Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Student Expelled for Gayness 34

Journal by pudge

Long story short: student attends school that includes this in the student handbook:

Any student who engages in or promotes sexual behavior not consistent with Christian principles (including sex outside marriage and homosexuality) may be suspended or asked to withdraw from the University of the Cumberlands.

Student reveals he is gay. Student is expelled. Student, and other students at same school, irrationally complain.

It's a private school, you chose to go there knowing full well what the rules were, implicitly (and probably explicitly) agreeing to abide by those rules, and complaining about it just makes you look like aren't even smart enough to go to college in the first place.

The news story I saw on CNN.com neglected to mention the fact that homosexual activity is explicitly forbidden at the university.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Student Expelled for Gayness More

Student Expelled for Gayness

Comments Filter:
  • I thought homosexual sex was verboten, not homosexuality as a whole?

    I've asked some Christians about their denominations stance on it and was told that they don't allow for pre-marital sex, and since gays cannot marry in the religion, you're fine as long as you're not a sexually active homosexual.

    But not being very educated in biblical interpretations, I don't mind being corrected on this. So it's more a question than anything, does the bible mention homosexuality or just the actual sexual aspect?
    • I thought homosexual sex was verboten, not homosexuality as a whole?

      It depends on what you mean. Or, more accurately, what the school means. Likely, being in a homosexual relationship is considered "engag[ing] in ... sexual behavior not consistent with Christian principles" (and apparently, he was). However, the rules also talk about "promot[ing]" such behavior, which he also seems to have been doing.
      • Do you have a link documenting the behavior?

        Obviously if he signed up for the rules he has to live with them. These are somewhat vague rules though. They have similarly vague rules in the BYU honor code which gives the administration a lot of leeway in kicking people out.
        • I have no link. The story -- which was video only on CNN.com, and there was no easy way to copy a link to put here -- noted that he posted about dating another guy on his Myspace site.

          Obviously if he signed up for the rules he has to live with them. These are somewhat vague rules though.

          I think the school would prefer "broad" to "vague." And they would be legally and technically justified in this, and from what I've seen of the school, it's hard for me to fathom how someone would not assume they would. H
    • trying to find the difference between a practice, the physical actions that fulfill the mental desires, and the mental desires themself is pointless from a Christian mindset. Remember that the Pharasees tried to make the same distinction in Jesus's time. There actually was a law (traditional Law, not Arahamic Law) that said you could not travel more than a mile (their equivilent measure) from your home on the sabbath. To get aroudn this law they said that where ever a man eats his meals is his home. So
      • The peace-tradition churches believe that Christ is considerably more upset by killings [ukwatch.net] than lust.

        So many modern day followers seem to think lust is a lot worse. Pacfism, i.e., turning the other cheek, is way outside the mainstream, but discrimination against gays is a longstanding Fundamentalist value.

        • So many modern day followers seem to think lust is a lot worse. Pacfism, i.e., turning the other cheek, is way outside the mainstream, but discrimination against gays is a longstanding Fundamentalist value.

          The Bible never actually says killing is wrong. So yes, it is accurate to say that a sin (lust) is worse than something that is not a sin (killing). The Bible does, of course, condemn murder.

          It is false, however, to say that modern-day followers think lust is worse than murder. It is also false to say
          • Killing the innocent is most certainly wrong! What do you have for Exodus 23:7?!?

            • Did you miss where he said, "The Bible does, of course, condemn murder"?

              Look, I am a pacifist (in a church that used to have a peace tradition, but does no longer). But it would help noone at all for me to pretend that those who are not pacifist believe in killing the innocent. That would be a complete strawman.

              • Murder is covered in the ten commandments. Exodus 23:7 is pretty explicit about killing the innocent ("casualties," "collateral damage," etc.)
                • Exodus 23:7 is pretty explicit about killing the innocent ("casualties," "collateral damage," etc.)

                  Well, no, it's not. It does not say killing the innocent is wrong. It is specific to judges, and it is saying that the judge putting an innocent person to death is wrong. To extrapolate this to saying "collateral damage" in a "just war" is sinful, is entirely unwarranted.
                  • Why do you say Exodus 23:7 is specific to judges? The chapter is general laws of universal obligation, from God via Moses directly to the Jews. The next verse is about crop rotation. The previous verse is about not taking bribes, but that can apply to anyone in a position of authority -- or do you think that only judges are forbidden from taking bribes? Verse four is about returning lost property -- if a property dispute gets to a judge, it's a little late for voluntary returns, isn't it?

                    The introduct

                • Again, you're willfully ignoring what people who disagree with you believe. You're beginning with an axiom that collateral damage can be avoided and is therefore a deliberate taking of an innocent life. Clearly people who believe in just war do not agree. If you want to prove them wrong, you'll have to do a better job of it than by begging the question.

                  Your argument ends in a reductio ad absurdum: all warfare results in collateral damage, yet the same Bible you're arguing from commanded warfare in some

                  • Again, you're willfully ignoring what people who disagree with you believe. You're beginning with an axiom that collateral damage can be avoided and is therefore a deliberate taking of an innocent life.

                    But worse, he is misinterpreting the Bible, which is talking about the sentencing to death of innocents by a judge, which is significantly different from acts of war, no matter how you slice it.
            • Killing the innocent is most certainly wrong!

              So? You originally did not say "the innocent." You said "killing." And the Bible does not say "killing," in the general sense, is wrong. It says certain kinds of killing is wrong.

  • just like the Boy Scouts.

    Just because you're private doesn't mean you have any right to decide who gets in... yeah yeah I know I'm simply going on that word that sounds like president that I can't spell now because of all the beer.
    • Just because you're private doesn't mean you have any right to decide who gets in

      Actually, it does mean precisely that.

      And the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to ban homosexual troop leaders.

      Even though that was only a 5-4 decision, the principle is much stronger and more well-established when applied to fundamentally religious institutions. The reason the Boy Scouts case was so close is because it fills so much of a secular role in society; not so for this college, which is explicitly aff
      • Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Cumberland has accepted federal funds to start a pharmacy program, which could put the kibosh on this policy. Federal law says they can't hold sexual orientation as a descriminating factor, so they have to either drop the fed funding (which I would openly applaud), have the law changed (which I would openly applaud), or cave for the almighty buck, which puts them in direct contridiction to what they supposedly are teaching; i.e. Render onto ceasar what is ceasar's (Fede
        • Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Cumberland has accepted federal funds to start a pharmacy program, which could put the kibosh on this policy.

          Good point, but that's not strictly true. You can get targeted federal funds for some purposes and still not be subject to all federal regulations.

          For example, the university I went to, Biola, receives federal funds in the form of grants and so on to students. The school most follow some federal regulations -- for example, they are obligated to notify students wh
          • Financial aid to religous colleges is allowed, federal NIH funding (which is where the pool for their pharm promgram is coming from) and state bond issues (for the pharm building) is limited. It all goes back to their US congressman bringing home some pork that is tainted from the schools doctrinal perspective.

            As for the other part, that's just my observation, love the sinner but hate the sin is a pretty good rule of thumb for this one. If he is willing to acknowledge and avoid the sin, you should be he
            • If he is willing to acknowledge and avoid the sin, you should be held up as an example of faith

              I agree, but a. that's not what he was doing, he was actively engaged in a homosexual relationship (whether he was having sexual intercourse or not), and b. bottom line, it's still up to the school.

              otherwise the school should have the right to descriminate

              No, they have the right to discriminate regardless.

              Even taking federal funds does not take away that right. It's just that exercising that right can lead to the
          • Good point, but that's not strictly true. You can get targeted federal funds for some purposes and still not be subject to all federal regulations.

            This came very close to being ruled upon by SCOTUS in the recruiter debate. I thought it was interesting at the time that they carefully avoided making any ruling on the legality of the federal government attaching strings to federal funding. They could easily have ruled the same way but justified it by saying "Congress's money, Congress's rules": the fact they

  • This sounds like the kind of college where anyone who tries to propound "theories" like evolution, astrophysics or electricty would be even welcome than a guy who tries to hit on his male instructors.

    My solution: don't go there.

    If people want to be ignorant and closed-minded, which some obviously do, it's best to have them grouped together someplace the rest of us can avoid.

  • as earlier in the document linked, we see this:

    In compliance with federal law, including provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the University of the Cumberlands does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, or military service in its administration of education policies, programs or activities; its admissions policies; or employment.

    Looks to me that they have broken their own rules t

    • Which part of that rule did they break? I don't see sexual orientation there.

    • jdavidb is correct. This is not violating any rule. Federal law prohibits discrimination in higher education, for ALL schools, even private ones, based on race, sex, and so on, but NOT in regards to religious beliefs or sexual orientation.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember, even if you win the rat race -- you're still a rat.

Close