Now, I’m certainly not going to disagree with the idea that people (of any wing) wanting any kids beaten up is a bad thing, but I’m afraid I didn’t get that you wanted to discuss this from your Original OP, betenoir.
Care to try this debate again, maybe expanding on your thought a little?
I’m afraid that OP reads to me more like a statement, a “look at this fact,” than an actual request for debate. Which may be why the original thread went awry.
Well, as i said in the OP before it got hijacked by the T-Shirt thing, I don’t think parent want their kids to have the right to beat up gay kids. I think that they want to make sure that there kids can’t be suspended for saying “Johnny and Bobby’s actions are dooming them to hell” or “Johnny and Bobby are abominations of God”, when htat is what they have taought thier children to believe.
Personally, I think there is alot of grey here. One can see how calling a kid an abomination of go to his face day in and day out would certainly be harrassment. But what if one kid said it to another over lunch and the kid they were talking about overheard it. Is that harrassment? What if in the bible study group the leader told hte kids to shun a gay couple–not to beat them up, or say anything to them, but to shun them. Would that be harrassment?
I think that this kind of public condemnation is harassment. Particularly when it’s aimed at a minority.
I don’t.
One can see how these kids of whispers can spread through a lunchroom in the presence of said kid(s). One can also see how said whispers and judgementals looks can make said kid(s) feel ostracized.
Yes. They would be singling them out and making them a target of disdain and perhaps hatred by their peers. I think this non confrontational yet pervasive atmosphere of isolation from and disdain by the rest of the community is in fact a kind of harassment.
Not only that, but such “shunning” is psychologically destructive and a form of violence against the person who is being shunned. It is a particularly nasty form of control, particularly since (most) humans are very social creatures, and a shunning isolates them from their community and the interconnectedness (most) of us need.
(I’m still looking for my cite on this; I know there are studies out there about it but haven’t managed to locate them on my lunch hour. Sorry - help would certainly be welcomed.)
As such, it’s certainly harassment. As is any sort of intimation of punishment for something that the punishee cannot help. Remember, that we’re not talking about sexual activity, here, but the perception of sexual orientation.
So people have an obligation to be friends with homosexuals? Should we set up quotas for how much time must be spent with homosexuals? Do you even know what the word “harassment” means? If this is what passes for harassment these days, I understand why conservatives are against this bill.
TheRyan, there is a HUGE difference between being friends with someone and not shunning them.
Do you understand this? We’re not talking about just not saying “hello” in the hallways. Shunning goes much deeper than that. Shunning is seeing a kid fall down in the hallway and go into some sort of fit and stepping over them as though they don’t exist. Or just meeting that same kid in the hallway and looking right through them, as though they don’t exist. It’s not acknowledging anything they say to you or to anyone else. If you are shunning someone they do not exist to you, no matter what.
No one is saying that you have to be friends with someone you don’t like. Sheesh.
I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I’ve enough trouble getting my own out in the correct order.
About the same amount of time as you spend with people tollerant of others.
In fact, I do. I am also clever enough to understand the various ways in which it may be perpetrated.
I was not addressing why conservatives are voting against some bill. I was addressing Manda JO’s points. In order to answer your comment about conservatives voting against a bill, I’ll have to first read and understand thoroughly what the bill proposes.
Well there goes freedom of association. So far as I know individuals are still permitted to choose who they associate with even in public schools. If one student wants to avoid all forms of social contact with another student that’s their right. If 100 students decide they don’t want any social contact with a certain student they are still within their rights.
Outside of class time or offical school functions I don’t see how you can prevent students from shunning someone else.
tracer, that’s not the same thing as if this guy (and every guy you met on the street who knew him) consistently chose to ignore you. Even if you were in desperate need of help. (for crying out loud, if I were suggesting that I’d sue my damn boss, who looks through me every time I remind him I need my review. :rolleyes: )
Until MandaJO makes a reappearance and says, “oh, no, I was just talking about not interacting with those kids any more than necessary” I’m going to stand by the statement that shunning is pretty extreme.
Yes, there were kids in my high school who I never interacted with. But other kids did. Even other kids from my social circle (I can’t say my church because I didn’t have one). And the one kid who I really hated, who made my life a living hell and who I cheerfully wished into non-existence a number of times got hit by a car right in front of me. If I were shunning him, I would have done nothing. Instead, we pulled over and I called 911 and we sat with him until help came. (He lived.)
I didn’t think we were discussing the free will shunning of some individuals by other individuals. We are discussing a more organized, community sponsored form of shunning.
Take a gay kid attending a christian school. How would you characterize the school sponsored shunning (in accordance with Manda JO’s statements) of this individual?
Quicksilver, I guess you should add the question mark to the list of concepts that you need to review.
“Harassment” and “violence” have specific meanings that do not include theabscence of an action, no matter how much you people try to twist the language to your worldview. The title of this forum is “Great Debates”, not “Great Redefinition of Words to Suit One’s Purpose”. I find this tactic of stripping a word of its literal meaning while retaining its emotional impact to be rather dishonest.
And I addressed that one or a hundren it makes no difference. If a bunch of individuals choose to ignore someone as a group that is their right. It may suck rocks because they’re doing it for a stupid reason but they still have that right.
That really depends on whether or not the bible study leader is a member of the faculty. If not then I wouldn’t call it school sponsored shunning.
And before anyone gets the idea that I think it is ok to shun homosexuals I don’t. I’m just not interested in any laws that violate the right of individuals to freedom of association. If someone doesn’t want to acknowledge the existence of another human being then that is their right.
But does the right not to feel ostracized trump the right to free speech? It seems to me that people have the right to disapprove of other people, and that they have the right to express this opinion. They do not, of course, have the rihgt to beat someone up, ot pursue them and harass them to thier face, to threaten them, or to slander them.
No, I pretty much meant shunning the way you describe, only I don’t think that the “life-threatening accident” litmus test comes up often enough to apply, I am talking about a strong refusal to interact wiht someone because you feel they are morally bankrupt. (Not that I find homosexuals to be morally bankrupt. But I think it is a legitimate position to hold). For example, what if a studnet Animal Rights group decided to shun everyone who ate meat or wore fur? Or shun one particular kid cause he publically claimed animals had no soul and that animal torture was ok?
The Ryan, I’m sure this researcher would disagree with you:
Sorry, I don’t have an online cite for this, so here’s the real world information:
Title: “I’m not talking to you”: Shunning as a form of violence
Author: Melanie Lewin
Source: Transactional Analysis Journal Vol 30(2), Apr 2000, 125-131
Just so we’re all clear on where I’m getting this information. The sort of organized, congregational shunning we’re talking about is also the reason somefolks get down on the Jehovas Witnesses, because they use the same method, for similar ends. (do not hijack to JWs. Start another thread. ;))
Now, as far as betenoir’s OP, your thoughts? Is the rejection of the law there justified as a “gay rights” measure? Gee, those gays, always asking for the same right not to be harassed as everyone else wants.
Well, you have a point. I probably didn’t frame the Op very well, it WAS more of a “look at this fact”. But I guess i was hoping the replies on that thread would be related to taht fact.
Anyway, thanks for bringing it up again.
My thoughts are even less coherent that usual at the moment, so I’ll just say this right now:
I think what particularly got to me is the fact that the people opposing the bill are not saying “We are concerned that this might limit the students right to freely express religious or political ideas, and their right to free association.” Which of course could include the opinion that fundimentalism is out of keeping with the teaching of Christ or that Jesus is not actually God. Or tha thomosexuality is prefect OK. Values I might send my kid to school with.Or whatever.
No, they focus on the fact that it might just protect homosexuals and that’s bad.
They certainly seem to me to be saying homosexuals are somehow more deserving of condemnation, and the right to condemn them is particularly worth defending.
This in light of the fact that homosexual kids frequently suffer a lot more than shunning, but serious habitual and not uncommonly violent harrassment.
I’m not necesarily defending the bill- I don’t know how much it would help, but I am marveling at the motives of the people opposing it.
I don’t think people have a right to treat others with bigotry. To ostracize someone requires the complicity of those around them to enforce a negative social strata against a person or a group.
There are those who hold the opinion that gay people are not human, have no souls, and this is how this subsection justifies their behavior. You can have your point of view.
But, to use your point of view to create a situation which puts another in a position of being ostracized and singled out is wrong.
I think that you will find that most people who object to this bill do so because they are looking ahead to grey areas like hte ones i have described, not becase they worry that Junior’s gay bashing fun is going to stop. Here is a more mainstream objection to these sorts of bills. As per usual, the media has picked up on hte most interesting people to report on, the people with the most extreme versions of a position.
Sure it’s wrong. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not is is legal: if a student led group collectivly decides to shun an openly gay couple, should the gay students have the right to sue for damages? Should the scholl have the right to suspend said students for the shunning?
.