CBS 5) SACRAMENTO The debate over free speech and religion was heard in front of Rio Linda High School near Sacramento on Monday.
Hundreds of demonstrators gathered to show support for four students who were suspended last week for wearing t-shirts with bible verses and anti-sodomy messages.
School officials said it was the title on the shirts reading, "homosexuality is a sin," that prompted them to take action.
"The statement that's in the t-shirt could rise to the level of hate speech," said Jacques Whitfield, legal counsel for the Grant Joint Union High School District. "There is a prejudice and a distinct prejudice against those of our students who are homosexual or lesbian."
The shirts were considered a disruption on campus, even though fellow students are allowed to wear gay pride apparel. The incident prompted Monday's protest, in which demonstrators claimed their free speech rights were being violated by the school.
"It’s just kind of cool and encouraging to see this many people out here, it kind of lifts you up," said sophomore protester Oleg Manzyuk. "It's only going to get worse against Christians. We're going to get persecuted more and more. But those who stand to the end: God is going to save them."
Two demonstrators were arrested at Monday's protest.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Link and opinion, please. Your opinion should be the majority of your blog, and at least 100 words.
~C
Visit my blog.
A gay pride shirt says something about the student who is wearing (i.e. there is nothing agressive about the message). A t-shirt saying "homosexuality is a sin" on the other hand is a student saying something about someone else in an agressive and derrogatory fashion.
The two are not equivalent.
percivale
P.S. Religious folks really cut their own metaphorical throats with protests like this. It just makes them come across as mean-spirited to attack the personhood of other citizens (and yes, students are citizens, too) in this fashion.
I hadn't thought about it that way. I do think saying "homsexuality is a sin," on a t-shirt takes things a little to far. I feel they should be able to express their opinions as well, but in not such a strong and blatant fashion....maybe a different phrase that didn't seem to personally attack homosexuals, but still showed their opinion on the issue. ~pyrochica
Who says it has anything to do with religion? In Japan homosexuality is shunned even more than here, and Buddhism, which is Japan's primary religion, is silent on the subject.
The objection to homosexuality is an essentialist tenet based on the purpose and design of the human body and its elements.
Why do you think that homosexuality is more shunned in Japan that in the U.S.? There laws don't reflect that conclusion either currently or historically, and the social disapproval and the discrimination that accompanies it is essentially focused on male homosexuality. I mean, one can hardly pick up a Manga comic without seeing two women togther by page three, and here's a newsflash...lesbians are gay, too.
And I am sorry, but discounting the Dalai Lama is kind of like saying the Pope's opinion has nothing to do with catholicism.
Finally, your arguments about the "purpose and design" of the human body are pure religious speculation (and thus legally and intellectually irrelevant).
percivale
Fringe porno comics from Japan does not represent their culture as a whole.
I have studied Japanese martial arts for 17 years, speak the Japanese language, have studied Japanese extensively, am dating a Japanese woman, have been to Japan many times, and am looking into an expatriate position there. In a land where holding hands in public attracts looks of derision homosexuality is shunned and shameful. Believe me: I know.
My arguments about purpose and design have nothing to do with religion. You obviously have never taken a high school biology class, or did not pay attention if you did. In the field of biology there is something called 'sexual dimorphism'. Look it up. Sexual reproduction exists for the purpose of genetic diversity and variance. By requiring different individuals of a species to come together there is a greater chance of new traits appearing than with the 'traditional' asexual reproduction. These new traits allow for greater adaptivity.
The reason for male is female, and the reason for female is male. There is no such thing as a species with male and female parts that does not reproduce sexually. A sperm will never fertilze a sperm, and an egg will never be fertilized by another egg. Even in plants, where each member of the species has both male and female parts, there is no homosexual reproduction going on. In some species of amphibians if there are species where if there are no males present to reproduce with The sole evolutionary purpose for male and female are eachother.
Might I suggest that if holding hands in public is met with derision, then in a comparative context the kind taboo that you suggest doesn't seem particularly extreme.
As for your comments concerning biology, I have to disagree. The terms "purpose" and "design" carry a very peculiar connotation that presumes some sort of active decision on the part of...someone. Natural processes are "designed" and do not have a motivation or "purpose." The simply are what they are. That presumtion of a motivating force is a purely religious construction, and I think you would be hard pressed to find a credible scientist who would use those terms in the context you suggest.
Perhaps if you had studied biology beyond the high school level, you would understand that sexual contact among higher order animals is used for more than simple procreation. Most higher order animals engage in sex for pleasure, and the benefits of sexually diverse and active species (such as the bonobo, for instance) are significant and well documented.
Besides, the whole reproduction argument is a red herring, anyway, since there is no law in our society (and that includes marriage) that says that people HAVE to be trying to reproduce when they have sex. While it might be a suprise to you (being as focused on other countries as you seem to be), here in the U.S. we don't use the government to tell adults what they "should" be doing in their bedrooms.
Here's a little nugget of wisdom for you from the Supreme Court of the United States...
These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." Ibid.
Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102
Get over it. Gay people are a reality that isn't going to go away just becuase it makes you uncomfortable, or puts you religious panties into a wad.
percivale
Wasn't there a study about homosexuality in animals? I remember seeing something about it on TV. One or two of the animals ended up life partners with a same sex partner. I can't remember if it was a swan or what. But I remember watching the show.
Many animals are homosexual or have homosexual behavior.
"A prime part of the history of our Constitution...is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded." ~US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
...the phenomenon of animal homsexuality is well docuemented.
Here is a National Geographic article on the subject...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
percivale
Emphasizing cell physiology.
In a philosphical sense 'purpose' is not a physical, observable phenomenon. You are correct there. However, evolutionary biologists use the term 'purpose' to describe why a certain trait evolved and how it helps a species adapt to its environment or gain a comptetitive advantage.
You are correct that some mammals feel physical pleasure as a result of contact to their reproductive organs. However that is a supplementary adaptation. The feelings of pleasure evolved as an advantageous drive to reproduce.
The overwhelming majority of sexually reproducing species do not feel pleasure from sexual reproduction. Indeed, most do not even have a central nervous system. The ability to reproduce sexually exists independently of the ability to enjoy doing so.
> The overwhelming majority of sexually reproducing
> species do not feel pleasure from sexual reproduction.
The "overwhelming majority of sexually reproducting species" includes an "overwhelming majority" of single-celled and other lesser evolved life-forms. Virtually all mammals have sex for pleasure, and guess what...humans are mammals. Considering that more highly evolved animals have a greater tendency towards the adaptation of sex-for-pleasure, it seems to me that such an adaptation is firmly contained within the term "purpose" as it is used biologically.
percivale
Conjugation is much different than sexual reproduction in multicellular organisms. Also after the fusion the individuals reproduce by fission --that is, asexually. That, combined with the fact that there is no gender in such organisms makes this irrelevant. I was not including single-celled organisms in my count.
Either way, you get my point.
You should be able to acknowledge that the reason male and female exist is for procreation with eachother. That is the natural reason. Surely your argument does not hang on this one thing, right? After all, hands do not exist so we may put gloves on them, but we still say that doing so is ok, right? Just come along and admit the fact that the reason the genders evolved is to procreate with each other. It's biology, not religion.
...but I think it is intellectually disingenous to suggest that the ONLY "reason" for sex is to reproduce. If it were, then why would so many animals have adapted to experience pleasure during sex? If you would take the time to study the phenomenon, there are quite a few benefits to a species that engages in sex for pleasure. The literature on the bonobo for example is quite extensive, and the social benefits of their very promiscuous society are well documented.
For example...
The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals."
Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
If you would like an example of something a little more humanocentric, the article continues...
Dunbar says the bonobo's use of homosexual activity for social bonding is a possible example, adding, "One of the main arguments for human homosexual behavior is that it helps bond male groups together, particularly where a group of individuals are dependent on each other, as they might be in hunting or warfare."
For instance, the Spartans, in ancient Greece, encouraged homosexuality among their elite troops. "They had the not unreasonable belief that individuals would stick by and make all efforts to rescue other individuals if they had a lover relationship," Dunbar added.
But lets say for a moment that you're right...that there is no actual biological benefit to non-reproductive sex. So what? We don't limit the rights of citizens in this country because they are not fulfilling some biological imperative. The rights of citizens are unalienable. Take marriage for example. There is not a single law in this country that says that a couple must procreate in order to be married, and couples that are incapable of that act are regularly granted marriage licenses. Religion certainly has no biological relevance, and yet we allow religious people to exercise the same rights as non-religious citizens.
Even IF being gay were just a "choice" (which you would be hard pressed to argue in any sort of credible way citing the current literature on the subject), that wouldn't mean that it was permissible for other citizens to harrass gay people or deny them their unalienable rights because of it. You can only make the exercise of fundamental rights illegal when there is a compelling reason to do so, and in the absense of any objective evidence which would prove that you as an individual were directly harmed when two other consenting adults engaged in same-sex activities, you are not very likely to carry such an argument.
percivale
We can talk about rights and stuff later on, but I think we have a semantical barrier here. In biology 'sexual' is one type of reproduction. We have reproduction, the noun, and 'sexual' the adjective. 'Sexual' describes a certain type of reproduction and is not something of itself. I am saying, and it is factually true, that gender would not exist if it were not for the sexual branch of reproduction. You are speaking of 'sex', which in the context refers to the nervous stimulation of individuals through physical contact between the reproductive organs in species that reproduce sexually.
So perhaps we could say that the reason male and female exist is sexual reproduction with eachother, and sex has many uses?
...but there is also something known as "parsimony" in the biology of natural selection which in the context of this discussion leads us to the understanding that the origninal evolutionary "purpose" of an adaptation is not necesarrily its only function.
Take for example the human ear. The "obvious" original "purpose" of the ear is to hear. But, the ear also controls our sense of balance, and allows us to walk upright. Other examples in the human body are the bones (which support our physical frame and produce red blood celss), the pancrease (which produces insulin and a number of pancreatic enzymes), and the brain (which controls our autonomic funcitons, contains our consciousness, and performs hundrends if not thousands of funcitons relating to almost every other system in our body).
One the one hand, it is simply not consistent with what we know of biology today to think that a organ or system in our bodis can only have one function or use. In fact--and this might distress the more religious folks in this discussion--the experience of pleasure is itself a perfectly legitimate biological function (when you remove any subjective judgement of morality from the equation) of the sexual organs. It is obvious that the sexual organs have more than one "purpose" in any case (after all, you pee from the penis as well as copulate with it). That you don't like one of those "purposes" doesn't make it go away.
But beyond all of this, and more to the point, what in the heck does biology have to do with basic human rights? We don't have human rights because we are male or female or short or tall or white or black or fat or skinny. We have human rights because we are human. We don't legislate against citizens because of their biology. We only legislate against citizens (legitimately, at least) when their actions present a significant, one-way infringement into the rights of some other citizen.
What is it that you think gives someone the right to harass other students who are attending a government sponsored school? One can just as easily make the case that someone who is handicapped is "sinfull" (and don't act shocked, there is a clear history of discrimination against the differntly-abled in christian theology). Do you think it would be acceptable to wear a t-shirt that said "Being crippled is sinful!"?
And, that's the part that everyone seems to want to dodge here. The objections to gay people in the schools is a relgious action. The shirts that were prohibited were part of a religious protest. They said, "Homosexaulity is a sin."
Now, I know how much it galls the religious right, but the simple fact is that it is unlawful to use the captive audience of a public school as a coral to hold people hostage so that you can preach to them. Prayer in schools...creationism...its all the same. Yes, the gay kids were staging a protest. But, THAT protest was not religious in nauture, and as such is not subject to the same unique restrictions that apply to religion in this country.
percivale
You obviously do not understand parsimony.
What does biology have to do with rights? Well, you can't have human rights without being biologically human. That's one thing. And as I said, it is an essentialist argument having nothing to do with religion. And btw it is against the law to drive if you are blind whether from an accident or a genetic mutation. So here on planet Earth we do legislate according to biology. If you are biologically dead or blind, etc. Men are not allowed in women's restrooms. Biological parents are given preference in custody laws(laws of principal/agent). Biology is used in inheritance laws; the Declaration of Independence originally said Life, Liberty, Property. We use biology involving abortion laws, etc. To not know these things you have to be delusional; living in another world.
Anyway, I would like to point out that plants reproduce sexually and do not pee out of their sexual organs.
Give it up, percivale. If sexual reproduction did not exist male and female would not exist. Supplementary adaptations do not negate that fact.
I find it interesting that I have not yet made a religious objection to homosexuality, yet you keep railing against religion. It's pretty clear you have a hate complex.
And since when is voicing a moral objection harrassment? Schools are supposed to be places of open-mindedness and the free exchange of ideas. Fascists like you just want to rob people of their free expression and silence dissent.
That's interesting. I personally think that if people are allowed to wear gay pride shirts, then people should be allowed to wear anti-gay shirts (even though I would not wear either. Otherwise the school could be considered to be in support in one side of the issue, rather than neutral. Students who are offended by homosexual behavior may be upset by this, which could lead to an even bigger uproar. Also, I think the phrase "homosexuality is a sin," may be a little too bold for a t-shirt, even if that is how you feel. On the other hand, it could be argued that people wear shirts w/ the F-word and such on them. Anyway, I feel that schools should treat both sides equally: all pro-gay/anti-gay shirts allowed or no pro-gay/anti-gay shirts allowed. (Unless it is a religious school that has some blatant and well-known opinion on the subject...then I could see them choosing a side, but really, I think they should not allow either in that case). What do you think about this? Just a suggestion: When you post, try to put something in there that explains your position on the issue or why you felt it was worth posting.
~pyrochica
I also agree with Mvenus929. It's definately ok to use an article but you should develop your own opinion and it should be twice as long as the article you posted! Just posting an interesting article isn't enough it needs more substance.
Hey, Christians, I know that you love getting whipped in public and playing the martyr in emulation of all of your saints, but it just isn't true. Stop romanticizing the fact that people disagree with you into somekind of grand conspiracy by the devil to make you suffer. You are not martyrs, and you are not persecuted.
You should be able to wear whatever t-shirts you want, but a couple nights in jail for disturbing the peace isn't exactly getting crucified, mmmkay?
There are also much better ways to deal with the gay "problem" than t-shirts condemning people. THat's an act of intimidation that won't get you what you want, and probably threatens other students. Perhaps you get intimidated by gay pride shirts, I don't know, but that isn't the argument I have heard from you.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
Calling a physical act a sin isn't condemning anyone.
An Atheist doesn't believe in sin, heaven or hell so the only place the statement on the shirt holds any power is with believing Christians.
To me this was just another story of public schools pushing the gay agenda while trying to shove traditional values out of the way. I’m tired of being told that we all have to accept everyone and everything despite of our own deep personal beliefs. What ever happened to freedom in America?
> Calling a physical act a sin isn't condemning anyone.
Oh, please. *rolls eyes* It most certainly is, especially when this judgement is being used to justify discrimination.
> An Atheist doesn't believe in sin, heaven or hell so
> the only place the statement on the shirt holds any
> power is with believing Christians.
This isn't about what "an atheist" believes, because it isn't "an atheist" that is making the agressive statement. Whether the subject of the intimidation believes in your "god" or not, he can still reasonably expect that you will discriminate against him if given the chance because you believe it in.
> To me this was just another story of public schools
> pushing the gay agenda while trying to shove
> traditional values out of the way.
Considering that our founding fathers consistently held that the idea of persecuting people who didn't share your religious beliefs was abhorrent, I find your claim of "traditional values" to be a complete load of horse apples.
> I’m tired of being told that we all have to accept
> everyone and everything despite of our own
> deep personal beliefs. What ever happened to
> freedom in America?
Get over it. Your "freedom" ends where mine begins. The freedoms that our Constituion protects belong to ALL citizens, and not just to the citizens who sit next to you on Sunday morning. You have a right to be a religious bigot if you want. But you don't have a right to use the government to futher your religious ends. And, you don't have the right to harass students who are in a government school.
I really am flabbergasted by the common theme that I hear from many christians who seem to think that "freedom" means they can do whatever they want, but no one else can.
percivale
They hypocrites condemn us for condemning.
"DON'T YOU KNOW IT IS WRONG TO TELL OTHERS THEY ARE WRONG!??!?!"
"Then why are you telling me I am wrong?"
"Um, er . . . uh . . "
The gay kids who participated in the Day of Silence were saying NOTHING about anyone but themselves. One of the reasons the Day of Silence is such an effective protest is the way that it uses a passive technique to deliver its message. The religious folks in this case, however, WERE making aggressive and derrogatory statements about SOMEONE ELSE.
There is a very different energy in saying "I am good" and "You are bad," and those are the messages (respectively) that are being presented here.
percivale
The question of this matter is, should the kids should be allowed to wear the "Homosexuality is a Sin" shirt?
What if someone wore the notorious Cradle of Filth "Jesus is a Fucking Cunt" T-Shirt? Or, slightly more subtly, the Marilyn Manson shirt that has a picture of Jesus with the word "beLIEve" on it? Are those protected free speech? One can't have it both ways.
Most high schools would probably ban all of them just to avoid trouble, but obviously that hasn't worked so well.
I think the best response would be for all of the participants in the Day of Silence to come to school wearing "Christianity is Stupid" shirts. Then they can serve out their suspension (or whatever) together with the anti-gay douchebags in solidarity, to show that though they disagree, they're all in it together.
And yes, fundamentalist Christians love to play the martyr card and pretend they're a begrieved minority. I call it Political Correctness Plus (PCP).
"CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."
- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"