horvendile said:
I think it's well established that gays are subject to way more hate and violence than just about any other group. Saying that it's the same for e.g. fat people would not be true.
Well established nothing.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_00/hate00.pdf
Race (and blacks in particular) is by far the overall largest victim of "hate crimes." Followed by Religion (Jews the largest), then sexual orientation. There are even stats on schools as the "location" for the hate crimes...see page 21.
Hell, look at the "Crimes agaist Persons" (as opposed to property) on page 18. There were more (sexual orientation based) crimes logged
against heterosexuals, than
bisexuals.
I assume that it's mandatory to attend to school in USA.
Yes and no. You have to attend some type of school. Public, private, or even home schooling.
There are private schools, but I assume that attending to these costs money?
Yes, though it also costs me money (taxes) to send my kids to school. And I pay more in school tax dollars than many private institutions. There's nothing stopping any one, or any group, from funding their own school.
I don't think it's reasonable to lay the costs of having a school free from severe abuse on the one innocently abused. This is a public problem, not a private one.
I don't think it's reasonable to lay the costs down of having a separate school for a specific target of the population among the whole population.
Would it be better if there were havens for all other groups as well? Yes.
Sure...we'll have a white school, and a black school, a Jewish school, Catholic school....
Let's just bring back segregation alltogether in new and exciting ways!
But is it therefore worse that this school exists than if it didn't? No, I don't think so.
That's besides the point. Who is it that decides that one "minority" deserves special treatment more than another minority? Furthermore, if the issue is having been oppressed, then why is it not a requirement of the school to have been personally oppressed in the past? (I still can't find that requirement at their site.)
This is so plainly unconstitutional.
Partly because it's better to help a few than not to help anyone.
But isn't it better then, logically, to help even MORE?
Set up a Black or a Jewish public school. By the numbers, they are FAR more victimized than homosexuals.
This is great...let's have every group of people conceivable (including whites), tell their sob stories to the government, violin in hand, to lobby for preferential treatment.
This is so fundamentally wrong on so many levels.
Partly because it may be a starting point for other schools helping abused children. Is it really ideologically sound to work against this?
Yup. It would be more ideologically sound if this was a school for abused children, rather than a school "for folks of deviant sexual orientation, who may or may not be victims of abuse themselves."
If one thinks it is, what is the goal of one's ideology, and is it a humane one?
Absolutely. I have nothing against such a school, as long as it's private. I would even agree to have such a school (inclusive of other private schools) participate in a Voucher program...but the liberals don't want that....
It could be argued that one should treat all victims of excessive school violence as individuals and not try to group them according to sexual preference, body mass, skin colour or anything else. While this is a theoretically appealing approach I'd say it would also be ignoring reality.
The reality being, racial discrimination is a far more prevalent problem?
It is mandatory to go to school. At the very least, one should have the right to go to school without being assaulted.
Agreed. That's why there are laws against assaults, and that why they should be enforced.
IMO, that's one of the fundamentals in a society. One should not need to pay extra for a private school (money one may not have) to achive that.
IMO, one of the fundamentals of society is to not have the government to perform social engineering experiments.
If the constitution does not allow that I suspect that it's the constitution that is at fault, not this school.
It's not the school's fault, or the Constitution's fault. Is the NYC legislature's fault. I have no problem with the school, and the Constitution does not PROHIBIT such schools from existing, so there's no fault there.
The fault lies with the NYC legislature using public funds for this school, which is discriminitory, and does not provide equal treatment / access to all.
