U.S. Middle school hangs LGBT flag in cafeteria, bans flag of traditional family

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn’t include clothing, which is changed daily, among things which push a desired identity out there on display. And I totally accept that any cultural shift in this regard would happen decades or even centuries after I’m gone - I’m just saying I think the current state of this is kind of pathetic.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
What, pray tell, is the “flag of traditional family”? I think Russia has one, but, I’m thinking this is some item that someone is trying to sell by creating outrage.
Click to expand...
Don’t know if there in fact is one.

But, according to another article on the subject, the people filing the lawsuit “suggested” “a flag with a mom and dad stick figure with a child in between”:

article
 
po18guy said:
then compost your remains.
Click to expand...
Dust you are, to dust you shall return.

Bodies decomposing after death is the natural way that God designed things. Back in the 19th century we decided to pump chemicals into the bodies of our beloved dead and now we keep them in sealed vaults. That is unnatural.
 
po18guy said:
Passed into law in Washington State, where you can also have your doctor kill you, then compost your remains.
Click to expand...
And what does this have to do with the thread, or are you purposefully “dancing around” the subject?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree that the flag sends a positive message to gay students. But it also sends a message of support to a particular social cause; not a bad cause, in my view, but still one that some disagree with on the basis of their moral and religious values. For this reason only, I think the flag, despite its intention to be all-inclusive, is also sending a message of exclusion. Therefore, I think it should be taken down regardless of its benefits for some students and faculty.
 
Last edited:
Embalming of the body is forbidden in Judaism, as you probably know. It is indeed unnatural.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
Yes, I agree that the flag sends a positive message to gay students. But it also sends a message of support to a particular social cause; not a bad cause, in my view, but still one that some disagree with on the basis of their moral and religious values. For this reason only, I think the flag, despite its intention to be all-inclusive, is also sending a message of exclusion. Therefore, I think it should be taken down regardless of its benefits for some students and faculty.
Click to expand...
Okay.

But where do you draw the line?

If the school had a policy of inclusion for black Americans or celebrated Martin Luther King Day or Black History Month, you could say that’s supporting a “particular social cause” and some parent with a 1950s mentality might say that’s against their “moral and religious values.”

So the school shouldn’t sent that message because it would be offensive to that parent?
 
In the case of inclusion of Black Americans, I think we can all agree that there is NO basis in morality or religion to exclude this group. In the case of gay Americans, there is a basis of exclusion in the sense of those gay people who practice behavior that is contrary to the teachings of several religions; however, no basis for exclusion of gay people as people. Admittedly, it’s a fine line, but I think the gay flag symbolizes more than treating gay people as human beings; it also symbolizes their sexual and love relationships including gay marriage, which some find morally objectionable on the basis of their religious beliefs. I do not agree with the latter who object, but I can understand their perspective.
 
Last edited:
Who’s being rude? That was an honest question.

I have no idea how we got from a discussion the “gay agenda” to the Death with Dignity Act.

If asking how those two link is rude…then IDK.
 
Last edited:
OK, perhaps I commented too soon. It was just the word “obtuse” that sparked my response.
 
Fair enough, edited. I come from a background where the word is as synonym for “dancing around” a subject or purposefully being vague.
 
Call me cynical but I doubt that such statements are made from a position of blindness, rather than plain advocacy… at least in the example that you are replying to.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
In the case of inclusion of Black Americans, I think we can all agree that there is NO basis in morality or religion to exclude this group.
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite. There were abundant religious justifications for slavery, and there are still people who justify discrimination against blacks for religious reasons. Just like there were and still are plenty of people who justify persecution of Jews for religious reasons. “Religion” has been a convenient cover for simple hatred for centuries, and I believe that this is also the case with LGBT antipathy. I doubt the sincerity of those who cloak their personal hatred of LGBT people in religious garb. That just doesn’t wash with me anymore, and apparently the general public doesn’t buy it anymore, either. Religious leaders have done a huge disservice to their faith communities by equating religion with nothing more than hatred of LGBT people. If you want to know why people, especially young people, are abandoning religions en masse, there’s your answer.
 
signit said:
Okay.

But where do you draw the line?

If the school had a policy of inclusion for black Americans or celebrated Martin Luther King Day or Black History Month, you could say that’s supporting a “particular social cause” and some parent with a 1950s mentality might say that’s against their “moral and religious values.”

So the school shouldn’t sent that message because it would be offensive to that parent?
Click to expand...
It’s not the same thing, legally.

A “policy of inclusion” for all members of the school community is okay, it’s what a public institution should do, and it would likely be a violation of rights to exclude some group.

A celebration of MLK day at this point would be a celebration of a federal holiday. One can’t object to that when the federal government has officially approved the holiday and put it on the national calendar, and furthermore it’s been adopted now by every state.

However, flying a flag of a particular group is speech, and not flying a flag of another particular group is a restriction on speech, and the issue is what kind of speech is allowed at a public institution (here, school). The concern is often that if you allow one group to “speak” then you have to allow all the groups to “speak”. Institutions often deal with this by just restricting all speech in a particular category. In addition, this isn’t even a case of an individual student or staff member’s free speech, like can some student have a rainbow patch on his jacket or a traditional family sticker on his binder, but it’s the school itself pushing certain speech at the whole group.

I’m guessing the rainbow flag is going to have to go.
 
A strange accusation - a tactic seen all too often here.

The thread is about a pagan/secular/public/government school “seeming” to endorse gravely sinful behavior. Behavior which violates Darwin’s postulation of the survival of the fittest, and the perpetuation of the species (natural law). It endorses behavior which demonstrably leads to higher rates of depression, suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction and suicide.

Other than that, it’s fine.

It is not about “inclusion” it is about endorsement .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top