i think its rediculous. here in canada i heard that the catholic school board gets some of its funding from the goverment, which i think is just as bad. if you have a gay high school. it is no longer a public high school. unless you are alloud to attend without being homosexual. if that is the case then its all good. but its wrong to make a high school with a big sign on the front that says “gays only”
What was it Lenin called his work on limited free enterprise? One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? I think similar applies here. And Kurt, private charity has enough to deal with without adding schooling to the list.
I personally believe that the idea of an all gay high school is preposterous and hypocritical. Liberals have been preaching tolerance and inclusion for many years now. Tolerance is defined as: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others (dictionary.reference.com/search?q=include). How can we be tolerating and including gays if we segregate them and move them into their own school? For some time now Liberals have been desperately pushing for us to accept everyone and now we are supposed to push them away by segregating them??? This seems to be a slight contradiction in policy to me. But you contend that “We are only moving them because they can’t function properly in a mixed public high school. They have become victims of hate crimes and are frequently bullied thus lowering their self esteem.” Well lets think about this for a minute…How is segregating them going to solve this? If we move them for the aforementioned reasones this sends them a message and that message is “You don’t fit in!” Telling them that they don’t fit in surely won’t raise their self esteem. And don’t think there won’t be some form of bully in this new high school of sin. Not only is this a high school for gays, but it’s also for transgender and bisexual students. Isn’t it possible for the bisexual students to say “We enjoy both sexes so we are twice as good as the gays!”? It’s only a matter of time before someone’s feelings are hurt again. If they can’t make it through high school how are they going to function in the real world when they graduate? Should we have gay colleges and corporations as well?!? Where will the line be drawn??? Why not have all Straight / White / Mexican / Black / Asian / Christian / Muslim / Hindu schools?
Matthew E stated: “I find your apparent lack of compassion disheartening.” Why should gays receive extra compassion?!? They aren’t the only ones who have troule fitting in. Why should they get the special treatment? If you don’t like your current situation you can’t just run away. You have to learn to deal with it.
Matt also said “If everyone was not given at least the chance to succeed, we would not have a society worth living in.” We gave them the chance to succeed in public high school. They failed! Why give them and only them a second chance?!? Tolerence and inclusion aren’t all the lies put out by the Liberals. They also are major advocates of equality. Despite what it says in the Declaration of Independence we are not all equal. Some are born into rich families and some into poor ones; some have physical deformities and some have mental short-commings; some are tall, some are short, some are skinny, some are fat. WE ARE NOT EQUAL! The gays had one chance in public high school like the rest of us. Giving them another one doesnt make us all equal. This resembles the famous line from George Orwell’s Animal Farm “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
We must stop this madness now!!!
Yeah, some people are born super strong 
Superstrongsteve-
I believe you have taken my comments horribly out of context! It is my fault and I apologize. Let me clear things up.
You quoted and responded to my following sentence:
I was referring to KurtWeber’s belief that all public schooling should be discontinued. I was alarmed by his “apparent lack of compassion” to underpriveleged citizens, i.e, those who would not be able to afford an education less the state provided it. You seem to think that I am advocating Gay Schools- an idea I think is aborrent- which I probably should have mentioned.
You also quoted me saying,
As I pointed out above, I was referring to the underpriveleged, not gays. With regard to Gays specifically, they deserve the same chance to succeed as anyone else. Enrolling them into segregated schools will only enlarge the schism that separates tolerance from our society.
I am inferring that the reason gays want a separate school is so that they do not have to deal with the stereotypical harassment they must receive. I am reminded of the recent fiasco in Georgia (I believe it was Georgia) with the segregated prom- another disgusting display of closemindedness. These people clearly do not want to deal with their differences, and instead opt to separate themselves as best they can from those they must learn to live with. There is no running away from problems of these sorts. Sadly, a gay school will only increase the amount of hate and bigotry, as no one will have any real contact with gays, making it easy to justify hating them; it’s alot easier to hate someone when you don’t know them.
Really? It always worked for me.
My attitude towards this is ambivalent. Although one the one hand I think it will be good to allow gay kids to hang around with other gay kids and be open about their sexuality, it is as everyone has said segregation. But then, are gay nightclubs discriminatory? By the common argument they could be. After all, voluntary segregation is different from forced. I am of course in favour of tolerance and inclusion, but you shouldn’t be forced to hang around with people you don’t like. We all choose our own friends don’t we?
Too bad. Decisions are based on reason and what is morally right–not what makes you “feel good”.
So need justifies FORCIBLY taking my money from me and giving it to someone else, whether I want it to go to that person or not?
That’s too bad. A desirable result does not justify a morally reprehensible means.
Although I love the idea of a school for homosexuals, as it would allow the individual to escape the torment of bigotry in high school, I must agree with Matthew, that it may only make the problem worse in the long run. The issue must be solved with education of students so that they will understand that homosexuality is not something to be regarded as negative; however, that is not a change that we will see happen over night.
Kurt, for some reason you fail to show any signs of understanding or compassion towards the issue, and I really wonder how you could be so cold? 
I really feel sorry for you.
You might want to back up your rational moral reasoning on this issue, because it seems that you are just trying to rationalize what makes you “feel good”. There is much more to life than money and your own selfish desires for self pleasure. May I ask if you went to a public school? If not, did you pay for your private education, or was it your parents? As far as class goes, I would guess that you grew up in the wealthy upper class? Am I right? Have you ever really worked hard for your money? I wonder if your mind might change if you were born into poverty as a minority and a homosexual. You should really think about your fellow man as someone with desires and dreams just as your own. “Too bad” just doesn’t cut it! I hope that one day you will see the error in your perspective.
Because I don’t like theft, I lack “compassion”? That’s ludicrous…
Of course…but that doesn’t justify robbing Peter to pay Paul.
No
My parents paid some of it, the rest was a grant from a local private fund established for that purpose. But no money was forcibly taken from anyone.
You couldn’t be more wrong. My parents made about $15,000-20,000/year each–this was in the late 80’s and early to mid 90’s
Hell yes! I’ve worked as a construction worker, a landscaper, on street crews, as a salesperson, and as a farmhand while I was in high school. In addition, I have had jobs that required little physical labor, but an incredible amount of mental labor and ability.
It wouldn’t. Convenience does not dictate right and wrong.
I do. But I don’t see why I should have what’s mine taken from me to pay for them.
Kurt,
I apologize as I probably went a bit far with my comments, but I am very passionate in regards to social policies and equality issues.
My point is that sometimes people need a helping hand. You had your parents and a little help from a local grant. Not everyone has that chance. I am only suggesting that everyone should have available opportunity, just as you did. And that help should be available regardless of sexual preference, age, financial status, race, sex, etc. Everyone should have equal opportunity. You may disagree, and that is fine, but I only wish that you could see the world from a less individualistic, self-serving perspective.
Thank you. I’m passionate, too, because I know I’m right 
I agree that sometimes people need help, and there’s nothing wrong with helping them. But my problem lies in the fact that some people want to FORCE people to provide help. I see no problem with limiting help to private foundations, grants, etc.–and I’d probably contribute to them if I could afford it. But just because I don’t mind doing something voluntarily doesn’t mean I want to force everyone else to do it. I don’t have a say in how many kids Mary Ann Smith of Peoria, Illinois has or how she raises them–so why should I be forced to provide or pay for help for them
because they are alive just like you.
Applause
Murray Rothbard may say egalitarianism is a revolt against nature but he still has to live a 24 hour day.
But again, whose fault is that? I wasn’t consulted. Why should I be forced to take care of someone just because someone else decided to have a baby? Being alive does not entitle one to a living–it must be earned somehow. Why must it be earned? Because living (physically) requires certain material items–food, shelter, etc.–that must be produced or obtained somehow. To say that one is ENTITLED to those items means that if that person is not willing or able to produce them, then someone else must and if no one can be found to produce them voluntarily, then people must be forced to produce them–in other words, they must be made into slaves.
Whose fault was it that you were born? Were you consulted? No. People don’t choose to be born. They don’t choose their circumstances. They don’t choose their genes. But they still have to live their lives (last I heard, it is socially unacceptable to commit suicide). Because we are all in this together, and we are all struggling for the same desires of stability, shelter, opportunity, education, community, family, friends, and ultimately a purpose, it is our duty as human beings to help our fellow man to attain these. Especially, when we ourselves are capable.
So whose fault? Does it really matter? In a deterministic world there are no faults, but there are still victims.
Nor do I expect that others take care of me (except for my parents when I was young, but they DID choose to have me and so voluntarily accepted that responsibility, as will be the case with me when I have children).
You have failed to answer my point in my previous post.
So my ability means I deserve to get punished by being forced to take care of other people as well as myself?
But the world is not deterministic…
Kurt Weber stated:
Kurt, allow me to illustrate with a hypothetcial situation why all humans have a right to live, even if they are unfortunate enough to be unable to support themselves.
Suppose Kurt, that your parents died while you were at the tender age of two. Infact, let us suppose that every relative of your’s died instantaneously in a horrific and tragic accident, leaving you no one with any direct responsibility to your life. Soon your parent’s house will be reposessed as the payments cease to be made, and a toddler will be forced to live on the streets, eventually starving to death. Why would this happen? Because unfortunatly for young Kurt, the rest of the people in this hypothetical world of mine live under the same mantra that Mr. Kurt Weber purports in this very forum; they believe they are not morally responsible for young Kurt’s life, as they had no decision in bringing him into this world. So are they correct Kurt?
Kurt has also stated that it is morally wrong for the gov’t to take money from him, to pay for things he doesn’t need, or is not “responisble” for. I wholeheartedly disagree, however, for the sake of argument let us suppose this is true. Now we are left with a decision to make: what is more morally reprehensible? “Stealing” , or allowing children to die painful and merciless deaths? Not a tough decision.
Therefore, Kurt is arguing that it is morally wrong for the gov’t to force people to do what is morally right. Oddly, the gov’t is responsible for maintaining Law; an entire institution whose premise is forcing people to do what is morally right. Otherwise rapists and murderers would run rampant, as it would be “morally wrong” to force them to do what is “morally right,” which is to not rape and kill. Do you want rapists and murderers running amock Kurt because you do not want their “rights” to be infringed upon? Once again, a question that does not need much deliberation.
I recommend you read the thread on Moral Luck Kurt, you might realize just how determined things really are.
A right to live at the expense of others is what you mean–in other words, a right to enslave.
Right. The end does not justify the means.
The use of the word “more” there is pointless…all evils are equally evil, and all virtues are equally virtuous.
Not at all. Theft is completely wrong. Again, the end does not justify the means, no matter how desirable the end is. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
There is no right to take from another what is his, be it his person or his property–therefore, there is no right to kill, maim, or rape, there is no right to kill, and there is no right to enslave.
[moderator] Kurt, one purpose of this website is to provide a forum where people can apply a rigorous rational critique to other people’s views in order to expose shortcomings. I’m not sure you’ve entering into this spirit. I am afraid that simply stating ‘The means do not justify the end’ to a perfectly feasible and carefully thought-out moral scenario is not good enough, and a little insulting to other posters. Can you fully explain the moral assumptions you apply to your world view to avoid your contribution becoming dogmatic. Too many of your assertions seem uninfered. Can you qualify them, and try to engage rationally with those offering arguments which expose flaws in yours. Thanks. mate
I believe I have begun to partake in an exercise of futility, for reasons Pangloss has already pointed out- but I shall give it one more try.
Two things come to mind Kurt, intentionalism and consequentionalism. As far as intentions go, it can be argued that no distinguishment can be made between two immoral acts, as if the intent was immoral, the results are irrelevant. However, with regards to the consequences, some evils are infact “more” evil than others. Being tortured to death is by far worse than having a penny stolen from you. These are sometimes considered the two main viewpoints of ethics, and while some consider them to be mutually exclusive, the same way determinism and freewill can be considered mutually exclusive, both must be taken into account in order to devise a capable moral code.
Therefore, it is a matter of mere addition:
stealing and allowing babies to die are both equally evil, as far as the intentions of their agents are. Therefore, we can assign them each a value of one. However, the results (or consequences) of a child dying are far more horrific than having an obscure amount of money taken from you. With this in mind, one could assign murder as having a consequential value of 10, and perhaps stealing with a moral consequence of 1.
Therefore
Stealing= an intentional value of 1+ a consequential value of 1= 2
Murder= an intentional value of 1+ a consequential value of 10=11
Who is to say that the consequences of murder can be accurately quantified in comparison to stealing, not I, but the figures are irrelevant. What is relevant is that any damage done by murder far outweighs any damage done by theft thereby making some acts more evil than others.
I stated:
and Kurt responded with:
I have taken the liberty to interpret your vague response. You are are stating that the end (of having more than you need) does not justify the means (allowing innocent children to die).
I hope I have suffiently pointed out the circularity of your argument.
Kurt stated:
Following is a specific portion from the above quote that I would like to comment on- “There is no right to take from another what is his…”
If we trace this assumption back to it core, it would follow that you have no right to take away my right, to kill you. If we are to believe that it is never wrong to take away anyone’s rights, then if we cease with taxes and stop abusing your right to 100% of your earnings, it will also follow that we should not deter murderers from taking your life. This is very similar to screaming “fire” in a crowded movie theater. Not all rights are guaranteed if it is deemed that the consequences of removing that right are more beneficial than the right itself.