Teacher Opposed to Gay Marriage Could be Fired

[Azrael]

So I wonder if he'd simply typed, "I object to gay marriage" would any of this be happening.

 

[YankeeFan]

So I wonder if he'd simply typed, "I object to gay marriage" would any of this be happening.

I suppose some people would object, but it would be hard to blow it up into a big deal.

Even this comment was apparently made months ago.

But, look at any of the baseball threads here, let alone the political ones. People rarely make points so succinctly on topics they have strong feelings about.

I really don't think it's a bad thing if people realize they should think twice before posting shirt online.

I also can't say how this will change the dynamic in his class room. The decision should probably be made based on that.

I worry more about what other views might be found objectionable & who is deciding. I think we all should. A school board in the Bible Belt might fire someone for saying the exact opposite.

 

[Mark2010]

just so I'm straight (no pun) on this: not agreeing with something equals hate?

Wow.

To me, that's the biggest issue here. Just seems unfair to say he hates gay people. I bet he doesn't. He objects to the idea of gay marriage. That's two separate, albeit related issues.

To me, it's like hating the Yankees but liking baseball. Not liking a part of an issue doesn't mean hatred for the entire subject.

And I have no doubt that anyone on here is 100 percent tolerant on any issue.

Seriously. It's just all about whatever happens to be PC at the moment. After 9/11 it was OK, even considered heroic to hate and even beat the tar out of Muslims, because they were the "bad guys". There are always certain groups like that: it's OK to hate them.

But somehow it's not OK to hate some other group, lest we offend the thought police.

We've been teaching tolerance for what, 30 or 40 years now (most of my lifetime anyway) and all it's gotten us is a society in the cesspool because we have no standards of right or wrong anymore.

If I ever get fired for standing up for my values (whatever issue it happens to be), I'll say "thank you, don't know why I ever stooped to work for a company like this".

 

[YankeeFan]

just so I'm straight (no pun) on this: not agreeing with something equals hate?

Wow.

To me, that's the biggest issue here. Just seems unfair to say he hates gay people. I bet he doesn't. He objects to the idea of gay marriage. That's two separate, albeit related issues.

To me, it's like hating the Yankees but liking baseball. Not liking a part of an issue doesn't mean hatred for the entire subject.

And I have no doubt that anyone on here is 100 percent tolerant on any issue.

Seriously. It's just all about whatever happens to be PC at the moment. After 9/11 it was OK, even considered heroic to hate and even beat the tar out of Muslims, because they were the "bad guys". There are always certain groups like that: it's OK to hate them.

I'm not sure how you think your post backs up what byedesign77 posted. He was talking about disagreeing with someone, not hating them.

You think hating someone -- for who they are -- is OK.

And, it was never OK or heroic to hate or beat the tar out of Muslims.

You are a forking idiot.

But somehow it's not OK to hate some other group, lest we offend the thought police.

Hating someone based on their membership in a "group" -- be it ethnic, religious, or sexual orientation is the very definition of bigotry.

You, are a hateful bigot.

We've been teaching tolerance for what, 30 or 40 years now (most of my lifetime anyway) and all it's gotten us is a society in the cesspool because we have no standards of right or wrong anymore.

Yes, a tolerant society makes for a cesspool.

If I ever get fired for standing up for my values (whatever issue it happens to be), I'll say "thank you, don't know why I ever stooped to work for a company like this".

The fact that you're not afraid of losing your job for these posts amazes me.

I would never employ you.

 

[Beef03]

I just appreciate it when people choose to quote the Bible--you know, that book that says "Do onto others" and generally asks you to accept people regardless of their flaws and that says only God can judge people, e.t.c.--when justifying their hatred of gays and gay marriage.

Wasn't aware that book's teachings were available on an ala carte basis. Good to know.

It's not a pick and choose operation. If you want it dumbed down for you or wrapped up in a tight little package, the cliche line goes: hate the sin, love the sinner.
Nowhere does it ask you to accept any sin as being OK, but it tells you not to judge another by their sins.
Matthew 7: 1-5 says:
1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

In short we are all sinners, there is no grading system for sin -- basically sin is sin. What right does one sinner have to judge another on his sins. But by the same stroke at no point in the bible does it give the OK to celebrate sin or makes sin acceptable, which is what rankles most believers when it comes to the shift in societal thinking on things like homosexuality. Gay marriage is viewed as a slap in the face and a mockery of one of the holiest ceremonies in the book.

 

[Smash Williams]

Stupid question - isn't the book most commonly cited as speaking out against homosexuality Leviticus? Aren't most of the rules in Leviticus considered not applicable to Christian life anymore (I seem to remember reading that they were all lifted by Jesus' death freeing the Christians from their original sin, but I have no idea where that came from)?

For example, Leviticus 11 prohibits eating pork and shrimp (and rabbit and camel and gecko, among others). And Leviticus 12 says a woman is unclean for 30-60 days after childbirth, depending on the gender of the kid, and that she has to bring the priest a lamb and a chicken to atone for her uncleanliness. Leviticus 20 says all adulterers should be killed.

Now, I will admit, I went to Catholic school (as a non-Catholic) as a kid but remember nothing about religion class, so I could be missing something obvious. But I've always wondered about the picking-and-choosing that seems to go on with citing bible verses to justify that something is a sin when other verses in the same chapter are widely ignored.

 

[Iron_chet]

I would not want this fool teaching my kids. He basically says if you don't like his attitude STFU, not exactly Mr Tolerant.

I had a colorful discussion with the principal of my step daughter's middle schol over whether or not Silent Night was appropriate for the public school Christmas paegent. I wish the bible punchers would STFU about their Christ sometimes (most times actually)

 

[bydesign77]

Aren't your exhibiting the same attitude and behavior?

 

[RickStain]

I would not want this fool teaching my kids. He basically says if you don't like his attitude STFU, not exactly Mr Tolerant.

I had a colorful discussion with the principal of my step daughter's middle schol over whether or not Silent Night was appropriate for the public school Christmas paegent. I wish the bible punchers would STFU about their Christ sometimes (most times actually)

Irony_chet, imo

 

[Beef03]

Stupid question - isn't the book most commonly cited as speaking out against homosexuality Leviticus? Aren't most of the rules in Leviticus considered not applicable to Christian life anymore (I seem to remember reading that they were all lifted by Jesus' death freeing the Christians from their original sin, but I have no idea where that came from)?

For example, Leviticus 11 prohibits eating pork and shrimp (and rabbit and camel and gecko, among others). And Leviticus 12 says a woman is unclean for 30-60 days after childbirth, depending on the gender of the kid, and that she has to bring the priest a lamb and a chicken to atone for her uncleanliness. Leviticus 20 says all adulterers should be killed.

Now, I will admit, I went to Catholic school (as a non-Catholic) as a kid but remember nothing about religion class, so I could be missing something obvious. But I've always wondered about the picking-and-choosing that seems to go on with citing bible verses to justify that something is a sin when other verses in the same chapter are widely ignored.

I'm not going to pretend to talk for every denomination on this as it varies greatly. What is widely viewed though as expired are portions of ceremonial law, not moral law. For example, with Christ dying on the cross for our sins it made sacrifice of things like animals unnecessary, his was the ultimate sacrifice. And I believe the reason we don't stone people anymore is because of things like Matthew 7:1-5 and passages like he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Our sins against God are to be judged by God, not our fellow man.

 

[doctorquant]

Stupid question - isn't the book most commonly cited as speaking out against homosexuality Leviticus? Aren't most of the rules in Leviticus considered not applicable to Christian life anymore (I seem to remember reading that they were all lifted by Jesus' death freeing the Christians from their original sin, but I have no idea where that came from)? .... But I've always wondered about the picking-and-choosing that seems to go on with citing bible verses to justify that something is a sin when other verses in the same chapter are widely ignored.

I am not a theologian, and I do not play one on TV, but as it's been explained to me*, a goodly portion of New Testament scholars do consider a few NT passages to be "against" homosexuality. In Romans 1:26-28, it is argued, Paul uses homosexualism as Exhibit A in describing mankind's fallen state. Later, in his first letter to the Corinthians and in his letter to Timothy, Paul refers to homosexuals as "wrongdoers," it is suggested by many. There is substantial debate about the meaning of these passages, however.

*By my wife's godfather, who is (or was, before the years caught up with him) a theological heavy-hitter in the Anglican communion.

 

[TrooperBari]

I don't buy the line that's drawn from this guy's making a sophomoric, idiotic post to his "hating" gay students. I think plenty of folks out there who oppose same-sex marriage absolutely do not hate gays/lesbians.

If said folks don't hate homosexuals, then why do they oppose their ability to get married? What else, other than The Gay, disqualifies them from having the same rights as heterosexuals?