Sub Main Menu
news
sport
lifestyle
entertainment
business
property
2:57PM Wednesday 03 December, 2008
'Blogs Central
Blog Central: Mark My Words Mark, editor-in-chief of the Sunshine Coast Daily, has been a journalist on the Coast for 20 years and is passionate about fighting for a better deal for the region. When he's not at work, he loves nothing more than spending time with his wife Julie and three kids.

What's the fuss over school formal gay ban?

April 15 | Mark Furler

I don't envy the life of a school principal trying to maintain any sense of standard, discipline or tradition in today’s increasingly “anything goes” society.

Even if you are running a private, Christian school, it seems it’s not okay by some to enforce basic principles of your faith.

That’s if some of the reaction to the story about Brisbane’s Anglican Church Grammar School refusing to allow their students to take gay partners to the formal is anything to go by.

The school is at the centre of a media storm after a Brisbane newspaper ran a headline, “School bans gay couples” on the weekend.

The paper’s website has been inundated with comments from both sides of the debate – some strongly arguing in favour of the school’s right to set its own policies, while others are condemning it as discriminatory, hypocritical, judgmental and even anti-Christian.

Churchie headmaster, Jonathan Hensman, maintains the senior dinner dance is an “opportunity for our young men to escort a young woman in a formal school environment.

“We don’t intend to change our practice ... the school decides what is appropriate and what is not.”

Head of the Anglican church Dr Philip Aspinall said while any gay student at any school should be treated with the utmost respect, he told ABC radio: “It’s a great pity if too much emphasis is being put on sexual relationships (for the formal). Most people who go to a school formal go with a friend and there is no sexual relationship involved.”

Gay students are now talking about boycotting the event – a move welcomed by some bloggers who said they should leave the formal out of their push to have gays more accepted in the school community.

While the issue of one’s sexuality is surely a personal decision, surely a school has the right to enforce its own standards and preferences – rather than being dictated to by state authorities, students or lobbyists who claim discrimination.

Private schools by their nature – including their high fees – automatically discriminate, and when parents send their children to such schools it is usually with the understanding that certain values and principles are followed.

If you are a Muslim and you send your children to a Muslim school, you would surely have a right to expect Muslim customs and traditions are respected.

Students behind the current Churchie protest are obviously seeking to make a stand for the gay rights they believe in – but I wonder whether they risk generating more public disquiet than sympathy by using the school formal in June as the bargaining chip.

One student claims while two years ago there was not one student who was openly gay in the all boys school, now there are dozens.

Dr Aspinall is, of course, right in maintaining that all people, regardless of sexuality, should be treated with tolerance and respect, but does that mean the church or the school has to water down its own standards to allow boys to take boys to the formal?

And what about the rights of other students to enjoy a formal which is not marred by protest and division not just within the student community – but also the entire community?

Travel green

There's nothing like a summer of miserable weather to make you really appreciate the perfect conditions the Sunshine Coast enjoyed at the weekend.

Coast beaches were well populated not only with interstate tourists looking to make the most of our surf and sunshine but also many local families feeling somewhat robbed of the usual amount of sunshine we experience.

While there are increasing concerns about the amount of development happening here on the Coast – and rightly so – we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be whipped into an hysteria that we are becoming another Gold Coast.

You only have to look at vast tracts of national parks, our beaches, rivers, parkland – and indeed better developed housing estates to know the Sunshine Coast has got an awful lot going for it.

As Coast residents, we need to project a positive outlook about what this region has to offer.

While our road systems are a shocking failure at peak times, things are starting to improve.

Better bus services, together with major road upgrades, will see improvements in the next few years.

But a lot is yet to be done – and one of the biggest issues is ensuring we provide a public transport system of buses and trains which are not only easy to use but also affordable.

If the Coast is to maintain its natural beauty, we have to get a lot smarter about the way we get from A to B.

And that may even mean losing the expectation many of us have that we will always be able to drive to our favourite beach.

As the Coast population continues to grow, we may one day make the journey to our biggest beaches by small buses to ensure that we don’t destroy the environment we all have come to enjoy.

Recent Comments

on 15 April, 2008 at 1:58 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Yes, private institutions can set whatever standards they like. But that doesn't necessarily make said standards right, acceptable, non-bigoted, non-racist, non-inclusive, etc--and, for an organization to actively exclude potential future (paying) students based rather outmoded thinking is perhaps a bit shortsighted. However, I must take issue with your phrase, "While the issue of one’s sexuality is surely a personal decision..." Really? When did you personally decide you were heterosexual? Did you experiment a bit before you decided which one you liked? Personal decisions include eating vegetarian, converting to Catholicism, and choosing not to wear fur. Sexual orientation is no more a personal decision than being tall or left-handed; those who claim otherwise are basing their claims on hearsay, not personal experience. The "personal decision" part comes from whether an LGBT individual chooses to hide one's identity in the closet or live openly and (hopefully) be accepted by family and friends.
on 15 April, 2008 at 2:29 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
"Head of the Anglican church Dr Philip Aspinall said while any gay student at any school should be treated with the utmost respect, he told ABC radio: “It’s a great pity if too much emphasis is being put on sexual relationships (for the formal). Most people who go to a school formal go with a friend and there is no sexual relationship involved.”

...and there is the philosophical and statistical difference: Dr. Aspinall reduces the relationships of his gay students as solely sexual in nature while dismissing the intimate foundation of gay and, for that matter, all human couplings.
on 15 April, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The school accepts public money, it's private in name only. With public funding comes a moral obligation to act in the best interests of society, promoting homophobia is simply not on. Exclusive schools that teach bigotry are hardly following the example of Jesus of the New Testament, who accepted everyone including prostitutes and tax collectors. It's debatable that Jesus would condone exclusive schools that exclude the poor and make judgements on the worthiness of others. It's worth noting that this is a church that recently hid paedophiles amongst it's ranks. Plank, remove from eye etc...
on 15 April, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I find it amusing that Jason uses the bible in an attempt to discredit the church and its decisions he disagrees with.

The New Testament also teaches against homosexuality Jason. Or did you not read that part?
on 15 April, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Just because it's a private school doesn't mean it can ignore laws it doesn't like. Discrimination is against the law, and shouldn't be allowed at all.
on 15 April, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
same-sex relationships have always existed in boarding schools. it's about time schools acknowledged and accepted the face that not everyone is born straight - sexuality is on a continuum and many people experiment to find out which end of the spectrum they're at. ban the barbaric initiations at private schools, the snobbery and the hypocrisy - let the boys take their boyfriends and the girls take their girlfriends if they choose. it's the 21st century for heaven's sake. what about human rights!
on 15 April, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
And the bad side to gay couples going to a school formal is??
Maybe the devil will show up and it will turn into one hell of a night!!
Honestly the narrow minds these days is frightening. I thought the bible taught people not to judge others yet that's all the people who live the bible seem to do... hypocracy at its best!
on 16 April, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
wallet72, trouble is, religious organisations have exemptions under Anti-Discrimination legislation, exemptions that shouldn't exist in this day and age.

dubby, which parts of the New Testament are you referring to? Paul's letters? In the gospels, Matthew 5:22 is the only passage that could be argued has Jesus dealing with homosexuality. The same argument (which looks at the translation from Greek) has this passage as a warning against homophobia.

Paul's letters (the source of the homophobic "teachings" you cite) include rules such as, women should cover their heads, not speak in church and not be educated unless by the husband. Relying on the answer given in Matthew 19:4-5 whilst ignoring the question that this passage is in response to, is simply putting in meaning that doesn't exist in the text. Of course the meanings of the passages in Paul's letters are also open to interpretation from the original Greek. Paul has a lot of silly rules, why do you pick some and ignore the others or do you follow them all, if so why ignore the teachings in the gospels about judging others and hypocrisy?
on 16 April, 2008 at 8 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The church would still be burning witches at stakes if sane and logical people had not stepped in and done something about it.
It would be your grandmother becasue she lives alone and had a cat for a pet - after all the church said cats were the devil and concorting with the devil carried a death penalty.

How wrong is the church??
Do we realy all want to know?

It is WRONG for any church to impose itself upon ordinary natural human beings with its stiffled unnatural beliefs.
Marriage was actually invented in the days of hunters and gatherers so that ones offspring could be identified as they moved around a lot.
Then the church stepped in and took over and reinvented marriage in its own witch burning fashion.

If it is okay for the church to ban gays then its also okay for us to undo science and technology and live in caves.
on 16 April, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
A Christian school or a Muslim school should need to stick to the guiding principles of an enlightened democracy eg rights to have protection from racial, sexual and religious discrimination. The problem is that those same rights against religious discrimination allow these schools to further discriminate against their pupils.

There would be an uproar if the school wouldn't allow pupils to bring girlfriends if they were black as attitudes have changed in this regard so how is it right to still discriminate against sexual orientation.

Hypocrisy...

Also Christians tend to ignore the Old Testament nowadays as it's a bit extreme even for them so focus on the cute and cuddly facets of Jesus. I'm afraid Jesus wasn't a tree hugging, feminist, new age guy. He got his ideas from the Old Testament and didn't really care about people in this life as long as they accepted his message in preparation for the next.

His mission failed, he got strung up by the people he was trying to convert. His kingdom of God has still not appeared even though he said it would be in his followers lifetimes...
Every rational argument about religion is countered by one word "faith". It is the last bastion of the uneducated and closed mind.

I can't even understand how this is still happening in a modern, rational, democratic nation?
There should be no public money for religious schools. Religion and education are mutually exclusive!!!
on 16 April, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Jason, Jason, Jason.

Paul had "a lot of silly rules"??? If you go and understand the culture back then and how church was practised you may understand some of his "silly rules".

I have a Greek Bible here mate, and one in Hebrew. It has the English translation right beside it. If you doubt the translation come to my house and read it for yourself.

Homophobic teachings? Really? No, mate. Just plain old advice; dont practise homosexuality. Not "be afraid and hate homosexuals".

You seem to be able to pick and choose which scriptures you wish to suit your own argument, something alot of people can do to suit their own view. Without writing a long winded response that I doubt you will read and noone cares about anyway, my response to you is this: Read some history about the Jewish rabbis in Jesus day. There were a few prominent rabbis who had their teachings or "yoke" as it was known back then. If you followed Rabbit Mischael (For example) you would carry his yoke. This is kinda what Paul was setting out in his letters. As time has passed, churches have taken on the "yoke" of their head pastor. Practises like greeting each other with a kiss for eg is not widely practised.
on 16 April, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I agree with the direction of your argument. Of course, if it is a Christian school, then Christian values will be upheld.

I think the main issue is that institutions typically are "behind the times" in their conservatism.

Once upon a time there would be no toleration of homosexuality - it took a major shift in social attitude towards homosexuality before institutions like schools and (some) churches followed suit.

Where I work, the guidelines on nail polish for checkout staff allow neutral to red. Once upon a time, red nail polish was considered... well, tarty! Times change.

Institutions in their endeavour to be seen as 'socially acceptable' restrict everything you wear, pierce (and these days eat!) on the premises.

I'll bet it hurts to be told it's okay to love someone, but please don't bring them here where our backers (ahem - valued P&C) are forced to see it.

Maybe the students should take photos of their partners on a poster - under the heading "Look Who (Isn't) Coming to Dinner".

While the school's comments reek of double standards and barely covered distaste, we all know they'll get there, even if they kick and scream along the way.
on 18 April, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Dubby, unless your Greek translation expands on the various options when translating from ancient Greek to modern English, you missed the point. One translator will have one opinion and another a conflicting one. Take the word Raca used in Matthew 5:22, it's understood to be a term of contempt in Aramaic, some scholars suggest it was used to describe homosexuals, others disagree. Arsenokoitēs (Greek) is another word with multiple possible meanings, is it homosexuality, a specific sexual act or a form of sexual slavery? It's a word that Paul used. Unless you believe that the translators were divinely inspired there is a lot of room for error.

By saying that we should consider the society of the time in picking which teachings to follow you confirm my point. Who makes the decision as to which rules were only for that time (such as the orders against women) and which are still valid today? Rather than being a rock Christian belief appears shifty with a very human hand and motivations at play. A case can be made that the Bible condemns judging others and condemns homophobia, another view holds that it condemns homosexuals and yet another view could say that is all a mistake in the translation.
on 18 April, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
“Jason from Pomona” is quite right when he mentions “the example of Jesus of the New Testament, who accepted everyone including prostitutes and tax collectors. It's debatable that Jesus would condone exclusive schools that exclude the poor and make judgments on the worthiness of others.” Quite true. Jesus did accept prostitutes and tax collectors (extortionists).

But why does Jason also ignore that its also true that Jesus didn’t accept or condone, let alone promote, prostitution and extortion by taxes.

In fact He unambiguously identified these as sin and directed those practicing them to stop. To a prostitute he said "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:11) To the tax collectors he said "Collect no more than what you have been ordered to." (Luk 3:13) ie ‘stop ripping people off’.

It always intrigues me that when Christians object to so much that is offensive to them, say on TV, the usual response is "well you don’t have to watch – you know whats on - change channels". If we say “but we pay taxes too - its all partially funded by our contributions” the answer is basically 'YOU are out of line - pull your head in - why should we have to put up with your prejudices, etc etc etc"..... along with the requisite cries of 'judgementalist'!!

So why is it that if people dont like Churchie's stand on what is, to them, such an important issue, that don’t they take their business elsewhere? They knew what they are getting in to when they choose to sign up. No one is forcing them to go to Churchie.

Why is it supposedly hypocrisy, judmentalism and bigotry for Christians to object to having someone else’s values forced on them, but it is not so when others force their values on Christians?
on 3 May, 2008 at 12:10 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Gelog - are you comparing someone who has objections to something offensive on television to a teenager whose parents have paid a lot of money so he can attend a school, only to have that school exclude him from an important social event and denounce his lifestyle? Because that's what we're talking about here. And as for 'taking their business elsewhere’... removing your child from his school in his final year of study is somewhat different to picking up a remote control and changing the channel.

The decision this school has made has two effects: firstly, some kids are allowed to bring their partners to the formal and some kids aren't. Putting ideology and discrimination aside for the moment, that's just plain unfair. The school formal is such an important social event, and these poor kids have probably waited for it all year. How sad for them.

The second, obviously much larger effect, is that the headmaster has actually (wittingly or otherwise) made a rather significant statement with his decision about 'what is appropriate and what is not'. He has, in effect, cast a public judgment on these kids and made their lifestyles wrong. Regardless of whether the school would like to dismiss it as merely a trifling matter of matching boys up to girls for the heel-and-toe, if someone feels marginalised and discriminated against, it's a much more serious issue.

We have laws that protect people - all people, including teenagers - from discrimination, and a school should not believe they are exempt from those laws on the grounds of the religion they promote. It's just not on.

Imagine the fury if a kid from a non-religious school had been excluded from the formal because he or she was a Christian, Muslim, Scientologist, Hare Krishna, follower of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. This whole thing is absurd, and frankly I'm absolutely dumbfounded that we're still having conversations like this.
on 21 September, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Its all well and good to demonise churchie for not allowing gays, but in strictly practical terms, since most formals include progressive dancing, having an unequal number of girls and guys is going to be an issue, quite seperate from the issues of what policies a school has and shouldn't have.

Have your say

We welcome comments on our stories and blogs - after all it's your site. Please note comments are moderated, should be on-topic and not abusive