all. Which is what this school does, more rights for these people...but it also gives others grounds to be MORE homophobic instead of accepting.

I don't like hate...granted I myself may not understand their way of life, i also don't understand the way of life of many people, but I don't hate them for that. I know that they live their lives, and I live mine, and that nothing more should be made of it.


#/bin/bash script.kiddies
[ Parent ]

Yep.... (none / 0) (#299)
by Cackmobile on Tue Aug 19, 2003 at 11:02:08 AM EST

so true.....similar to war on drugs. Drug taking should be treated as a health issue not a crime issue.

[ Parent ]
I've got an idea! (5.00 / 5) (#265)
by LilDebbie on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 05:13:50 PM EST

I hear there's a lot of problems with black kids getting insulted and teased on the playgrounds. The obvious solution is to build an all black school where they don't have to worry about it anymore. We can also expand this idea to other aspects of life, like public transportation; public busses could have seating set up for black people set aside from all those mean white people! Yeah, this will work out great! And we could have seperate workplaces and libraries and everything! This is the best idea ever!

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

Yay! (none / 0) (#267)
by Vesperto on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 05:32:37 PM EST

Now, LGBTQ students won't have to worry about being discriminated, 'cos they'll be segregated!! Don't you just love the civillised (cough) world?

La blua plago!
this idea is so gay (nt) (5.00 / 2) (#270)
by MrClaws on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 08:07:45 PM EST



it must be the crack (none / 0) (#273)
by patigerjet on Sat Aug 02, 2003 at 05:19:30 AM EST

it just boggles my mind

[ Parent ]
Kuro5hin overrun by narrowmindedness! (3.77 / 9) (#272)
by slur on Fri Aug 01, 2003 at 11:15:08 PM EST

I haven't seen such a flagrant bunch of stupid and frankly openly bigoted comments on Kuro5hin in - well - weeks.

We may live in a country devoted to freedom of expression, but as far as I can see the slice of the populus represented in this thread doesn't value it beyond themselves.

Metaphysically speaking no one knows what homo- or bisexuality represents except those who live it. The same goes for those who live "whiteness," "blackness," or any other form of self-identification.

Therefore the kind of judgment represented by the self-identified straights here can only be founded on ignorance and prejudice.

Of course you don't need me to reveal this obvious fact. Look at your motivations and the spirit of your commentary. Your motivation is pure homophobia - a visceral sense of disgust - and your lashing-out is expressed from a position of self-righteousness. Furthermore it is tailored to belittle, insult, degrade, and invalidate its target.

Is this the way you prefer to transact with the universe? What limited minds! You only corrupt yourselves. Wake up!

In my youth I realized I was quite heterosexual. My interest in the fair gender was expressed as an overwhelmingly hormonal impulse. I could not have chosen otherwise. Perhaps some of the self-identified straights here remember having a similar sense of attraction.

Guess what? Homosexuality exists on the same plane and carries the same metaphysical weight. One who is attracted to the members of the same gender is bound to it by an unconscious element of their nature.

We become actualized by being true to ourselves and allowing our true nature to express itself. That means loving what you love, being what you are, freeing yourself to be spontaneous according to your spirit's expression.

If I were God (to use the analogy of a supreme being) and I wanted to help the world grow up I would challenge it constantly. I would emit from the depths of my energetic matrix a mode of being which contrasted with the acceptable norms. I would - as it were - flex one part of my divine body with resistance upon another.

Such is the way things are, in a sense.

Why, as God, would I be concerned which of my atoms loved others of my atoms? Why, as God, would I be bound up by some so-called law of man-woman love? After all, I allow one beloved creature in my realm to kill and devour another beloved creature. After all, I allow mankind to troll blindly through my murky depths imagining hells and heavens of his own invention. I let it all happen because in truth it is all part of my divine play. Your suffering is your limited view of my game.

You who never were, asserting your gender-identity to harm and constrict your fellow beings are just grist for my mill. Love will win out whether you like the form of it or not.

All that being said (I'm back to my human form now) the political and legal fight against same-sex marriage will ultimately fail. It will fail because laws against it are plainly unconstitutional.

To wit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Well, forgive me for saying so, but the only reasoning which can be presented by Conservatives or others opposed to same-sex marriage is religious. To paraphrase George Bush in his recent press conference, "I believe in the sanctity of marriage, and I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

"...Believe..." George indicates that any legal justification will be designed to accord with his (so-called religious) belief. Belief alone is not a legal justification for outlawing the practice of marriage in any form. A good lawyer will try to use the justification of "community norms" and might get away with it. Even so, the root of these norms is ultimately ideo-religious.

"...The sanctity of marriage..." What does 'sanctity of marriage' mean apart from the actual practices of marriage? I've seen plenty of marriages in which no sanctity is known or expressed. George would have us believe that 'sanctity' exists in some manner as a quality of this disembodied concept known as 'marriage.' But there are no such things in any sense other than their realization here in the world of mankind. How can we still in this day and age be so bamboozled by our own viscera into thinking that such things are self-originated? Whether one is married to a self-identified member of one's own gender or another, the existence of 'sanctity' is predicated on the attitudes, respect, love, and truthfulness of those involved.

I realize this goes over the heads of those here who prefer to make gay jokes and insults. Well, then this is not for you. Go back to sleep, little children.

As for the original subject of gay schools, I need only say this: Why not? We are consumers, after all, who like to have our choices made available to us. If there is a demand, and there is no real harm in it, then it should be provided for those who want it. Sure, some kids may miss out on mixing with straights. Eventually they will go out into the world and learn. Fine with me, fine with you, fine with America. Life is a divine experiment. America is "the great experiment." Let's allow the experiment to proceed and see how it goes. Let's learn from it, not try to preempt it out of fear and derision.

I for one fear nothing from homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, or non-sexuality. Why should I? I'm all for love in all its forms.

Whew, and don't even get me started on the Pope. I'm just amazed he and his marked deck of symbolic cards still have any relevance. Didn't the Dark Ages end a thousand years ago?

|
| slur was here
|

Hideyoshi, never moderate me again! (1.00 / 3) (#274)
by slur on Sat Aug 02, 2003 at 08:14:38 PM EST


HIDEYOSHI, YOU GAVE THIS COMMENT A 5:

"No hetero kid would want to go there, out of pure fear for his anal virginity."

That's not even clever, let alone insightful or deserving of praise.

Your moderations betray an agenda of propagating ignorance and fostering mental disease. From your moderation history and posts it is obvious you lack any maturity, intelligence, creativity, or insight.

I therefore reject your 1 rating, you insipid little child.

|
| slur was here
|

[ Parent ]

What a pathetic defense (5.00 / 1) (#282)
by RyoCokey on Mon Aug 04, 2003 at 12:02:41 PM EST

We may live in a country devoted to freedom of expression, but as far as I can see the slice of the populus represented in this thread doesn't value it beyond themselves.

Therefore you attack them for voicing their opinions.

Metaphysically speaking no one knows what homo- or bisexuality represents except those who live it. The same goes for those who live "whiteness," "blackness," or any other form of self-identification. Therefore the kind of judgment represented by the self-identified straights here can only be founded on ignorance and prejudice.

This is a fallacy of contextualism.

You can indeed know someone even if you don't have their particular status. Otherwise, modern government would be impossible.

Your motivation is pure homophobia - a visceral sense of disgust - and your lashing-out is expressed from a position of self-righteousness. Furthermore it is tailored to belittle, insult, degrade, and invalidate its target.

We're off into the land of a ad hominem and strawmen, aren't we?

We become actualized by being true to ourselves and allowing our true nature to express itself. That means loving what you love, being what you are, freeing yourself to be spontaneous according to your spirit's expression.

Still mad about those consent laws, eh?

If I were God (to use the analogy of a supreme being) and I wanted to help the world grow up I would challenge it constantly. I would emit from the depths of my energetic matrix a mode of being which contrasted with the acceptable norms. I would - as it were - flex one part of my divine body with resistance upon another. Such is the way things are, in a sense.

That's just babbling, plain and simple.

Why, as God, would I be concerned which of my atoms loved others of my atoms? Why, as God, would I be bound up by some so-called law of man-woman love? After all, I allow one beloved creature in my realm to kill and devour another beloved creature.

Wait, first you say all physical interactions are arbitrary, then try to justify homosexuality by the permission of a non-arbitrary interaction.

After all, I allow mankind to troll blindly through my murky depths imagining hells and heavens of his own invention.

Indeed.

You who never were, asserting your gender-identity to harm and constrict your fellow beings are just grist for my mill. Love will win out whether you like the form of it or not.

Sure, I'm confident that the past history of the world is no indicator of what's to come.

All that being said (I'm back to my human form now) the political and legal fight against same-sex marriage will ultimately fail. It will fail because laws against it are plainly unconstitutional. To wit: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Ah, an actual intelligent comment! Of course, one should point out that the government licensing of marriage is probably violating this statue already. Hell, we've got a clearly worded 2nd amendment, and still can't carry around guns. Sadly, just because the constitution says it doesn't make it law these days.

I realize this goes over the heads of those here who prefer to make gay jokes and insults. Well, then this is not for you. Go back to sleep, little children.

Condescention from one with as poor arguing skills as yourself is pretty laughable. It's not as if this is an isolated incident, such as that comment where you presume to dictate ratings policy to individual users.

As for the original subject of gay schools, I need only say this: Why not? We are consumers, after all, who like to have our choices made available to us. If there is a demand, and there is no real harm in it, then it should be provided for those who want it.

Beautiful, after spending all that time dissembling, you finally come to the point and obviously did not read the article. One of the first things you would have noticed is that it is a public school. Hence, there is no affect of "demand," it's not just a bunch of people trying to rain on a private institution. It's people getting upset at their money used in such a fashion. There's no consent involved.

Whew, and don't even get me started on the Pope. I'm just amazed he and his marked deck of symbolic cards still have any relevance. Didn't the Dark Ages end a thousand years ago?

Ah, and a closing jab at Catholics. Perfect.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
I don't think its right (none / 0) (#298)
by Cackmobile on Tue Aug 19, 2003 at 10:56:19 AM EST

Don't get me wrong I am all for gay rights. One of my best mates is gay. I am for gay marriage etc. But this is wrong. So they get bullied. i'm crying for you. Thats life. Nerds get bullied, fat kids get bullied. WE need to sort out the bullying not get the people out. That just hides the problem. I think everyone should be in the ones schools. I do not support religious schools or anything. Life is tough they need to get used to it.

Smacks of segregation (none / 0) (#300)
by alexwcovington on Sat Sep 06, 2003 at 11:30:51 PM EST

Introducing segregation, even on a voluntary basis, brings up serious questions. Now that you have an all-gay public school, how long is it going to be before asshole principals, superintendents, and school boards FORCE gay students to attend it? There's bound to be a half-cocked administrator somewhere in New York that will try to pull something like that. So you're removing them from bullying? What is going to happen when the Christian Coalition lines the road across the way (and you know it's gonna happen) and jeers these students as they go about their lives? Is that any better? No. When you deal with bullying, you deal with the bully, not the bullyed. This country doesn't need to return to the 1950s.

Gay School Opens in NYC | 302 comments (278 topical, 24 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!