• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

Exactly. That is the lunacy of this thought process. All personal behavior must be tolerated no matter what it is.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

And you think thats a good idea that all behavior no matter what it is must be tolerated by all groups seeking government 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.

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
 
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?
 
And you think thats a good idea that all behavior no matter what it is must be tolerated by all groups seeking government funding?

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.
 
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?

So what is the point of even having groups if there are no requirements on personal behavior?
 
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?

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.

Singling out homosexuals, however, is arbitrary.

It's not my problem if they fail at simple logic and consistency themselves. Their group can stil exist, it just can't recieve recognition and funding.


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?

Can they defend their belief that the person isn't Chrsitian logically and objectively? If so, then yes. If not, they tough titty.

And if so, who makes the determination of what's "arbitrary" or not?

If the aplication of a rule is uniform and doesn't specifically target one group of a class while ignoring another (such as excluding Muslims or Atheists but not Jews or Buddhists from a Christian group) it isn't arbitrary. If it is just done tot target one group for nothing more than the fac tthat they belong to that group, it is.


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?

In this case, they are defining "African-American" as a racial designation, not a cultural designation. If they bar all non-African-Americans (using the racial designation) from the group (not just whites, but asians, arabs, indians, etc as well) it isn't arbitrary.

If they only ban whites, but not other races, then it is arbitrary. Allowing an asian guy rasied by a black step-father into the group while disallowing a white guy raised by a black step-father into the group would be an example of an arbitrary exclusion. Disallowing both from entering the group, however, is an example of a non-arbitrary exclusion.


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.

Actually, I'm just injecting logic into the mix. Barring homosexuals from a Christian group has no logical foundation unless all other "sinful" lifestyles are also barred.

There are no political views involved in my arguments. Just raw logic and a requirement for a consistently applied and logically defensible exclusionary practice.
 
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.

Then answer my question.
 
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

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.
 
And you think thats a good idea that all behavior no matter what it is must be tolerated by all groups seeking government funding?

I think its perfectly good behavior to allow campus's to decide that school funding for COLLEGE groups will only go to groups whose membership is open to ANY student of that college, as long as said college is consistant in their application of that belief.

Either you giving funding ONLY to totally and completely open clubs, or you give funding to all clubs regardless of what restrictions they have for membership. Both of those are perfectly fine behavior in my mind.

What would not be fine behavior is giving funding to SOME clubs that are not totally open while denying it to other clubs that are not totally open.
 
Then answer my question.

I don't believe that illegal behavior should be tolerated, and groups that endorse or engage in illegal conduct should not receive federal funding. Discrimination is illegal, so is sexual contact with minors.
 
So what is the point of even having groups if there are no requirements on personal behavior?

You can stll have a group with requirements for personal behavior.

You just don't get school funding. That doesn't mean you can't use school facilities, can't be advertised by the school, etc. It just means you don't get funding from the school to perform your various activities.

The point of giving funding only to groups that are totally open in membership is the belief that you only give SCHOOL funds to organizations that EVERY student has the potential to utilize, otherwise you're redistributing their wealth to things they are not able to partake in.
 
Should an islamic group on campus get school funding if they have a policy to disallow any "infidels" to join the club?

What is their reasoning? Are they using the term "Infidels" ior are they using the term "non-Muslims"?

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?

What is their reasoning? (Wouldn't an even application of that rule actually exclude anyone who goes to a college that is run by "the man"? :confused:)

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?

What is their reasoning? (If it is because they support gambling, then the club should not receive funding anyway.)

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.

Hmmm... two fold here. One is fairly arbitrary and doesn't eclude equal actions, the other is not arbitrary and is inclusinve of an entire ideological subset of nation-building. I'd say that the first part should exclude funding, but the second part on it's own wouldn't.

Should a homosexual club be able to get school funding if they have a policy disallowing baptists from joining?

Not is the terminology is "No baptists allowed". If the terminology is "No person shall be admitted into the group if they subscribe to an ideology that has a known anti-homosexual agenda" then it should be allowed.

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?

What is the reasoning? Sounds like it would have to be arbitrary to me.

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?

No. They can't make up any reason they want. They have to be able to give a logical sound and valid foundation for their decision to exclude and show a consistent application instead of arbitrary application.

i.e. Assuming that a college has denied funding to one Christian group that barred homosexuals specifically from being in their group, but allows a Sports club that bars those who are not actively involved in sports (lifestyle choice), then that University should have to grant funding to a Christian group should be allowed to exclude people who live sinful lifestyles if they are applying that designation evenly and without focusing on a single specific lifestyle (this is because they have defined what the "Christian lifestyle is and are excluding those who do not adhere to a Christian lifestyle, just as the sports group defined what a "Sports lifestyle" was and excluded those who did not adhere to that sports lifestyle.)
 
Last edited:
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
I say take all government money out of our schools. maybe then we might see some parody in what is being taught.


j-mac
 
NAMBLA espouses behaviors that are illegal.

Irrevelant. We are talking about personal behavior. You must accept it.

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.

Then you are descriminating.
 
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.

Two words: Premarital sex.

Applying the "sinful lifestyle" exclusion would include any person who actively engages in premarital sex. That would include homosexuals, but not be limited to homosexuals. Having sex with one's girlfriend before marriage is just as much of a sinful lifestyle as homosexuality is.

Just because you failed to realize that there is a massive heterosexual population that would be excluded by such a rule doesn't make my logic arbitrarily determined.
 
Irrevelant. We are talking about personal behavior. You must accept it.

So, you don't believe that any behavior should be illegal? Homosexuality = drug trafficking = homicide to you? Wow. I'm not sure how to help you.

Then you are descriminating.

You can't even spell the concept, much less articulate an understanding of discrimination.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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. ;)
 
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. ;)

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?
 
I say take all government money out of our schools. maybe then we might see some parody in what is being taught.


j-mac

Oh, I'm pretty sure we'd see a parody of education, all right.

Sadly, I bet the irony in your post won't even be obvious to you.
 
Last edited:
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?

They would have to present a logical defense that proved that not engaging in homosexual sex acts while still calling oneself a homosexual is, in and of itself, sinful according to the bible. A very difficult thing to try and prove using the bible since the homosexual culture didn't exist back then. If they can't defend ther posiiton logically, it isn't valid logically.

In order to include homosexuals who do not engage in homosexual sex acts on the exclusion list, they would probably need to extend their exclusion to include those who are actively promoting sinful lifestyles, it would be easy to argue that self-labellingas a homosexual would be included, but that extension would necessarily include hetero people who listen to certain music (some music promotes blashphemey, adultery, premarital sex, etc) or wear certain types of clothing (one could easily defend the claim that provocative clothing promotes teh sinful lifestyle of premarital sex, arguing the reverse is not very easy) watches certain TV shows (Someone who is a fan of Sex and the City would clearly be promoting premarital sex, adultery, South Park fans prmote pretty much every sin one can think of and a couple that haven't been thought up yet :2razz:) etc. etc.

Then it would also, by necessity, exclude people who are hetero. They'd have to argue how those things don't promote sinful lifestyles since it is apparent that they actually do promote such lifestyles.

If the rule is only being applie dto one group, even though other ones are apparently not being excluded, then they'd have to give a logical defense of the differentiation. If they can succesfully do this, then there's nothing wrong. If they cannot, then there is something wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom