School expels girl for having lesbian parents

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Irvine511 said:
how does one become a devout lesbian?

:hmm:
Well, one of the reasons for girls to become lesbian is because their mother smoked when she was pregnant, ( yesterday on Dutch tv )
 
Rono said:
Well, one of the reasons for girls to become lesbian is because their mother smoked when she was pregnant, ( yesterday on Dutch tv )


too much breast feeding

or indulgence of excitability while breast feeding
 
WTF!!!:mad: I cannot believe that people can be so ignorant!!! There is so many other things school administrations should be concerned about (guns, drugs, etc.) Not the sexual orentation of a childs parents.Shame on them ALL:shame:
 
Irvine511 said:




^ agreed.

if people want to be idiots, and they have their own money, then they are perfectly free to do so.

Respectfully, I disagree with yours and Headache's post. (no quote imbedding here, and I cant figure out those tricky tags to do it myself, lol)

Allowing anyone the right to discriminate is a mighty step toward complacency. People a few replies back, described how it was funding which caused the inability to protest this. Is this passive permission for discrimination? The argument stopped there at funding in here, but the argument actually goes further than that. Nbcrusader stated that there should be a question placed on why they did this. Add further to that, why it is allowed to have happened? If it will come down to someone's rights versus those of another, pick which is the most harmful to rid yourselves of. This is not a difficult task for even the most ardent of churches or religions to follow. Allowing this is giving permission. It's making everyone become complacent.

How free do you guys reckon you really are? You cant honestly think you are free when something as bullshit as a funding component defines an acceptance of discrimination.
 
Angela Harlem said:


Allowing anyone the right to discriminate is a mighty step toward complacency. People a few replies back, described how it was funding which caused the inability to protest this. Is this passive permission for discrimination? The argument stopped there at funding in here, but the argument actually goes further than that. Nbcrusader stated that there should be a question placed on why they did this. Add further to that, why it is allowed to have happened? If it will come down to someone's rights versus those of another, pick which is the most harmful to rid yourselves of. This is not a difficult task for even the most ardent of churches or religions to follow. Allowing this is giving permission. It's making everyone become complacent.

How free do you guys reckon you really are? You cant honestly think you are free when something as bullshit as a funding component defines an acceptance of discrimination.

I wanted to clarify this further, and you've reminded me.

In the US, private entities can decide who their members can and cannot be. They can have any criteria they want. Race, color, sexual orientation, income, gender, whatever. If they don't take public money, they can make those decisions themselves. I'm American enough to appreciate this on a certain level; that the decisions I make about who can be a member of my club is protected by this as well. If I want my group open to all, I can. In the climate we've cultivated lately in my country, this will work for me. Even W. and his pals can't stop me from having an entity that includes all, while they exclude.

Many local governments have tried to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. Discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, etc. usually is successfully outlawed where housing and access to public/private places is concerned. Outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation still scares the shit out of Americans.
 
indra said:

Australia is looking better and better all the time.:yes:
My fiance's Australian... he moved here many years ago. Like you, verte, I too have various family members in that part of the world. They're all still amazed by how backward the UK is sometimes (as am I).

As for all this talk of spiders...:eek: let's just say that my extreme arachnophobia was caused by an adventure in my uncle's back garden in Sydneywhen I was 4. :yikes::faint:

Back on topic: what a sad state of affairs.
 
Last edited:
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:




Was that due to the findings of a study of some sort, Rono?
Well, i did try to find some english results but for what i heard in the program , it has do to with higher testosterone levels in the foetus .
 
martha said:


I wanted to clarify this further, and you've reminded me.

In the US, private entities can decide who their members can and cannot be. They can have any criteria they want. Race, color, sexual orientation, income, gender, whatever. If they don't take public money, they can make those decisions themselves. I'm American enough to appreciate this on a certain level; that the decisions I make about who can be a member of my club is protected by this as well. If I want my group open to all, I can. In the climate we've cultivated lately in my country, this will work for me. Even W. and his pals can't stop me from having an entity that includes all, while they exclude.

Many local governments have tried to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. Discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, etc. usually is successfully outlawed where housing and access to public/private places is concerned. Outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation still scares the shit out of Americans.

Thank you Martha, for explaining that a little further. I see what you mean, about appreciating it on one hand, but seeing it's flaws on the other. I think at the end of the day, I reach the conclusion of what possible need is there to ever exclude based on any of those criteria? There is the appreciation of freedom of being able to choose, but what does that freedom do, exactly? I think it places less freedom on society than it grants it. Is there any intellectual basis for wanting someone out of your club because of their race or religion or sexuality? I ask this generally, not at you, Martha.

Hmm. Yeah, I cant commit to that.
Thank you though. :)

oh, and ps, people think the UK is backward? :lol: I dont, for what it's worth...Unless it's cricket.
:shifty:
 
Angela Harlem said:


Thank you Martha, for explaining that a little further. I see what you mean, about appreciating it on one hand, but seeing it's flaws on the other. I think at the end of the day, I reach the conclusion of what possible need is there to ever exclude based on any of those criteria? There is the appreciation of freedom of being able to choose, but what does that freedom do, exactly? I think it places less freedom on society than it grants it. Is there any intellectual basis for wanting someone out of your club because of their race or religion or sexuality? I ask this generally, not at you, Martha.

Hmm. Yeah, I cant commit to that.
Thank you though. :)

oh, and ps, people think the UK is backward? :lol: I dont, for what it's worth...Unless it's cricket.
:shifty:



all very interesting stuff, AH and Martha.

it's true that, like Martha, i suppose i do value the right to choose who i want and who i do not want in my club. there's a fun gay club in DC, for example, that has a sign outside that says, loosely paraphrased, that the club is run by gay people and for gay people and while they love everybody they have every right to refuse entry to someone whenever they want.

is that a "good" thing? i dunno. but that is how it's set up, and that's how i've grown up, and i am also libertarian enough to get nervous every time i smell something akin to social engineering.

also, slowly but surely, the ability to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is fading away. it does not exist on the federal level, but it does exist from state-to-state, and many companies have such non-discrimination clauses.
 
Briefly off topic... ish.

I apologise if this is derailing the thread...

Angela Harlem said:
oh, and ps, people think the UK is backward? :lol: I dont, for what it's worth.

Oh dear, Ang, you've given me an excuse to rant... :applaud:

The UK is backward. To me, as an Englishwoman born and bred, anyway.
We do seem to be at least 30 years behind most of Europe, in many ways.

A large section of our population here seems to think that we're still some 'Great' "Empire". We're not, we haven't been for ages, and it's time people realise that we're stuck on a silly little island in the arse end of nowhere. We've got some of the worst crime rates and the highest teenage birth rate in Europe. We also have the highest number of idiots who go abroad on holiday/to football matches, cause havoc through hooliganism and general misbehaviour. Therefore, we have a worldwide reputation as as overweight arrogant lager louts.

Oh, and we don't have to do languages until we're halfway through school (and even then, in many schools. we're not obliged to do so - at least, that's how it was when I was in high school). Yes, I know English is a world language, but that's no reason for us behaving like uncultured fools. Spending a year in Holland and 5 months in Belgium really showed me how far behind everyone else we are.

We were there during the World Cup. My friend went out wearing an England shirt. 2 little girls - they can't have been more than 10 or 11 - looked at her shirt in horror and crossed the road. They thought we couldn't understand what they were on about, but we could. They were afraid of us. Because Emma was supporting the English team. That was awful, it really upset us that louts had got us a reputation like that, when we abhorr such behaviour.

I did my degree in Dutch. I remember sounding off to some people in the year above me, about how naff England can be. I had wondered if I was being somewhat harsh on the UK as a whole. but everybody I spoke to about it agreed with me... and they were just as English as I am (possibly more so, as my grandparents were Indian and Polish, but that's another story).

Phew! I haven't ranted like that in ages. Fun.

..Unless it's cricket.
:shifty:
I don't like cricket... and no, I don't love it, either. :D
 
Last edited:
Re: Briefly off topic... ish.

sallycinnamon78 said:
I apologise if this is derailing the thread...


Oh dear, Ang, you've given me an excuse to rant... :applaud:

The UK is backward. To me, as an Englishwoman born and bred, anyway.
We do seem to be at least 30 years behind most of Europe, in many ways.

A large section of our population here seems to think that we're still some 'Great' "Empire". We're not, we haven't been for ages, and it's time people realise that we're stuck on a silly little island in the arse end of nowhere. We've got some of the worst crime rates and the highest teenage birth rate in Europe. We also have the highest number of idiots who go abroad on holiday/to football matches, cause havoc through hooliganism and general misbehaviour. Therefore, we have a worldwide reputation as as overweight arrogant lager louts.

Oh, and we don't have to do languages until we're halfway through school (and even then, in many schools. we're not obliged to do so - at least, that's how it was when I was in high school). Yes, I know English is a world language, but that's no reason for us behaving like uncultured fools. Spending a year in Holland and 5 months in Belgium really showed me how far behind everyone else we are.

We were there during the World Cup. My friend went out wearing an England shirt. 2 little girls - they can't have been more than 10 or 11 - looked at her shirt in horror and crossed the road. They thought we couldn't understand what they were on about, but we could. They were afraid of us. Because Emma was supporting the English team. That was awful, it really upset us that louts had got us a reputation like that, when we abhorr such behaviour.

I did my degree in Dutch. I remember sounding off to some people in the year above me, about how naff England can be. I had wondered if I was being somewhat harsh on the UK as a whole. but everybody I spoke to about it agreed with me... and they were just as English as I am (possibly more so, as my grandparents were Indian and Polish, but that's another story).



wow ... it's times like these when i feel like we Americans really are England's children ... the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree when it comes to being loud and overweight!

;)

oh, and while i have seen the stereotypes you mention in action, i know dozens of internaionalist, culturally sensitive, multilingual, respectful, decent, smart, articulate, kind, considerate, people from the UK. and i met most of them outside the UK as well.
 
Re: Re: Briefly off topic... ish.

Irvine511 said:
oh, and while i have seen the stereotypes you mention in action, i know dozens of internaionalist, culturally sensitive, multilingual, respectful, decent, smart, articulate, kind, considerate, people from the UK. and i met most of them outside the UK as well.

I'm very glad to hear it! I'm normally not one for stereotyping, it's rather daft... but I am often quite infuriated by what I percieve to be the general consensus here. I know there are always exceptions.
:)
 
Back
Top Bottom