College bans homosexuality

Parent Cafe
81

There is a school in the south that I know of that will expel a female student for getting pregnant. Talk about the dark ages. But that is their right even in these enlightened days and times. Just another reason why students and parents should look at “fit” before they select a school and not just prestige, cost, proximity, etc. The tone and tenor of a school impacts a student’s life for 4 years way beyond what they learn in a classroom.

My D went to one of the most liberal schools in DC and now goes to Yale which is known as the “gay Ivy” (as a heterosexual 1982 graduate, we all know and embrace its diversity and openness). She knew she could not survive in a school that had a lot of restrictive rules - even rules that were not based on sexuality. Parents should know their kids and steer them to schools that they can feel comfortable in. Do not go to a school expecting to be the change agent and get them to do a 180 on their policies. It’s not going to happen.

82

However, it does seem that many parents steer their kids toward schools that the parents feel comfortable with (in non-financial matters), even if they are poor fits for the kids. LGB students at conservative colleges that are unfriendly to LGB students may have been limited to such colleges by their parents, for example. (Much of the education market is not a normal market in that the chooser/buyer is not the same as the user.)

83

It’s funny that you should call Liberty a ‘joke’ college, Pizzagirl. I know a girl who is an all American, won the state championship in her sport for 4 years, committed to the big flagship U (public Ivy) and a top national team, but decommitted to go to Liberty. Why? For all the reasons Hanna said - it was her community, her parents preferred it, smaller environment. Probably a much better scholarship too, and at Liberty she’ll be the star player while at State U she’d be good, but not necessarily the superstar. In the south, Liberty is not seen as a joke but as a great (yes, great) school at a reasonable price, a safe environment. Duke or Emery are considered the elite colleges, not necessarily the Ivies.

84

It might have been helpful (or maybe not) if you asked me what I personally think, as what I have been discussing is the reasoning behind the school’s actions and why such actions are allowed.

Personally, I could care less, as I am a libertarian (specifically, a social conservative Christian libertarian). And the key part of being a libertarian is I do not force my beliefs, morals, religion, or practices on others. I happily and openly defend them, but do not give a hoot if others follow or agree. Just not my business to force my beliefs and actions onto others. But, it is equally true that others should not force their beliefs and actions onto me.

If a Christian school wants to have an openly gay acceptance policy, that is just fine by me and I would do nothing to stop them. If another school wants to be like this Christian college, that is fine by me too and I would do nothing to stop them. If a gay group somehow formed a religion around being gay and had a policy not of not openly accepting heterosexuals, that is fine by me as well and I would do nothing to stop them.

And therein lies the difference, you think because I understand and know why such actions by this Christian college are allowed that I must actively be for doing such. One is an intellectual exercise and the other is an actionable exercise. Understanding something is not the same as condoning; tolerance is not the same as accepting; and, accepting and allowing is not the same as believing. Unfortunately, there is a conflating of all of these concepts into “if one does not believe what I believe one is a bigot.” That is the simplistic thinking, at best.

Overall though, your post is not even accurate in its substance, even though it may make you feel better. The proof is in the pudding, is it not? If certain other’s beliefs cannot impact your gay son anymore, how come you cannot get the Christian college to change its policy? Obviously, the college can impact your gay son’s decision to attend or visit that town, as is the school’s right.

As another poster explains above, one person’s view of equality does not automatically trump another’s view of liberty. More specifically, your gay son’s right to his view of equality does not supersede another’s right to his view of liberty.

85

@twoinanddone - No such thing as a “public Ivy”. There are Ivies and there are other great, top tier schools. Ok, I’m done. :wink:

86

Is this really any different from single-gender colleges that ban men or women?

87

Constitutionally, no. Legislatively, yes, because of protected classes - but that is a whole other thread. There is no protected class issue concerning single sex colleges.

88

A claim is not the same as an established tenet or practice.

One cannot just up and claim something is against one’s religion as an excuse. However, something that is codified and has clearly been practiced for some length of time as part of the faith and is taught as a belief of the faith is no longer just a claim, but is an established, standard practice of said religion.

89

@awcntdb‌ One cannot just up and claim something is against one’s religion as an excuse. However, something that is codified and has clearly been practiced for some length of time as part of the faith and is taught as a belief of the faith is no longer just a claim, but is an established, standard practice of said religion.

This is getting kind of off-topic, but actually it would be hard to be more wrong than that statement as a matter of the law of religious belief. One of the fundamental aspects of the establishment clause is that courts don’t conduct an inquiry into the orthodoxy of a particular belief or how well entrenched it is in doctrine, practice, teaching, etc. The inquiry, if there is one, is into whether the individual sincerely holds the belief, not whether it’s been written down and taught for 100 or 1000 years.

90

We may be actually thinking two different things, because I do know the above and agree with you, as there are no litmus tests for validating beliefs. My fault, as it looks like the way I stated it was not clear in what I was trying to convey.

As I was writing the previous post, I was actually thinking of the example of if I am running red lights one day. If I get stopped and get a ticket, it would be essentially impossible to get out of paying the ticket by saying that stopping for red lights is against my religion. I would still be fined and if I do not stop for red lights in the future my license taken away. And my statement would be further complicated if I had paid red light tickets in the recent past with no religious objections. (I put aside the public safety aspect for sake of argument)

The point I was trying to make was that the statement “against my religion” is not catch-all get of jail free card.

I accept the way I wrote the post did not put forth that thought very well and made too much of a concrete statement. I am sure there are other technicalities that could come into play, but that was this was the initial point I was attempting to make.

91

Schools & businesses are within their rights to prohibit certain behaviors. My kids’ schools prohibit students from having sex on campus; gay or straight.

92

“Personally, I could care less, as I am a libertarian (specifically, a social conservative Christian libertarian). And the key part of being a libertarian is I do not force my beliefs, morals, religion, or practices on others. I happily and openly defend them, but do not give a hoot if others follow or agree. Just not my business to force my beliefs and actions onto others. But, it is equally true that others should not force their beliefs and actions onto me.”

Just out of curiosity, as a social conservative libertarian, would your belief on allowing gay marriage be one of - it’s not for the government to tell people who they should / should not marry, assuming both are consenting adults of sound mind? I fully understand, recognize, and agree that a priest / minister / person of faith should not be required to marry gays in their church / house of worship (just like you can’t force a rabbi to marry a Christian and a Jew) - I’m merely talking about government / civil marriages here.

93

Why is the government even in the business of recognizing “marriage”? It would be more sensible if the government only recognized civil unions for all.

If an uncle & nephew, or 2 widows decide they want to set up household together, be an economic unit and wield power of attorney for each other, then why not let them? Why restrict civil unions to partners who exchange bodily fluids? Its not like there’s anything intrinsically sacred about hetero marriages by Anna Nicole Smith or Kim Kardashian.

94

Respectful discourse on this topic in this day and time requires that we all take into account the fact that the people come to the discussion with very different worldviews. There is no doubt that over the course of a generation or two that the gay lifestyle, gay relationships, and gay marriage have become something that a larger and larger percentage of the population have become increasingly tolerant and accepting of. To one person, this represents progress and the world getting better, more enlightened. To another it represents a society that is drifting further and further away from God and what He has revealed (in nature or creation, scripture, etc.)

Frankly, when someone from either worldview comes to a discussion like this and shows zero appreciation or tolerance for the perspective or worldview of the other person, and instead resort to sweeping generalizations and assumptions about the intelligence or moral compass of those who hold the different worldview, the discourse goes nowhere that is helpful and productive to anybody.

In my opinion, here is where a productive discussion on this could be found, where both sides should be able to find some common ground. People should have the right to their own worldview and opinion on very personal convictions like these, and they out to be free to pursue their own version about what brings them closer to God and God’s standard of what is good and pure and right (if they believe in God at all). They should be free to congregate together and pursue those things together. They should be free to establish private schools and private universities (pre-school, K-12, colleges, whatever the level) that reflect their own worldview and values. Just because you hold a different worldview, you can’t come in and demand that someone else accept your behavior and your values and your standard of morality. That isn’t tolerance, that is tyranny of worst kind!

Someone could say something like “fine as long as none of my tax dollars are in any way supporting an institution like this”. Well, ok, if you think it has come to that, that you just can’t sleep at night knowing someone exists with a worldview than your own and with the opportunity to express it in a country that values the free exchange of knowledge and ideas. Fine. I wonder if you ever stop to think about what is like for parents who are also taxpayers, as well as evangelical Christians, who have to send their send their child to the local state U, where they will encounter liberal professor after liberal professor with nothing but intolerance and downright contempt what they believe.

All allusions to stone throwing aside here, nobody is actually throwing stones here? The position and statements by this institution are as far away from stoning anyone as anyone can reasonably expect will remaining faithful to their convictions and worldview. As long as this is the case, we should leave this school alone to define for themselves what glorifies God and what doesn’t.

95

Please forgive the multiple typos I made in my post - clearly I should have edited it before I posted it.

96

I don’t believe anyone in here was arguing that this private college shouldn’t have the right to ban gay behavior, just as private colleges ban other behavior they find objectionable (long hair, beards, premarital sex, dancing, provocative clothing, etc.). We had expanded the conversation to acceptance of gays in general.

97

What does “acceptance of gays in general” mean exactly? What does it look like?

98

That you judge people on who they are, not in what they do with other consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedrooms which is none of anyone’s business? What’s so difficult about that?

It’s like saying “acceptance of brown-eyed people” or “acceptance of people with glasses” or “acceptance of people with freckles.” You know - treating being gay as no more of a “marker” than brown eyes, glasses or freckles.

Why, what are you afraid it looks like?

99

Guys don’t make passes at guys who wear glasses…

100

“Guys don’t make passes at guys who wear glasses.”

That isn’t my son’s experience.