Hot Water at School (part 2)
Apr 24 05 | 7:05 pm
I received the following link today, perhaps with the expectation I would plug it here, or perhaps it was just the person mass-IMing people on their buddy list. Either way, I am conflicted with it’s argument.
http://www.morallystraightalliance.org/
I’m 92.73% sure that I know who set up this site, but I won’t speculate since I don’t know. Oh I know, let’s run a whois! Ok, now that we know who is behind the site (and it’s not who I thought), let’s discuss.
The site is clearly pro-straight anti-homosexual. I support the site’s goal of freedom of speech and how the school shouldn’t take sides in situations like this, but I don’t support the site’s belief that being homosexual is morally wrong. The site calls for kids to wear a blank white t-shirt with a “morally straight alliance” sticker on it. I could see myself wearing a blank white t-shirt, but I don’t support all the views of the MSA. I mean, I support the “Every Student a Voice” part, but I don’t support their anti-homosexuality. I think the site would have been much more successful if they had made it simply a free-speech argument instead of tying in the whole “I don’t like homosexuals” thing. If it was just “Wear a blank white t-shirt in protest of having your first amendment rights violated” type thing, then I’d be all for that. But what they want isn’t in line with my beliefs.
backlinks
Free Speech at School - 4/23
Hot Water at School - 4/15
Someone should drop Di[/b]ck a line.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&pb=f&q=richard+pettit+06074&pb=f&btnG=Search+PhoneBook
(Why does your blog censor the word Dic[b]k? It’s his name.)
Comment by cobalt — Apr 24 05 | 7:45 pm
It doesn’t censor it. And isn’t the phone number in the whois, anyways? Yea it is, along with an e-mail address and a physical address. I wouldn’t recommend threatening the man, but a rational phone call could be in order if you really feel strongly about what he did.
I think he tried to stay anonymous, but he did a very poor job of it. I wonder if he realized that when he typed in his name, address, and phone number as he was registering the domain that they’d all be easily publicly viewed. In fact, there’s legislation that prevents you from registering a .us domain with false credentials. That’s another thing I have a problem with, but it’s a different story.
Comment by civman2 — Apr 24 05 | 9:35 pm
Exactly. I am very sure it was written by Laura Pettit. I know her brother. They are mormon, which would probably explain the very anti-homosexual opinion. I do not agree with this. In school I always have these arguments…debates…with Dave Gordon about this topic. He thinks that being gay is a choice, consciously made by a person, and that in doing so is sinning against God (correct me if I am wrong there). Under no circumstances do I think someone would choose to be gay. I know gay people and they have told me they wished they weren’t gay, but can’t do anything about it. Ok…that’s all I’m saying. i still think the school shouldn’t do anything about the shirts. They just can’t.
Comment by Mike — Apr 25 05 | 1:08 am
Dick. There i win.
Comment by cobalt — Apr 25 05 | 1:08 am
Case sensitivity much?
-1 Offtopic
Comment by civman2 — Apr 25 05 | 1:12 am
Really, why would gay or lesbian people choose to have that orientation. Why would you choose to be in a widely abused minority of the population? If you could really choose whether to be gay or straight, then why would anyone at all be gay?
Furthermore, even if it were a choice, that doesn’t give homophobics a right to discriminate against them. Their homosexuality is in no way threatening or hurtful to heterosexuals. That’s like someone deciding that their favourite colour is blue, and me rewarding them with instant and baseless hatred.
Similarly, homosexuals should be allowed marriage. I’m not entirely familiar with complaints such as hospital visitation rights and the like, but it seems like the main criticism is “Marriage is between a man and a woman.” I don’t mind gay marriages because they don’t affect me. They can allow marriages between animals for all I care. And if you’re so insecure that you think homosexual marriages detract from the sanctity of heterosexual marriages, then get a life and worry about your own problems.
Comment by cobalt — Apr 25 05 | 1:35 am
“I don’t mind gay marriages because they don’t affect me.”
same here.
Comment by Mike — Apr 25 05 | 2:29 am
If you “gizoogle” that Morally Straight Alliance thing, it becomes a whole lot more interesting….
Comment by Mike — Apr 25 05 | 2:34 am
Haha.
Comment by cobalt — Apr 25 05 | 3:07 am
Who made that website that Colby linked us to? It’s pretty funny…
Comment by jmikeviolin01 — Apr 25 05 | 4:52 am
Ok, I posted that before actually reading…nvm
Comment by jmikeviolin01 — Apr 25 05 | 4:57 am
OK, let’s get a few things straight. I happen to know Richard Pettit and his children, all of whom are incredibly nice people and are entitled both to their opinions and to the free expression thereof. Yes, Laura wrote the letter, which simply explains that the administration has suppressed one side of the debate. She makes a salient point, and even if you disagree with her opinion or religious convictions, you can surely see the importance of free and open debate.
Secondly, I happen to be related to Dave Gordon, and I would appreciate you leaving him out of this, Mike. He is also entitled to his opinion and its expression.
To everyone: the fact that none of the people you are insulting read this blog and therefore cannot defend themselves, your attacks on them are pretty low. Let’s show some respect for people we disagree with. It’s only civil.
Comment by mormonangel — Apr 25 05 | 7:16 am
Sorry, but I disagree, Amy. As you know, I know the family too, but I’m pretty bothered by this whole thing-its transformed me from being on the side of the students wearing the shirts to the totally opposite side. To me, this is insulting to kids. Not only that, but I have a feeling that Laura has no interest in being part of any controversy and just got herself caught up on this because of someone who registered a domain to make a point on something that should just go away in a day or two.
As for free speech, I think its fine for them to say what they want. But it’s also fine for me to say I think it is bigoted.
As for making fun of people on this site, I don’t think anyone did that. Mike simply disagreed. I don’t even know who Mike is, but I’ll defend him anyway. I also don’t think that these people want phone calls to their houses, so I’m not sure where else there is to go. A forum on that website would be nice…but instead, we’re talking about it on here.
-Sean
Comment by notapplicable — Apr 25 05 | 9:06 am
Sean, you and I both know perfectly well why a forum on that site is silly. OK, so it’s not set up super well. Ok, perhaps it seems a little hokey. But the point is the same, and they are entitled to it. For the record, I don’t believe that either set of shirts belongs in schools. But I think that as long as one is allowed, the other should be too.
Comment by mormonangel — Apr 25 05 | 10:11 pm
Apparently, the difference is that if they wore the shirts “I’m against Gay Marriage” that would’ve been OK.
The phrasing on the other shirts could be “targeting”.
That’s basically what our school’s announcement today said. I’m not sure how much I believe that though.
Comment by Jds2711 — Apr 25 05 | 10:59 pm
Also - most of the clever people (or those who are just shy!) have a completely fraudulent whois. Recently some guys down in DC were lobbying to make sure that the information provided was accurate.
Comment by Jds2711 — Apr 25 05 | 11:03 pm
I just re-read my comment…I may have been a bit rude…sorry about that. However, I was explaining the fact that I don’t think being gay is a choice. I wasn’t insulting Gordon for believing this. In truth, I respect Gordon, because he is one of the few people who actually believes and adheres to his religion. I, for one, cannot say this about myself all the time. Anyways, like Greg said, I agree with half of the webpage. Free speech all the way.
Comment by Mike — Apr 25 05 | 11:51 pm
“Also - most of the clever people (or those who are just shy!) have a completely fraudulent whois. Recently some guys down in DC were lobbying to make sure that the information provided was accurate.”
They won, after like 4/1/05 I think it’s illegal to have spoofed information in .us domains. However, there are very few .us domains.
I’m looking forwards to seeing what this discussing in May is about. How is it possible to disagree with anything without targeting someone, however indirectly.
“I don’t like Hockey”
Comment by civman2 — Apr 25 05 | 11:57 pm
Yeah, I was wondering what DiIorio would do about the May discussion. Maybe we can print out these few entries in your blog, Greg, and post them…haha. But I wonder what DiIorio will do in terms of the method. He certainly can’t invade the currriculum in English classes, and throw this in (or any class, for that matter). Therefore, it’ll probably be either be an in-school assembly, or an after-school kind of thing.
Comment by jmikeviolin01 — Apr 26 05 | 12:30 am
And I agree with you - you almost always have to target someone or some point of view in order to contradict it with your own. It’s when you insult, condemn, or attack them that it starts to get out of hand.
Comment by jmikeviolin01 — Apr 26 05 | 12:34 am
Well, I was curious if the school was going to give us the philosophy of the matter in order to discern purely political statements versus targeting offensively.
Comment by Jds2711 — Apr 26 05 | 1:21 am
For those of us blissfully free of SWHS forever, please explain said May discussion.
And, yeah, “I’m against gay marriage would have been a better idea.” Yay free speech.
Comment by mormonangel — Apr 26 05 | 6:01 am
Someone should wear a shirt stating “I’m against free speech.” It would be pretty funny.
Comment by notapplicable — Apr 26 05 | 6:10 am
oooooh good idea. I wonder if someone makes that kind of shirt.
Comment by mormonangel — Apr 26 05 | 8:18 pm