Principal quits job over 'gay' alliance

Principal quits job over 'gay' alliance
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | May 21, 2008

The principal of a South Carolina public school has announced plans to resign rather than continue his work at Irmo High following a demand to launch a student club to promote homosexuality.

"The formation of this club conflicts with my professional beliefs in that we do not have other clubs at Irmo High school based on sexual orientation, sexual preference, or sexual activity," Principal Eddie Walker, who identifies himself as "Class of 2008-2009," told the school community in a letter.

His letter said he planned to announce his pending departure to students via the intercom today, but school officials told WND that had been delayed as the school dealt with the sudden death of a student.

However, school district spokesman Buddy Price issued a statement confirming Walker's situation.

"I can confirm that the principal of Irmo High School, Mr. Eddie Walker, has communicated to his staff that he has submitted a letter of resignation effective at the end of the 2008-2009 school year. He cites personal principles related to a request to establish a Gay/Straight Alliance Club at the school as the reason for his resignation," wrote Price.

Good for him!

That club doesn't promote homosexuality. The purpose of that club is to foster understanding.

When I was in high school gay students were in the closet. There were a handful of students how had been labled gay and they were teased, ridiculed, and bullied.

Would you really prefer to return to those days?

Why doesn't the fact that those with personal beliefs and convictions against homosexual perversion being teased, ridiculed, bullied and shunned enter the picture?

Armon Ayers wrote:Why doesn't the fact that those with personal beliefs and convictions against homosexual perversion being teased, ridiculed, bullied and shunned enter the picture?

You're missing the point of the alliance. The purpose is to foster understanding and empathy between the two groups, not to pit them against each other.

Stephanie wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:Why doesn't the fact that those with personal beliefs and convictions against homosexual perversion being teased, ridiculed, bullied and shunned enter the picture?

You're missing the point of the alliance. The purpose is to foster understanding and empathy between the two groups, not to pit them against each other.

For many of us, trying to promote understanding and empathy between gays and straights is like trying to promote understanding and empathy between NAM/BLA and the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't know what to say to you. You're a man of deep faith, I know that and I understand you consider homosexual acts a sin. But aren't you supposed to love the sinner just the same?

They're people too. I'm afraid sometimes fear is an obstacle to remembering that.

Stephanie wrote:I don't know what to say to you. You're a man of deep faith, I know that and I understand you consider homosexual acts a sin. But aren't you supposed to love the sinner just the same?

They're people too. I'm afraid sometimes fear is an obstacle to remembering that.

Believe me, Stephanie, the reason that I speak out against homosexuality is because I love the sinner.

Stephanie wrote:I don't know what to say to you. You're a man of deep faith, I know that and I understand you consider homosexual acts a sin. But aren't you supposed to love the sinner just the same?

They're people too. I'm afraid sometimes fear is an obstacle to remembering that.

How far do you think that a Straights Only or Traditional Family Club would get in the public schools, Stephanie?

Depending on the location, fine. There are Bible groups in some public schools.

Back to the sin thing......I fail to see how you're helping sinners by ostracizing them, or poking fun at them, or by trying to make others fear them.

Are you saying it is impossible to disagree with --even condemn--another's sinful lifestyle and not be loving? If I do disagree with that choice, why shouldn't I ostracize the ones who hold to that practice. Disagreeing with one's race or gender is one thing; however, disagreeing with one's activity is another. I disagree with adultery--but, I don't hate adulterers. I hate stealing--but, I don't hate thieves. It is not: either you agree with me--or, you hate me. Is it?

There are people here who disagree with me. However, I don't think that they hate me--they just hate what I say and do. Is that any different?

Armon Ayers wrote:Are you saying it is impossible to disagree with --even condemn--another's sinful lifestyle and not be loving? If I do disagree with that choice, why shouldn't I ostracize the ones who hold to that practice. Disagreeing with one's race or gender is one thing; however, disagreeing with one's activity is another. I disagree with adultery--but, I don't hate adulterers. I hate stealing--but, I don't hate thieves. It is not: either you agree with me--or, you hate me. Is it?

There are people here who disagree with me. However, I don't think that they hate me--they just hate what I say and do. Is that any different?

This isn't just about you disagreeing with them, and you personally trying to shun them. You encourage others to shun homosexuals and it appears to me that you fear them, almost as if you think homosexuality is contagious. It's an enigma to me because on the other hand you seem to think they have a choice in being who and what they are.

It isn't a learned behavior and it isn't a choice. If your god exists than he made them who and what they are, did he not? I don't believe people choose their sexual preference.

Thieves and adulterers choose to be thieves and adulterers. I didn't choose to be born straight any more than I chose to be born a white female. While I'm quite content being a straight, white female, I didn't get to choose.

Stephanie wrote:It's an enigma to me because on the other hand you seem to think they have a choice in being who and what they are.

It isn't a learned behavior and it isn't a choice. If your god exists than he made them who and what they are, did he not? I don't believe people choose their sexual preference.

Thieves and adulterers choose to be thieves and adulterers. I didn't choose to be born straight any more than I chose to be born a white female. While I'm quite content being a straight, white female, I didn't get to choose.

If it is not biological in origin, .........then of course it is a learned behavior.

And therefore it was a choice, ......... maybe a subconscious choice that most do not remember why or how they made it, ....... but nevertheless, .... a choice.

Just like one learning to speak English, French or Russian as their 1st language. They don't remember how or why they learned to speak it, ........ but nevertheless they made the mental choice to do it.

Most everyone tends to confuse and/or directly associate the inherited biological urge to procreate ...... with one's emotional selection of who or what they choose to procreate with and/or choose to vent and satisfy said biological urge with.

The above is akin to or the same as ....... one's inherited biological urge to eat food ...... and one's emotional selection of what kinds of food they choose to eat.

Thus, a southern WV preacher admonishing a queer for his/her choice of sexual partner ......... is hardly any different than a south central WV'ian admonishing a Chinese peasant for cooking and eating a mangey dog or cat.

It feels good to the queer ......... and it tastes good to the peasant.

.

Stephanie wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:Are you saying it is impossible to disagree with --even condemn--another's sinful lifestyle and not be loving? If I do disagree with that choice, why shouldn't I ostracize the ones who hold to that practice. Disagreeing with one's race or gender is one thing; however, disagreeing with one's activity is another. I disagree with adultery--but, I don't hate adulterers. I hate stealing--but, I don't hate thieves. It is not: either you agree with me--or, you hate me. Is it?

There are people here who disagree with me. However, I don't think that they hate me--they just hate what I say and do. Is that any different?

This isn't just about you disagreeing with them, and you personally trying to shun them. You encourage others to shun homosexuals and it appears to me that you fear them, almost as if you think homosexuality is contagious. It's an enigma to me because on the other hand you seem to think they have a choice in being who and what they are.

It isn't a learned behavior and it isn't a choice. If your god exists than he made them who and what they are, did he not? I don't believe people choose their sexual preference.

Thieves and adulterers choose to be thieves and adulterers. I didn't choose to be born straight any more than I chose to be born a white female. While I'm quite content being a straight, white female, I didn't get to choose.

Ann Heche chose not to be Mrs. Ellen Degenerettes. (One movie with Harrison Ford Seven Days Six Nights) cured her! I know adulterers who claim to have been born philanderers. Some pedophiles claim that pedophilia is their natural orientation. How do you answer that, Stephanie? Do you just discount the perversions that you personally disagree with?

Look, now you're asking me to explain bisexuality to you. I haven't a clue. Now that I don't get at all. I can understand being gay. I am naturally attracted to men. I can't help it. lol I can see a beautiful woman and recognize she is beautiful, but never in my life have I ever thought to myself, "Wow, she's a babe. I've gotta get me some of that."

I figure with gays it's just the opposite. They are attracted to members of their own sex. Bisexuals, now that is beyond me. I think that is a fad. Like somehow it's cool to be bi. I don't care about that either. I do wish they'd pick a side and stick with it.

Pedophiles are made, not born. I think this is generally accepted as fact. They are made by being the victims of sexual abuse as children. Even if they are natural born child molesters, that doesn't matter. Children don't give consent. There's a world of difference between the two.

Sam,

You have an emotional attachment to your wife. You love her, but that doesn't mean you don't ever do a little window shopping, does it? And when you go window shopping (even if you swear you don't do that any more I'm sure at some point in your life you have) do you check out men? I doubt it. When you do, or when you have, it has been women you've been admiring, because you're attracted to women. Now sooner or later, some of those physical attractions lead to building relationships. With the relationship comes the emotional attachment you speak of.

People don't develop emotional attachments and turn gay. I have emotional attachments with many other women, and not all of them are relatives. Some are just my friends. I have never wanted to jump in the sack with any of them.

And so, even if it is the kind of "choice" that Sam says is "learned", so what? Life should be about choices. So what is the basis for our compulsion to hate the consensual sexual acts of homosexuals?

What is wrong with live and let live?

Hell, in some states it is still illegal for MARRIED heterosexual couples to engage in "Buggery", or "sodomy" or "oral sex". For example, despite the sloganering, the state of Virginia is not for lovers.

So again, what is wrong with live and let live?

Beats the heck outta me.

I wish I could make you understand why I oppose gay marriage, Ziggy. I'm sure Sam will say it's our nurturing or I'm an emotional female or sumpthin'

Why doesn't the fact that those with personal beliefs and convictions against homosexual perversion being teased, ridiculed, bullied and shunned enter the picture?

Why should religious beliefs be immune from ridicule?

You seem to have no trouble lancing islam...

This is the attitude to which I have referred before. If I say that aliens told me that McCain is one of them and eats stem cells for breakfast and he is why the Mayans predicted the end of the world in 2012 - you would call me crazy and belittle my beliefs.

Some fundamentalist preacher teaches his flock that Obama is the AntiChrist and I am a bad person for saying that is ridiculous.

As an aside, when I ridiculed the idea, I was told to read Revelations again and I would see, as if my skepticism was a result of my ignorance as opposed to the result of exercising some logic.

We set religion, particularly christianity, on a pedestal in this country, sheltering it from questioning and ridicule. A Senator stands up an says he proposes a bill because "god told him to" and we don't bat an eye.

Not me, man. I'll give ridicule where ridicule is due.

Stephanie wrote:Look, now you're asking me to explain bisexuality to you. I haven't a clue. Now that I don't get at all. I can understand being gay. I am naturally attracted to men. I can't help it. lol I can see a beautiful woman and recognize she is beautiful, but never in my life have I ever thought to myself, "Wow, she's a babe. I've gotta get me some of that."

I figure with gays it's just the opposite. They are attracted to members of their own sex. Bisexuals, now that is beyond me. I think that is a fad. Like somehow it's cool to be bi. I don't care about that either. I do wish they'd pick a side and stick with it.

Stephanie, and all others, …..even though it is common practice, ….. one should not use the different wording of the English language to base their arguments on when discussing the science based causes or reasons of/for sexual attraction and/or associations.

I mean like mixing, matching, interjecting and rejecting words such as:

heterosexual, ….. homosexual, ….. lezzie, …. fag, …. straight, …. gay, ….. queer, … lesbian, …. bisexual, …. etc.

that best serves their argument at any given time.

The 1st two words are the only two based in science and should not be used in conjunction with the others except as referenced usage only, ….. except for “bisexual” which should not be used at all … because it is absolutely not a referenced usage of the 1st two.

Hetero- comes from the Greek word heteros, meaning "different", ….. different sex.
Homo- comes from the Greek word homos meaning same / the same. ….. same sex.

Bisexual, … bi meaning two (2), …. two sexes, would be a hermaphroditic reference.

Hermaphrodite - one having both male and female sexual characteristics and organs

Thus, if one is going to use “bisexual” out of context they should also be using ….. unisexual, …. trisexual, ….. groupsexual, ….. etc.

I say that because it irks me when biased people use “martial status” to determine one’s “sexual preference”.

If one is “married” to an opposite sex, … and engages in a same-sex relationship with another, …. then by default they are referred to as homo, homosexual or lesbian.

But if one is single, “NOT married” to an opposite sex, … and engages in a sexual relationship with two (2) others of different sexes, …. then by default they are referred to as bisexual.

And there ain’t a damn bit of difference between the two other than their name on a piece of paper. Thus, the common use of the word “bisexual” is nothing more than a “slang expression” the same as is ……. gay, fag, etc.

Just as soon as or if Science proves homosexuality is biologically based they will coin a new word for said “bisexual” …… but one meaning “dual sexual preference” and not two sexes.

Stephanie wrote:Pedophiles are made, not born. I think this is generally accepted as fact. They are made by being the victims of sexual abuse as children. Even if they are natural born child molesters, that doesn't matter. Children don't give consent. There's a world of difference between the two.

HORSEFEATHERS …..

Steph, I will believe that iffen you can explain to me the DIFFERENCE between ….. a pedophile …… and a parent or guardian that forces sexual acts upon the children in their care.

And please don’t answer by stating …… “Well, one usually kills the victim ….. and the other one doesn’t.”

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

You have an emotional attachment to your wife. You love her, but that doesn't mean you don't ever do a little window shopping, does it? And when you go window shopping (even if you swear you don't do that any more I'm sure at some point in your life you have) do you check out men? I doubt it. When you do, or when you have, it has been women you've been admiring, because you're attracted to women. Now sooner or later, some of those physical attractions lead to building relationships. With the relationship comes the emotional attachment you speak of.

People don't develop emotional attachments and turn gay.

The hell you say. People develop emotional attachments based on positive influences …… and develop emotional rejections based on negative influences. People’s emotions are like magnets ….. which causes them to be attracted to that which satisfies their need, …… and to reject that which does not.

Thus, a person, child, teen or adult, …. can develop an emotional rejections of the opposite sex because of a negative act or influence, ……. but to satisfy their need of companionship they must then develop an emotional attachments to a person of the same sex, …… or to a dog, a cat , a horse, etc.

Like marriage, …… one (1) bad one …. and never again, ……. or, …. two (2) bad ones …. and try it again.

Stephanie wrote: I have emotional attachments with many other women, and not all of them are relatives. Some are just my friends. I have never wanted to jump in the sack with any of them.

YUP, and you now have a new emotional attachment, …. right, …… that new pup, …… and it probably wants to jump in the sack with you.

Didn't Aaron say his pooch has such an emotional attachment.

.

TerryRC wrote:Why doesn't the fact that those with personal beliefs and convictions against homosexual perversion being teased, ridiculed, bullied and shunned enter the picture?

Why should religious beliefs be immune from ridicule?

You seem to have no trouble lancing islam...

And the same goes for Hillary and Obama ..... and their associates and family members.

The Democrat partisans and supporters never showed any restraint in their badmouthing and ridicule of President Bush et al for the past 8+ years.

.

Welcome to the Jungle J-Dog.

Any specific reason you deleted your post Mr. Green?

J-Dog got da Boot.

Sam,

Lay people such as myself, and scientists use different terminology for the same thing. As I stated before, I don't "get" bisexuality, or dual sexuality, or whatever you choose to call it.

Steph, I will believe that iffen you can explain to me the DIFFERENCE between ….. a pedophile …… and a parent or guardian that forces sexual acts upon the children in their care.

Yeah, the difference between the two is almost nonexistant. A pedophile molests children. A parent or guardian etc who molests children related to them or in their care, are incetuous pedophiles. They are freaks.

That individual didn't do that. I deleted the posts, banned the username and the IP address.

I'm really pissed off now. If this continues I will be forced to take steps I'd rather avoid.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:Any specific reason you deleted your post Mr. Green?

J-Dog got da Boot.

Did I miss something interesting and important?

.

Stephanie wrote:That individual didn't do that. I deleted the posts, banned the username and the IP address.

I'm really pissed off now. If this continues I will be forced to take steps I'd rather avoid.

Care to elaborate as to what's going on? I know it has something to do with Linda Redtail but other then that, I'm in the dark here.