Memphis Principal Accused of Outing Gay Students

[FONT=Arial]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]Memphis, TN - Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union say Daphne Beasley, the principal of Hollis F. Price Middle College High School in South Memphis, went way beyond her role as educator.

The ACLU says in September 2007, Beasley asked her staff to give her the names of students who were couples, heterosexual and homosexual, because she wanted to keep an eye on them to cut down on public displays of affection.

She’s accused of publicly posting the names of those students, including two boys, Andrew and Nicholas, who had just started dating. The ACLU says that in doing so, Beasley revealed their relationship to other students, teachers and even their parents. (1)
[/FONT]

[/FONT]

This is a story about a principle who is being coerced by the ACLU into ignoring instances of lewd depravity. According to the article, the ACLU is citing supposed violations of the students rights to “equal protection, freedom of expression and association, due process and privacy.” In reality all the ACLU is seeking to defend is a right to sodomy. This principle ought to be applauded for her brave decision to expose perverts to other students and their parents.

(1) Peterson, Joyce. “Memphis Principal Accused of Outing Gay Students.” ABC 24 Eyewitness News Everywhere. April 30, 2008. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc. Available online at: myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=a4be07d9-123c-4bcc-9da8-5dd91b789007[/FONT]

This is a story about a principle who is being coerced by the ACLU into ignoring instances of lewd depravity.

Apparently not. She got in trouble for exposing the sexual preferences of students. That, unless they violate school policies with regard to PDA, is none of her business, and might well have exposed the school district to a lawsuit.

Hopefully, it was well-intentioned and does not lead to a tragedy.

The principle in question has a moral obligation to expose the sexual preferences of her students, especially when those preferences may be indicative of serious pathology and put those students at a heightened risk of contracting venereal disease. The only tragedy to be avoided here is one in which the principle would have facilitated the disgusting sin the students in question were engaged in by remaining silent.

Unless students gay or straight are having sex on the quad or in the locker rooms…it is none of her business. Your point is ASSUMING that two people of the same sex who identify as gay are having sex with one another…which may or may not be the case…it is supposition.

I hope the ACLU wins their case…this principle is endangering students.

The principle in question has a moral obligation to expose the sexual preferences of her students

No, she has a moral and legal obligation to stay out of it, unless there is a compelling safety issue for other students. Unless they are actually engaged in sexual activity on campus, she is putting herself and her district at risk for civil and criminal violations.

The only tragedy to be avoided here is one in which the principle would have facilitated the disgusting sin the students in question were engaged in by remaining silent.

That is not her call to make, unless the sin happens on campus. And she still would expose the school and herself to legal consequences, if she publicized the sexual preferences of any student.

There is no need to assume that the students in question are currently engaged in sexual activity in order to trigger the moral obligation to expose them. By “dating” one another, such students are clearly expressing their willingness to engage in such activity in the future, if they have not already done so. God willing, the two students have not engaged in any sexual activity and this public outing will shame and humiliate them into preserving their chastity.

What type of laissez-faire morality is it that you subscribe to? There is a compelling safety issue involved. One that includes that pathology and potential for disease that I mentioned before.

It is not wise to beg off one’s moral obligations simply because it happens to be unpleasant. For those of us serious about the eternal consequences such students may face by engaging in such depravity, the call to action is self-evident. For those who, like Cain, would rather protest that they are not their brother’s keeper, the indifference to sin implied in your response is certainly appropriate.

Again, it is your assumption that the students have made a choice to engage in sexual activity. Perhaps these two gay students enjoy one another’s company…perhaps in a hostile environment as high school in a Southern city for “different” people can be, it is not the wisest decision for an educator to assume two young men who happen to be gay and spend time in each other’s company are engaged in sexual behavior. It still is supposition.

And humilliation at the hands of high school students often turns violent when gay people are involved…and with an authority figure giving a “nod” to such “humilliation” through ANY means is setting the stage for possible lethal activities. One could question why anyone who claims to be “Christian” would applaud anyone’s humilliation as well.

Do you recognize the level of willful ignorance one would have to assent to in order to be consistent in your position? Do you not recognize the obvious reality that teenagers date each other in order to search for a potential mate? Even if these two gay students do not engage in sexual activity with each other, they are using the experience that their “dating” provides in order to move some future relationship to that sinful level. Even if the relationship is purely platonic in nature, being that the students have self-identified as “gay” their association is clearly a near occasion of sin that they must either avoid or be made to avoid.

As for the implied threat of physical violence, it is true that this would be a tragedy, were it to occur. We must not let that potential tragedy frighten us away from proclaiming truth and offering such misguided individuals a path away from their same-sex attractions. Hypothetical violence does not justify indifference to actual moral depravity.

The principle in question has a moral obligation to expose the sexual preferences of her students, especially when those preferences may be indicative of serious pathology and put those students at a heightened risk of contracting venereal disease.

**As we all know, heterosexuals, no matter how promiscuous, NEVER get STDs.

OTOH, celibate and especially virginal gays are walking cesspools of pathogens.**

they are using the experience that their “dating” provides in order to move some future relationship to that sinful level. **Even if the relationship **is purely platonic in nature, being that the students have self-identified as “gay” their association is clearly a near occasion of sin that they must either avoid or be made to avoid.

As for the implied threat of physical violence, it is true that this would be a tragedy, were it to occur. We must not let that potential tragedy frighten us away from proclaiming truth and offering such misguided individuals a path away from their same-sex attractions. Hypothetical violence does not justify indifference to actual moral depravity.

So “even if they don’t” they should be punished for some future so called “sin” they may or may not engage in? They should be put in potential harm’s way for what they may or may not do to satisfy a religious bias against gay people…whether they may or may not engage in same sex behavior?

Of course their 'dating experience" COULD be simply to enjoy the company of someone similar…you wish to punish them for “what may or may not happen” at some future date? Interesting.

And since their possible future sexual involvement, which may or may not occur, requires immediate action to stop it…wouldn’t it seem reasonable to also insure that possible future violence against these two young men also be considered? A possible future violence that we know tends to turn lethal where gay people are concerned.

I would rather err on the side of protecting the young men from violence than worry about “what if” they chose to become sexual since we’re discussing what may or may not happen at some future date. “Implied threat of violence” isn’t worth consideration…only their possible 'occasion to sin" at some future date?

In the first place, if you read the article, you would know that heterosexual couples were included in the list. Your reaction to what you take to be my own bias is therefore misplaced, even if we set aside the much greater potential for disease that exists in those sexually active with members of their on gender.

As for this appeal to the so-called virginal or celibate person with same-sex attractions, setting aside the unlikelihood of such a person existing, I refer a second time to the shame and humiliation generated by this public exposure that may very well serve to keep such individuals virginal and celibate.

The students in question have self-identified themselves as gay. This is a clear indication that they have same-sex attractions and are prepared to indulge them. Moreover, that they have retained the services of the legal bully that is the ACLU, demonstrated that they are militants. There is little question, therefore, about such individuals refraining from sexual activity in the future unless action is taken now. This is just what the principle in question has done.

If their “dating experience” was something that the individuals engaged in merely for the pleasure of one another’s company, it wouldn’t be a “dating experience,” would it? They would be just “hanging out” and their relationship would not have the character of exclusivity implied by “dating.” By using the term “dating,” these students are signaling their explicit intention to foster romantic feelings for one another and, yes, eventual sexual congress. Morality demands that those in authority around this sort of thing use every means at their disposal to derail such an arrangement.

Identifying oneself as “gay” does not indicate “they are prepared to indulge” themselves with sexual activity. A person is not gay because they have sex with someone of the same sex, they have sex with someone of the same gender because they are gay. A “straight” person is not straight because they have sex with the opposite gender…they have sex with the opposite gender because they are straight.

Self identifying oneself as “gay” does not automatically determine one will act on one’s sexuality…that is an artificial definition of a relgious nature.

I dated my wife for three years…it was a dating experience…we were virgins on our wedding night. I dated other women and it didn’t preclude that sex was going to be involved…but I definitely would call it a “dating experience”.

They may be “signaling” their intentions to one day engage someone of the same gender in a romantic relationship…but there is no evidence whatsoever that they are doing so now…yet you wish to punish them…humilliate them…shame them BEFORE any such activity occurs…you wish to punish them for some future so called “sin” which you have determined may or may not happen…yet you will not “protect” them from potential violence by keeping their private lives…private…you ascent to their endangerment and feel this is a reasonable possiblility if it keeps them from “occasion to sin”. This is beyond my experience.

I pray to God and in the name of all that is holy the ALCU wins their case and sends a message to NOT ENDANGER OUR CHILDREN BY INUENDO AND INVASION OF PRIVACY.

Tell me…how many children have you buried because some “good Christian” decided to make sure the fags “got what is due them”? I have buried one…and that is one too many! To clarify…this was a child of my body…but one given into my care. I and his parents failed in protecting him from those who would do him violence…he was beat up, had garbage thrown on him, called names…his parents turned a blind eye to his plight…they forbid me to get involved…and he ended his life since his parents didn’t stand up for him…the church condemned him…his school mates made his life a living hell…and he took his own life…I officiated at his memorial service…his Baptist Church didn’t want to be involved with a “gay suicide”…a young man of 17 years old.

God forgive us for not protecting those in our care.

At least one gay news source cites the mother of one of the outed students.

According to Nichole, the principal said things like “Did you know your son is gay?” repeatedly and went on to say that she didn’t like gay people and wouldn’t tolerate homosexuality at her school.

365gay.com/Newscon08/04/042908school.htm

The Memphis school system is supporting the principal.

It is the position of Memphis City Schools that the principal did act in an appropriate manner in order to correct a serious issue at the school and that Memphis City Schools has not subjected either of these students to
discriminatory treatment.

In the coming days, we will submit a formal response to the ACLU. We look forward to working with them to amicably resolve this matter.”

myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1d49f672-e98a-498c-b9f0-32e19ef30474

What type of laissez-faire morality is it that you subscribe to?

That we are, each one of us, answerable to God, and not the government for our morality. The last great step of government morality was legalization of abortion. That’s what you get when you let them get involved with it.

There is a compelling safety issue involved.

Whoa… first you want government to set morality, now you’re talking about safety. If any kid, regardless of sexual inclination, indulges in school, then it’s a concern for the principal. If not, she’s asking for civil or criminal penalties if she tries to get involved.

It is not wise to beg off one’s moral obligations simply because it happens to be unpleasant.

It is not the moral obligation of government to announce who is homosexual.

For those of us serious about the eternal consequences such students may face by engaging in such depravity, the call to action is self-evident.

If you care, why do you want to abdicate that to a school principal?

For those who, like Cain, would rather protest that they are not their brother’s keeper,

I don’t think that was the principal’s argument. It was more like; “I hate homosexuals.” And she had some power, so she used it to go after them. That might end up costing her a good deal. And rightfully so. We expect people in positions of public trust to behave morally and legally. She appears to have done neither.

the indifference to sin implied in your response

Always the same: when they get in a corner, they come out spitting and scratching. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Try to do better.

Hey smarty pants. If they’re in the closet they’re certainly not dating anyone until they come out. :smiley:

Says who? Just because they’re in the closet publicly, doesn’t mean they’re still in the closet privately or with their fellow sexual deviants.

It is not the moral obligation of government to announce who is homosexual.

But is it their moral obligation to announce who is a murderer terrorist or pedophile?

Well it should and it should also be their moral obligation to announce who is a sexual deviant like sodomists and necrophiles etc.

Oh wait, i have a news flash for you, it already is, the job of govt is to restrain evil and punish the wicked, well in case you have forgotten sexual deviants like pedophiles and homophiles are some of the wicked.

I dated my wife for three years…it was a dating experience…we were virgins on our wedding night. I dated other women and it didn’t preclude that sex was going to be involved…but I definitely would call it a “dating experience”.

Here is the thing, a man and a woman dating and not engaging in sexual activity is not sinful, but a two persons of the same sex dating , well that is already sinful, because they are already guilty of acting out their homophilia.

Big difference, you can’t treat a heterosexual date the same way as a homophilic date, one is ok as long as there is no sexual activity, the other isn’t and is immoral even if there is no sexual activity, because all homophilic relationships are immoral and evil.

I don’t think that was the principal’s argument. It was more like; “I hate homosexuals.” And she had some power, so she used it to go after them. That might end up costing her a good deal. And rightfully so. We expect people in positions of public trust to behave morally and legally. She appears to have done neither.

Who says she hates homosexuals? You’re making things up.

What are you also going to accuse her of hating potential fornicators? or is your “indignation” just reserved for sodomites?

This principal did the right thing, the world needs more principals like her.

Its about time people supported good decent principals like her, who are not willing to tolerate misbehavior among students, especially sexual misbehavior, who are not going to tolerate homosexuality in school.

Homosexuality should not be tolerated in school. This principal had the right idea.

There is no evidence that these young people are engaging in sexual activity…it is all supposition…they are being punished for what they “might do”…not for what they have done…that is the difference.

If opposite sex teens “date” and attend functions together, UNLESS they engage in sexual activity for all to see, they should not be prosecuted…the law in most states forbids underage sex on the books…the same is true with same sex teenagers…there is NO EVIDENCE they are engaging in sexual activity.

Should someone be “punished” for some possibility of “future sin”? Is this what you are advocating?

What said anything about future sin?

These homophiles are already guilty of homophilia, they are dating remember? That is already a sin.

I already explained this in my post before this one.

Homophilic dating is immoral, sexual activity or not( but of course presence of sexual activity only worsens the sin and is much more sinful than if there were not any) heterosexual dating is not unless there is sexual activity.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.