- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Exactly. That is the lunacy of this thought process. All personal behavior must be tolerated no matter what it is.
Mind you, them having this rule in their membership makes me think they're along the same lines as the Lesbian Prom chick from some months ago, whose doing something stubbornly primarily and specifically to get attention.
As I've said before, if they didn't want homosexuals they could've not had that rule and just made it a point to each semester do some kind of legal work that goes towards limiting the rights of homosexuals, creating a defacto disincentive for them to join ala ethnic clubs. They could have some kind of membership process where to become a full member you must be picked by a majority of membership, ala a fraternity, in which case you could make statements such as the individual not seeming to display an aptitude for working and meshing well with the individuals of the group during his times around them. Etc. Could complaints still happen at that point? Sure, but it would be far harder to prove "discrimination" in those cases then when you have it blatantly and boldly in your rules.
Its just sad its come to that point where we are moving towards a society where no personal behavior can be excluded from any group that receives government funding no matter how contrast that behavior is to the group itself.
No, all legal personal behavior must be tolerated if one wants to recieve the benefits of an open-enrollment college group.
If you want to be picky concerning it that's fine, but you don't get campus funding.
It's sad that private organizations can't use public dollars to enforce their own prejudices? Those are my tax dollars. IF they want to bar gays/lesbians, let them do it on their own damn dime, NOT MINE. It's sad that you don't understand the difference between private and public funds. It's sad that your views in this context are quite hypocritical, because if it was a muslim group, you'd be applauding the decision. It's sad that religious interests believe they need to belly up to the public trough and suck up their fill of the tax dollars.
It's really sad that religious people are so fat and complacent that they can't even fund their own charitable endeavors anymore, and think that being a Christian means parking your complacent white ass in a pew every Sunday to participate in an infomercial. It's sad that if Jesus Christ returned today, he wouldn't even recognize the people who use his name as followers of his teachings.
And you think thats a good idea that all behavior no matter what it is must be tolerated by all groups seeking government funding?
Why?
Should an islamic group on campus get school funding if they have a policy to disallow any "infidels" to join the club?
Should a black group on campus get funding if they have a policy to disallow anyone who "conforms to the man" in the way they speak and/or dress?
Should a gaming club get school funding if they have a policy to disallow any individual who participates in organized sports to join their club?
Should a Conservative club get school funding if they have a policy to disallow any individual who voted for George Bush's second term or advocates for nation building policies.
Should a homosexual club be able to get school funding if they have a policy disallowing baptists from joining?
Should a sports club on campus get school funding if they have a policy that states anyone more than a 25 BMI is not allowed into their club?
And on and on.
Essentially, should any club be able to make up any reason why they can deny anyone and put it into their rulings and still get complete and full funding from the school?
For example if its a Christian group that believes those who are homosexual can not be "christians" because they are routinely and knowingly, without any attempt to repent or change the fact, engaging in a "sinful" life style?
Should they be forced to allow someone they don't believe is Christian but considers themselves such into their club to be able to get funding?
And if so, who makes the determination of what's "arbitrary" or not?
In a similar vein, if an "African American" club restricts its membership due to race does it have a right to deny someone who wants to join the club because the actions being undertaken are important to him due to being raised by a black step father, but the club doesn't consider him African American so would deny him entry?
It seems to me your later statement is simply interjecting an additional way for discrimination to be allowable if its in such a way that doesn't bother the college in an ideological sense, again creating a defacto situation here they can discriminate against people with public funds based on arbitrary political views.
Who is forcing these groups to seek funding from tax dollars? If they wish to remain private religious entities that subscribe to their own peculiar prejudices, they should be able to sustain themselves privately. If not, they're an epic fail and don't deserve tax dollars.
So you must be A-Ok if you had a group receiving government funding and a NAMBLA member wanted to join. You would be forced to accept him into your group. You're ok with that?
Its when you actually think this through its not as utopia as you want to it be
And you think thats a good idea that all behavior no matter what it is must be tolerated by all groups seeking government funding?
Then answer my question.
So what is the point of even having groups if there are no requirements on personal behavior?
Should an islamic group on campus get school funding if they have a policy to disallow any "infidels" to join the club?
Should a black group on campus get funding if they have a policy to disallow anyone who "conforms to the man" in the way they speak and/or dress?
Should a gaming club get school funding if they have a policy to disallow any individual who participates in organized sports to join their club?
Should a Conservative club get school funding if they have a policy to disallow any individual who voted for George Bush's second term or advocates for nation building policies.
Should a homosexual club be able to get school funding if they have a policy disallowing baptists from joining?
Should a sports club on campus get school funding if they have a policy that states anyone more than a 25 BMI is not allowed into their club?
Essentially, should any club be able to make up any reason why they can deny anyone and put it into their rulings and still get complete and full funding from the school?
If they only single out homosexuals and not other "sinners" they are engaging in an arbitrary exclusion, regardless of their own flawed opinions on it.
If they exclude all sinners, the group can't exist because all people are sinners accoring to Christianity. If they only exclude unrepeneatent sinners, they need to be consistent in their application of that. Are they excluding people who have ever lied, coveted, adultered failed to keep the sabbath holy, dishonored their mother and father and that haven't made any attemtps to make ammends? Then they aren't being arbitrary.
NAMBLA espouses behaviors that are illegal.
No, I do not believe that groups that promote illegal conduct, whether it is sexually abusing minors or discriminating on the basis of race/ethnicity/gender/religious faith, or distributing heroin, should receive federal funding. Nice try, though.
Actually no...
If they single out ONLY homosexuals and not other sinners who routinely, on a daily basis, continually and routinely perform the same sin and not only perform it but perform it without an attempt to repent for it nor attempt to NOT perform that sin, then you're right.
For example, if they had a member whose a rapper that uses the lords name in vein in every one of his songs, sings those songs on a weekly basis, and repeatedly states he doesn't care about using it and doesn't repent for it then, then you'd be right.
However, there is a difference in someone who sins, repents for that sin, acknowledges its a sin, and works to not sin and someone who indulges in a sinful lifestyle every moment of every day through his thoughts, actions, and way in which he identifies himself and proclaims no repentence or asks for no forgiveness from god for it but instead indulges in it as a good thing.
As I said, they could easily state "Anyone who wantonly and repeateldy engages in a sinful lifestyle daily with no repenetence for that act or attempt to not engage in that sin" and it would be hard pressed to find much else that it would fit. Adulterers? Unless that person is CONTINUALLY performing adultry, someone that has done it once would not fit. Someone that coveted? Again, they'd have to do it continually, and they'd have to do it each time without repetence and with an attitude or statement that its perfectly acceptable to covet things. And on and on.
I get your point, I understand YOUR view of the hypocrisy of it, but YOUR view in and of itself is arbitrary as well based on what you view as logical.
To me, while I don't agree with it, its entirely logical to suggest that someone who continually performs a sin, regardless of what that sin is, without any regret/repentence/asking for forgiveness and more than that actually claims its a good thing and makes no endevours to stop sinning is someone living a "Sinful lifestyle" where as someone that commits sins, but repents from thos sins, acknowledges those sins are wrong, and works to not sin is not living a "Sinful lifestyle".
Everyone sins, sinning is part of being human. The difference in this case is how one reacts to their sins...do they revel in it, are completely unrepentant of it, and plan to continue doing it routinely rather than work to stop it....or do they recognize it as a sin, repent, and attempt to lesson their sinful ways?
Yes, I would say if they said "no one living a willfully sinful lifestyle" may enter and its somehow proven that someone else doing a different sin fits the same bill and they let them in...THEN its arbitrary. But if you can't find another situation where someone was allowed entrance while continually and repeatedly engaging in a sinful act that they proclaim as not sinful and instead perfectly okay and that they brazenly promote and proudly proclaim a desire to continue doing rather than work to fix, then there's nothing arbitrary that I see in it.
Irrevelant. We are talking about personal behavior. You must accept it.
Then you are descriminating.
Two words: Premarital sex.
Great example. And i'd agree. They'd have to exclude anyone who routinely engages in premarital sex, believes it to be a perfectly acceptable way to live, shows no attempt to NOT perform that sin, and is not repentent for doing it.
Spot on.
The one issue with this is its far, far harder to prove...or more importantly far, far easier to lie about...than homosexuality without potentially changing ones outward persona and perhaps a large amount of their social activities.
In regards to homosexuality one would have to essentially be "closeted" to be able to make a claim that they're not violating the notion of "living a sinful lifestyle". In regards to premaritial sex someone just doesn't have to admit to banging.
So I could see it still being a defacto discrimination due to that, but you're absolutely right, its one of those things where if they know someones notorious for sleeping around then they'd need to deny them membership.
Actually, a homosexual only needs to do the same as the premarital sex person. It would have to be proven that they engage in homosexual sex acts in order to make the claim that they are actually living a sinful lifestyle.
Listening to showtunes and calling yourself gay isn't a sin. The homosexual sex acts are what is a sin.
I say take all government money out of our schools. maybe then we might see some parody in what is being taught.
j-mac
Again, arbitrary and upt to interpritation. I've known of Priests and Scholars that believe the designation and lifestyle of "homosexuality" is in and of itself sinful, not simply the act. If that is the belief of the club who are you to say that they're belief of what is sinful or not is somehow not valid?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?