To Hobbes' field trip angst...

Still, I'd have to imagine most parents would kinda look sideways on a first grade field trip to a wedding, lesbian or otherwise. It seems the time could be spent much better on something else, something of more educational value to first graders than watching the consummation of a civil contract between two people that are in love with each other.

And that have hawt, sapphic sex... Don't forget the sex.

That's what I'm trying to say, though. I don't think a wedding ceremony (or whatever its called when its not in a church) is a relevant topic for a field trip in the first place.

Field trips are for going to see museums, and state legislatures and old battleships and stuff, not for watching boring government odd jobs.

I would go so far as to say that I'd have a problem with it if it were my son. It's one thing if my son's teacher said "we're taking a trip so my class can watch me get married to my lesbian lover" which I would object to right off the bat. It would be another if my son's teacher said "We're taking a trip to see how our government functions" and my son came home at the end of the day and I asked him "What'd you do on your field trip?" and he replied "Oh, I watched my teacher sign some papers and then suck face with another woman."

(okay, so I'd really have a problem with it if he told me he watched his male teacher suck face with another man. If he came home and said he got to watch two chicks lezzing out... Best. Field. Trip. EVER!)

And like Forrest Gump, that's about all I have to say 'bout that.

I was gonna post something worthwhile in this thread, but then I read the last page and a half...

FIELD TRIPS

Please, change the subject.

You started it.

I think I'm gonna have to vote - NO on the field trips to watch weddings.
And I haven't seen the distinction made in the thread in the whole Bread comparison -
Stuff like going to the bakery is tangible. It engages the kids in a valuable process.

Low level Administration duties don't engage anyone in anything other than monotony.

Here's my question - How pissed would I be if my Lover was not only WORKING but babysitting 30 shot headed brats on our wedding day? What the day wasn't important enough for you to take the day off?

RDD started it...I just said, "no big deal."

Apparently I was wrong.

No kidding. Talk about an awkward consummation...

true

Yeah, but the 30 extra gifts would be pretty cool.

but they'd all be macaroni pictures of boats and ducks and stuff...

which would still suck cause I don't see anyone buying me the Fridge I have on the registry to hang these pctures on....

teehee

james dobson is on glenn beck and he's pissed off about this...

beck's got a point though, and it's the only thing that scares me about legalizing gay marriage. basically he's saying that christians will get labled as a hate group which will put them in legally troubled waters.

they're already a hate group, i mean depending on how you define that, but people's opinion on them aren't going to change. i do however fear that some attention whore gay couple will try to be married by a preacher and they're gonna sue him.


anyway, back on to the whole field trip thing... watching somebody get married, despite their sexual preference (no matter how controversial). if you want to take them on a field trip to see history being made, than you should have taken them to the court hearings and things of that nature.

This is what the Religious- Right typically reffers to as the "Gay Agenda." (cue thunder and lightning.)

lol, way to make a mountain out of a mole hill. not all gay folk are gold digging attention seeking ice holes, but you do gotta know theres a good %5 that are greedy (as humans are) and just can't wait to try it.

Well the Catholic church already discriminates in their hiring practices based on your gender, and nobody gives a shit

I was talking with one of my old church buddies recently, and he expressed a fear that a gay person would attempt to get hired at a church to provoke a discrimination lawsuit. I didn't think of what Haggisjin pointed out at the time, but he's got a point there... I don't know exactly how that works, but there are some Protestant denominations that are going through a lot of brouhaha about ordaining women, right? I dunno.

similar things have happened. like that guy that sued Hooters cuz he wanted to wait tables, and they wouldnt hire him.

hell, gay may become the new black.
we had a guy with a felony conviction for theft, no work history, and no clue about video games apply to work at my place of employment, which happens to be a game/toy store. when we didn't hire him, he immediately posited that it was "because I'm Black!", when it was because he was un-employable.

I personally have more faith in the gay community as a whole, but they are still human. and we're a bunch of douches.

Is there legal precedent for the government stepping in and saying "hey, religion, you can't discriminate against Group X even though your beliefs say you should"?

Mormons and people of an African-American heritage...no specific action was taken, but I believe that tax exempt status was at stake when the leaders of the LDS church got a "revelation from God" that changed their minds.

And I guess they did outlaw polygamy, didn't they.

P.S. lol to revelation from Mammon God

:sigh

The problem is that there's not really that much in the bible stating exactly who can be priests in Jeebus' church and who can't. There are precise laws in the Old Testament for Jewish priests, but Christians ignore all of those anyway.

So basically, the question was raised: What's the exact reason women can't be priests? It turns out there isn't one really. (My parent's church has a female priest).


It's different for the Catholics, because they have Papal Law, where under their interpretation of the bible anything the Pope says becomes part of their religious dogma as he is God's physicial representative on Earth. Various Popes have declared the priesthood to be male only. Thus (in America at least) they are shielded from prosecution for discriminatory hiring practices (although only those relating to religious positions reserved for men. If they want a secretary or an accountant then they are still bound by anti-discrimination laws.).


Whereas the bible states a couple of times that dood secks is looked down upon and that marriage is only presented as being between a man and (a number of times more than one) woman, so I doubt that anyone would have any chance of suing a religious establishment for refusing to marry them. Suing a county clerk who refuses would be another matter entirely though.


Let's just put the whole "TEH GAYZ WILL SUE CHURCHES AND MAKE THE PRIESTS HAVE (MORE) BUTT SECKS!!!" thing in the Strawman arguments pile.

Section 702 of Title VII of the Civil Rights act provides an exemption to "a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities."

This exemption allows, for example, a Methodist church to hire only ministers of the Methodist faith. This exemption also means that Title VII does not apply to religious institutions in the case of discrimination lawsuits.

Example:
Hall v. Baptist Memorial Health Care, - BMHC dismissed a nurse after she became ordained in Holy Trinity Community Church, a non-denominational Christian church with a large number of homosexual members, including Hall. BMHC was found exempt from Title VII as a religious institution and the case was dismissed.

[/Human Rescources ]

So then this whole thing about gay folks trying to force discrimination lawsuits wouldn't get anywhere?

Well, it definitely wouldn't get anywhere IF the person being "discriminated" against was hired or is being hired to carry out the religious practices of the institution, as in the case of a minister. The institution or organization must show that its hiring practices are associated with its religious practices.

Would it be "okay" to discriminate against someone who is applying for a minister or receptionist or day care worker? Probably. Could the same be said if the church discriminated against a janitor or a maintenance worker or other non-religious functionary? I don't know, but I'd like to say "no" since cleaning up a church's floors don't really fall under "religious practice."

One of the things about civil and equal rights is that it gives people the right to hate if they wanna hate. Hell the ACLU helps NAMBLA and the KKK when they ask.

National Association of Marlon Brando Lookalikes?

something like that.

don't ask

You need to watch more South Park

<_< I'm pretty much guaranteed to miss any post-season 2 SP reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla

Daily Show'd

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/406/
So watch it or something

EDIT: RAWNG THRED

FYI I do appreciate this information; it's cool to know people on the interwebs who know different stuff

now back to NAMBLA

Turns out, the Mormon Church is a big supporter of Prop 8.

I think they're in particluar on a slippery slope, as I'm pretty sure that if a group made a concerted effort you could get enough names on a petition to get an anti-Mormon Church referendum on the ballot.

I'd vote for it. I HATE Mormons...with their nice haircuts, and little ghey short sleeve shirts with a tie and black long pants no matter the weather, riding their bikes that are nicer than mine because they own Coca-Cola...

LDS, YOU JUST MADE THE LIST!!!

Gay mormons?

so I guess I need to see Tropic Thunder

It is worth it for the trailers alone



And Tom Cruise's supporting role

I thought you saw it a few weeks ago?

We were going to see it, but we changed our minds at the last minute and went to see TDK instead.

*snort*