Posted on 12/30/2005 4:57:09 AM PST by ShadowDancer
Girls Suspected Of Being Lesbians Expelled From School
Teens File Lawsuit Against School
POSTED: 7:23 am EST December 30, 2005
RIVERSIDE, Calif. -- Two 16-year-olds who were expelled from a Lutheran high school because they were suspected of being lesbians have sued the school for invasion of privacy and discrimination.
The lawsuit, filed last week in Riverside County Superior Court, seeks the girls' re-enrollment at the small California Lutheran High School, unspecified damages and an injunction barring the school from excluding gays and lesbians.
Kirk D. Hanson, an attorney for the girls, said the expulsion traumatized and humiliated them.
"Their entire support network was pulled out from under them because of suspicions about their sexual orientation," said Hanson, who declined to say whether his clients are lesbians.
The school is on Christmas break until next week, and messages left for school officials Thursday were not immediately returned.
The lawsuit alleges that the school's principal, Gregory Bork, called the girls into his office, grilled them on their sexual orientation and "coerced" one girl into saying she loved the other.
The next day, the lawsuit says, Bork told the girls' parents they could not stay at the school with "those feelings." In a Sept. 12 letter to the parents, Bork acknowledged that officials had seen no physical contact between the girls but said their friendship was "uncharacteristic of normal girl relationships and more characteristic of a lesbian one."
"Such a relationship violates our Christian Code of Conduct," Bork wrote in his letter, which was included as an exhibit in the lawsuit. He called the girls' behavior "scandalous" and "immoral."
Hanson said the 142-student school in Wildomar, Calif., must comply with state civil rights laws because it functions as a business by collecting tuition.
"There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here," Hanson said. "The school is claiming the girls were expelled because their conduct wasn't within the Christian code. But at the same time, (the school) has students who aren't Christians and are even Jewish."
"-- the 45th percentile for slutty heterosexuals is 10 sexual partners in a lifetime;
Odd pejorative word, "slut"..
One can only wonder why you felt it's use necessary to make your point..
Or who exactly made the determination that any partners over 10 qualifies anyone else as a "slut"..
Can you give us a clue? Who is your slut expert?
On the contrary, it was the most compact way possible of indicating that the 100th precentile is the most promiscuous, rather than the least promiscuous. Giving a precentile is meaningless unless you know which way the set is ordered.
"The lawsuit alleges that the school's principal, Gregory Bork, called the girls into his office, grilled them on their sexual orientation and "coerced" one girl into saying she loved the other."
Sounds like the start of a really bad porno film. Got to wonder where the Principal's hands were located during all this. :::You love her don't you? Say it! Now touch each other!:::
To them, your life, liberty, or property is only worth protecting if they "approve" of your personal behavior. [Our 14th says otherwise]
To me its not so much a constitutional mandate, just a fair minded and practical one.
-- being for or against a person's sexual taste makes no sense. It really is what it is. To the extent that acting on it violates a legitimate public policy (taste for minors, for example), a culture is entirely within its right to prohibit that behavior.
Sure, criminal law can 'prohibit' criminal behavior (sexually abusing minors, for example); -- but neither the States or the Feds have the power to deprive people of their rights by prohibitive laws; - laws that are not, and never can be 'reasonable regulations'.
"-- the 45th percentile for slutty heterosexuals is 10 sexual partners in a lifetime;
Odd pejorative word, "slut"..
One can only wonder why you felt it's use necessary to make your point..
On the contrary, it was the most compact way possible of indicating that the 100th precentile is the most promiscuous, rather than the least promiscuous. Giving a precentile is meaningless unless you know which way the set is ordered.
But you didn't use 'promiscuous'.. You used a 'fighting word' -- slut.. Why? No one likes to be called a slut.
Who exactly made the determination that any partners over 10 qualifies anyone else as a "slut"?
Can you give us a clue? Who is your slut expert?
Believe me, I don't care if these kids thing they are gay or not. Who sleeps with whom is one of the least of this countrys problems IMO.
But, I will vigorously defend any private organizations right to set its own membership rules. Remember the Boy Scouts? I guess they're 'mean' by not allowing openly gay Scoutmasters.
L
I described promiscuity in a way that leaked my moral judgment of promiscuity. Don't like it? Too bad.
But don't commit the error of pretending that it invalidated my argument; the argument stands, and the connotation of my wording was purely tangtential to its substance.
Lest you forget, the substance was this: homosexual promiscuity is at least an order of magnitude higher than heterosexual promiscuity. Ceteris paribus, the health risks of homosexuality are an order of magnitude higher. But ceteris paribus doesn't exist, because homosexual behavior also involves a much larger risk of perforation of bodily tissues. This manifests itself in a life expecancy about 30 years shorter for a homosexual than a heterosexual male.
There is another obvious implication of this difference in promiscuity, namely that the two orientations are clearly different psychologically. Even if you strive mightily to claim that homosexuality isn't a pathology, you'd be crazy to claim that the two are the same in every way except the obvious difference in plumbing. One correlates with a psychology in which promiscuity is an order of magnitude higher. (It does however follow that this is a pathology, unless one argues that promiscuity is "healthy", and that more promiscuity is "healthier" than less. And that having over a thousand partners is somehow super-healthy.)
Who exactly made the determination that any partners over 10 qualifies anyone else as a "slut"?
Anyone who deviates from the standard of confining sex to the context of marriage is a slut, so broadly speaking the cutoff is 1, not 10. Some sluts mend their ways, and some don't, so in addition to a raw count, there is a time dependency involved. A reformed slut earns the right not to be called a slut.
Being the sort that girls confide in (who knows why), I've often been struck by the juxtaposition in which two girls are equally active sexually, yet one is called a slut and the other is not. In common usage, "sluttiness" is a matter of style alone. Sluts who observe certain social conventions are exempted from the label. You'll find that my usage exhibits at least the virtue of consistency.
To answer that question in isolation, I should point out that I didn't grab the number 10 at random. As I've already mentioned, I happen to have fairly accurate data on the sexual history of a large number of people in the non-random sample consisting of my students, colleagues and acquaintances.
Based on that non-scientific but sizeable sample, I can say with confidence that the people who are commonly called "sluts" by their peers are very unlikely to have had more than dozen or so sexual partners. By contrast, over 75% of gay men have had at least that many.
This is consistent with scientific survey data: heterosexual men whose self-reported sexual activity is in the top 10% report an average of fewer than two dozen lifetime partners. This is generally believed to be an over-count; the top 10% of heterosexual women report just over one dozen partners. This is generally believed to be an under-count. But even taking the high number, it's a far cry from hundreds of lifetime partners.
I apologize for that statement; it's pure nonsense. The risks increase exponentially, not linearly. So assuming that the risk from a single encounter is exactly the same for a gay and a straight man, the risk for the gay man is the straight man's risk raised to the 10th power, if the gay man has ten times more partners.
That understates the gay man's risk, of course, because the percentage of infected gay men is much higher than the percentage of infected straight women, for pretty much any STD you can think of.
To give numbers, suppose 10% of the population has an STD. A straight man with 10 partners has about a 65% chance of becoming infected. A gay man with 100 partners has a 99.998% chance of becoming infected. These numbers are extremely crude, of course, but they give a good idea of the difference. One difference that affects these numbers is that gay men are more likely to have anonymous or other random sex encounters; that means the gay estimate is more accurate than the straight estimate, which sex encounters are less random. The numbers also ignore confounding factors, like the use of IV drugs and/or prostitutes or differential use of condoms.
My kids go to public school in a small school district in bright red Kansas, and they are constanlty bombarded with gay tolerance monologues from a teacher there.
I agree - as I have said before on other threads i think, I'd rather be practical and principled than principled and impractical.
People being unduly annoyed by other persons' sexual tastes just strikes me as strange.
A private organization can't enforce a contract with terms that are against public policy, for example.
What you say makes sense, but it's not the beginning and end of an analysis.
When you join the Boy Scouts you agree not to engage in certain behaviors, such as homosexuality. If you do, the Scouts can kick you out. That's been litigated to death.
If Augusta National doesn't want to have women as members, they don't have to. That too has been dealt with.
The Catholic Church has a policy against allowing openly gay priests, and not performing 'gay' marraiges. That's against 'public policy', but there ain't squat the legal system can do about it.
Dozens of private Golf clubs have a 'no Jews or Blacks' policy, and noone can do squat about that either, except complain loudly.
The school in question here is a private, voluntary organization. They can kick these kids out because they think their parents dress them funny if they wish.
Your public policy argument doesn't work in this case. Public policy applies to public institutions, and this school ain't one.
L
Not so. Terms that are against public policy, or illegal, are unenforcable in a private contract.
Thats why you can't contract to make someone your slave - slavery is illegal.
I described promiscuity in a way that leaked my moral judgment of promiscuity. Don't like it? Too bad.
Hey, it's your judgment you leaked. I feel good, as it proves my point.
You proclaim yourself as a slut expert..
But don't commit the error of pretending that it invalidated my argument; the argument stands, and the connotation of my wording was purely tangtential to its substance.
Not tangential at all. You've show us your bias.
Lest you forget, the substance was this: homosexual promiscuity is at least an order of magnitude higher than heterosexual promiscuity.
As you've said, that statement is pure nonsense. So is your comparison about gay/straight sex & STD.
A straight man's risk is not raised to the 10th power, seeing that STD is not rampant in straight society.
Ceteris paribus, the health risks of homosexuality are an order of magnitude higher. But ceteris paribus doesn't exist, because homosexual behavior also involves a much larger risk of perforation of bodily tissues. This manifests itself in a life expecancy about 30 years shorter for a homosexual than a heterosexual male. There is another obvious implication of this difference in promiscuity, namely that the two orientations are clearly different psychologically. Even if you strive mightily to claim that homosexuality isn't a pathology, you'd be crazy to claim that the two are the same in every way except the obvious difference in plumbing. One correlates with a psychology in which promiscuity is an order of magnitude higher. (It does however follow that this is a pathology, unless one argues that promiscuity is "healthy", and that more promiscuity is "healthier" than less. And that having over a thousand partners is somehow super-healthy.)
Silly lecture considering that I'm not defending the gay lifestyle by opposing you on your slut terminology.
Who exactly made the determination that any partners over 10 qualifies anyone else as a "slut"?
Anyone who deviates from the standard of confining sex to the context of marriage is a slut,
Good grief man.. Who elected you our arbiter on confining sex?
That's quite the bold statement. Amusing though..
-- so broadly speaking the cutoff is 1, not 10. Some sluts mend their ways, and some don't, so in addition to a raw count, there is a time dependency involved. A reformed slut earns the right not to be called a slut. [another amusing howler] Being the sort that girls confide in (who knows why), I've often been struck by the juxtaposition in which two girls are equally active sexually, yet one is called a slut and the other is not. In common usage, "sluttiness" is a matter of style alone. Sluts who observe certain social conventions are exempted from the label. You'll find that my usage exhibits at least the virtue of consistency.
Dream on my boy. -- I have to admit though, I had no idea that slut experts existed, or that sluts confided in them. You are special, fer sure.
To answer that question in isolation, I should point out that I didn't grab the number 10 at random. As I've already mentioned, I happen to have fairly accurate data on the sexual history of a large number of people in the non-random sample consisting of my students, colleagues and acquaintances.
I too happen to have fairly accurate data on the sexual history of a large number of people in a non-random sample, - based on thousands of people I've known in 69 years of life, - consisting of my colleagues and acquaintances who gossip. Locker room type talk with guys & gals has convinced me that a 1O partner lifetime average is ludicrously low.
Based on that non-scientific but sizeable sample, I can say with confidence that the people who are commonly called "sluts" by their peers are very unlikely to have had more than dozen or so sexual partners.
BS. I'd bet that the 'studs & sluts' in the average high school score that high in 4 years, then go on to double that again before & during marriage. Promiscuity is quite common. - Everywhere. -- And people lie about it, everywhere.
By contrast, over 75% of gay men have had at least that many. This is consistent with scientific survey data: heterosexual men whose self-reported sexual activity is in the top 10% report an average of fewer than two dozen lifetime partners. This is generally believed to be an over-count; the top 10% of heterosexual women report just over one dozen partners. This is generally believed to be an under-count. But even taking the high number, it's a far cry from hundreds of lifetime partners.
Yep, its "Generally Believed"..
Hundreds? Sure - that's too high, but 10? Way to low.. -- People lie, especially about sex.. After all, no one wants to be called a slut.
Go look up special pleading. My bias has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of my argument. Your reply shows a poor grasp of logic.
As you've said, that statement is pure nonsense.
You misread. It is well-attested fact that homosexual males have on the order of ten times more sexual partners than straights. In fact it's worse than that; the distribution is not standard normal. Gays are more heavily bunched at the high end than straights are.
A straight man's risk is not raised to the 10th power, seeing that STD is not rampant in straight society.
That's right--a gay man's risk is higher than a straight man's raised to the tenth power, because the risk from a single encounter is much higher for the gay man.
Silly lecture considering that I'm not defending the gay lifestyle by opposing you on your slut terminology.
So far you have made no discernable point whatsoever. Feel free to do so any time.
Good grief man.. Who elected you our arbiter on confining sex?
Um, wow. If you can't tell the difference between me, and an inquisitor armed with thumbscrews, then you have a serious mental handicap. You can do more banging than a screen door, and I won't lift a finger to stop you. I'll make the observation that you're a slut, but I have every right to do so. Presumably, you would defend to the death my right to say so, since as a freeper you are presumably in favor of the 1st amendment.
I have to admit though, I had no idea that slut experts existed, or that sluts confided in them.
Given all the foregoing, it's not surprising you failed to understand this point as well. I picked a number near a dozen precisely because that number is in the correct ballpark for people who would generally be called sluts by their peers. It doesn't take any special expertise to figure this out; your own high-school experiences quite probably would allow you to make a similar estimate. Recall who your peers called a skank, and estimate their number of boyfriends. (Hint: it'll be on the order of a dozen, and at least an order of magnitude smaller than "hundreds".)
Um, please make at least a rudimentary effort to inform yourself before spouting off. It is well known that men over-report, and women under-report. The over-reporting men--no, the top ten percent of over-reporting men, give an averge total of fewer than two-dozen lifetime partners. The top ten percent of women, who are well known to under-report, give a number a little over one dozen. If you reread carefully, you may realize that I've actually told you this already. We conclude that on average, a heterosexual male has fewer than two dozen sexual partners. To be conservative, therefore, call it two dozen.
By contrast, gay men self-report numbers an order of magnitude higher. About 45% of gay men claim 500 sexual partners or more. About 45% of straight men claim 10 sexual partners or more. That's a factor of 50.
Now consider the effect of exaggeration. Presumably gay men would exaggerate, as straight men would:
If both are exactly equally promiscuous, then gay men exaggerate fifty times more than straight men--i.e,. both had say 5 partners, and straights multiplied that by 2 while gays multiplied it by 100.
If, on the other hand, both exaggerate equally, then the gays are fifty times more promiscuous, even though the numbers 10 and 500 are both exaggerations--so perhaps the real numbers are 5 and 250, or 7 and 350, or 4 and 200.
If straight men exaggerate more than gay men, then gays are more than fifty times as promiscuous.
Those are the only plausible explanations for the 50-fold difference in reported promiscuity. If the first possibility is true, then it's an interesting question for a psychologist to study--why are gays fifty times bigger liars than straights? If one of the others, then the fact remains that gays are at least an order of magnitude more promiscuous than straights.
Note, if men are also under-reporting, then the same considerations still imply that gays are somewhere between fifty times bigger liars, and fifty times more promiscuous, depending which group under-reports more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.