Comments on: Is there more to the Dakota Ary story than has been reported?

By: StraightGrandmother

StraightGrandmother — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:30:32 +0000

By: Reyn

Reyn — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:30:32 +0000

I have some respect for Dr. Throckmorton, he is one of the only evangelicals of any stripe that I have any respect for at all – and I thank him for having this blog.
A note to Pete — while I do not question whether or not Franks is gay, there is no mention of that in any article I read as a factual statement. Ary PERCEIVED him to be gay, which is a very different thing. Perception is certainly allowed. I would, for example, predict that if you could be a mouse in his private space, you would find in 10 years time (assuming he is still in the body then) that even if completely hidden from public view (closeted) Ary will be having intimate relationships with men. Why? My perception is that the level of distaste for homosexuality, particularly clothed in religion that the boy evidences is almost always based on internal struggle. It is, contrary to what many here would say, a struggle that can never be won however. Religion doesn’t create that type of hate, unless the first victim of the hate is the self. That however is my perception, and while I think that experience (I cannot tell you how many times I’ve seen this play out – including two classmates from high school who eventually while I was in college approached me when I was home visiting and asked me for sex. Both married by then I would note. I refused, but they found each other and are still on the down-low.) indicates that it will be true, I could be wrong. So could Ary on Mr. Franks.
Regards,
Reyn

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:28:43 +0000

Incredible!
NEWSFLASH: The tiny but vocal gay lobby in your country have succeeded in making it impossible to even express an opinion about the morality of gay behaviour without being labelled bigoted/prejudiced/intolerant/politically incorrect, etc!
What happened to freedom of speech? And how is it possibly harassment to express an opinion about morality? Dakota Ary’s comment was a statement of opinion about right and wrong, not even directed at the teacher. It seems obvious that HE is the one being harassed!
The thing that makes this particular event ridiculous is that the rest of the world thought teachers in your country were primarily concerned about getting SHOT in the classroom, but it seems there is something worse- a 14yr old boy expressing his OPINION about a moral issue! Ooh, scary!
Why has there not been any kind of discussion about the actual TRUTH of the matter- is it wrong or not? Shouldn’t the classroom be exactly the RIGHT venue for that? Where else are your kids going to learn to discuss contemporary issues in a safe, open-minded environment where everyone is free to voice ANY opinion and have it critiqued rationally?
Or are gays and sympathisers subconsciously afraid that their behaviour may be WRONG, and prefer to squelch any discussion of the matter rather than come under scrutiny?
In your culture, has TRUTH become irrelevant?

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:28:43 +0000

Ken said: “…there really isn’t anything to discuss about it. Homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality, there is no “right” or “wrong” to it.”
That may be your point of view, as it is the view of gay activists, but as a statement it has huge logical flaws, no reliable evidence, and can and should be debated.
Harsh treatment (such Ary’s suspension) of people who disagree with this viewpoint is unfair and smacks of thought control. While gay activists continually portray gays as victims to gain sympathy for their cause, the victim here seems to be a 14yr old Christian schoolboy, and the bully a gay teacher.
Patrocles has interesting observations. I had assumed the classroom would be a legitimate venue for discussion of contemporary issues. But I suppose it would be naive to imagine this to be possible if the teacher has a personal interest in promoting one particular viewpoint.
Humanity’s intrinsic egocentric bias makes it very difficult to have a completely impartial discussion of propositional truth.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:28:43 +0000

Well, Patrocles, we’d probably need a full transcript of what was said in the class before we make a sound judgement on whether Ary’s comment was a ‘legitimate argument’!
But this post is not really about a particular comment at a particular point in a particular class; it’s concerning suggestions that there was more to the situation than the comment.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:28:43 +0000

Incidentally, I don’t think that it is accurate to say that the ‘thrust’ of this post is ‘question the veracity’ of Dakota Ary. It appears that the situation that led to Ary’s being disciplined was perhaps more complex than originally thought, and this is what this post is about.
I saw the initial post (/2011/09/23/high-school-student-opposed-to-homosexuality-will-not-have-negative-mark-on-record/) on this controversy, and, at that time, questioned whether the disciplinary action taken was appropriate (my view then was that it was not). Since that post, further information appears to have come to light (see this post); that information certainly caused me to question my initial judgement, though, like Warren, I would want know much more before arriving at a firm view.
(I take an interest as an educator myself – and one that it no stranger to having strongly held opinions expressed from time to time in my classes. Professionally, I have a ‘duty of care’ for all my students, including those who would be hurt by being branded as ‘wrong’ because of their sexual identity or orientation. Another point: in places like the UK and the USA, religious affiliation is genuinely a matter of choice, and those of us who are Christians should expect to be ‘disagreed with’ – that is ‘part of the package’, according to Christ himself; there is, however, a significant corpus of evidence that suggest that sexual identity and orientation are [at least in part] ‘intrinsic’ to a human person, and this, I believe, points to a moral obligation, under ‘natural law’, to promote respect and fair treatment.)

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:28:43 +0000

Pete – you’ve completely missed the point of this post.
The post is about reports that Ary did much more than simply ‘express an opinion’.

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:28:43 +0000

The last article in the “Dallas Voice”, quoted by Ken, seems to maintain that Ary’s remark was off topic, only caused by the accidental use of the word “Christian”.
But that’s not what Frank allegedly told his friends before. Frank (or Vann) had then said that Ary tried to devalue the teacher as a kind of insider authority on Christian affairs.
That’s a legitime argument. The teacher speaks as a kind of authority and the pupil argues that the teacher, being a promoter of homosexuality and thus not a Christian, can’t claim this authority.
– An interesting point in contemporary American thought is the inability to state positively wherefore (and thus, when) freedom of expression must be protected. (I’ve referred for that to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
Now, people who express an opinion do nearly always “much more than simply express an opinion” (Willmer). If we have no clue what’s the positive use of freedom of expression, we will always judge a case by this “more”, the possibly negative byproducts of expression. And then there’s no core realm in which freedom of expression is protected.
My personal idea is, that arguments are to be protected, And Ary’s remark (understood as an attempt to devaluate the teacher’s authority about Christianism) was an argument.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:28:43 +0000

Pete says:
November 12, 2012 at 9:01 pm
“but as a statement it has huge logical flaws,”
What are the “logical flaws” in my statement about homosexuality being a normal variation of sexual orientation?
“no reliable evidence,”
there is a significant amount of research into the topic in the last 50 years which is why the APA (and several other related organizations) have said it is a normal variation of sexuality. And before you make any claims about that research how many of the original, peer-reviewed papers have you actually read?
“Harsh treatment (such Ary’s suspension) of people who disagree with this viewpoint is unfair and smacks of thought control.”
and if his original suspension was solely based on the one comment I would agree (and have in this blog). However, there is evidence to suggest Ary did more than make a single comment. Which leads me back to my question (that you never answered) about the source of your information about this case.
“the victim here seems to be a 14yr old Christian schoolboy, and the bully a gay teacher.”
How did Franks bully anyone?
“I had assumed the classroom would be a legitimate venue for discussion of contemporary issues. ”
I agree. However, it is not a place for students to disrupt the lecture/discussion by talking out of turn. And Ary himself admits he was not taking part in a classroom discussion, he says he was talking to a friend, loudly.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 19:28:43 +0000

Pete says:
November 4, 2012 at 3:45 pm
“What happened to freedom of speech?”
Nothing happened to it. However, it is limited in a classroom setting.
“And how is it possibly harassment to express an opinion about morality?”
You don’t think expressing an opinion, based on specific biblical texts, that gays should be put to death could be considered harassment or even threatening? Note, Ary did not say claim gays should be put to death, I’m merely pointing out, using a more extreme example, how “expressing an opinion” could be considered harassment. In Ary’s case the issue is whether he was deliberately disruptive in class.
“Dakota Ary’s comment was a statement of opinion about right and wrong, not even directed at the teacher.”
What are you basing this claim on? There has been more than one account of what happened, so I’m curious as to which account you are referring to.
“Why has there not been any kind of discussion about the actual TRUTH of the matter- is it wrong or not?”
Because there really isn’t anything to discuss about it. Homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality, there is no “right” or “wrong” to it.
“Shouldn’t the classroom be exactly the RIGHT venue for that?”
Not according to the christian conservatives who kick up a fuss anytime the topic is raised in schools. However, as I mentioned in the AFA deceives parents thread, the “morality” of sexuality is not something that should be taught in school, just the facts about it.