Gosh, I'm really hoping this isn't true. I'm all for gay rights, but it is not the role of the faculty to force people to sign on their support for something that go against their belief system.
Actually, the most interesting part of this, for me, is a throaway line near the end:
"The lawsuit also alleges that Booker was required by the school to sign a contract pledging to follow the National Association of Social Work's code of ethics and that the contract required her to recognize the rights of LGBT people."
This part is trickier to think about. As a social work program, the school, particularly does have a responsibility to educate and support the field's code of ethics, in an effort of education responsible professionals. As a social worker, she may come into contact with GLBT people and will need to know what the laws are surrounding this group and what their rights are as people. I wouldn't prefer a social worker that thought I was going to hell, but if she was providing good service and advocating for me, I would keep her on. At the least the school has a responsibility to help her learn how to excuse herself from a case involving glbt people while upholding their dignity. At least that's my opinion.
In higher ed, we sometimes encounter the same thing, students don't want to learn about GBLT development because they think it's wrong, for example. However, there are a set of standards for student affairs professionals that include glbt folks in it. Understanding the law, development, rights, etc of queer people doesn't mean that you like them. You will, as a professional, have an obligation to serve them well, as they are part of your reality in higher education.
__________________________________________
from 365gay.com
A graduate student at Missouri State is suing the university and administrators claiming the school targeted her for abuse when she refused to endorse a gay adoption project.
Emily Brooker alleges in the suit, filed in federal court, that her First Amendment right to free speech violated. In court papers, filed by her attorneys, the conservative Christian Alliance Defense Fund, Brooker says that her graduate School of Social Work class was told to write and sign letters to the Missouri Legislature in support of gay adoption.
The state Department of Social Services lifted a ban on gays from becoming foster parents following a court ruling that the practice was illegal because no state law specifically barred gay fostering.
But lawmakers have been threatening to bring in a bill that would forbid gays from becoming either foster or adoptive parents. The measure is expected to come up again in the next session of the Legislature.
Brooker claims in her lawsuit that after she refused to sign the letter because of her religious beliefs she was subjected to a two-and-a-half hour interrogation by faculty members, who allegedly asked her personally invasive questions such as, "Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?" and "Do you think I am a sinner?"
"In an institution of higher learning, students should be marked on the quality of their work, not discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David French.
"At MSU, a Christian student was interrogated by faculty members who attacked her religious beliefs and threatened to withhold her degree. This is a clear violation of her First Amendment rights."
The lawsuit also alleges that Booker was required by the school to sign a contract pledging to follow the National Association of Social Work's code of ethics and that the contract required her to recognize the rights of LGBT people.
The lawsuit names the university's Board of Governors, school President Michael T. Nietzel and four faculty members at the School of Social Work.
In a statement the university it would not comment until it had completed an internal investigation but stressed that "Missouri State University has been and is committed to protecting the rights of its students, as well as its faculty and staff, including free speech and expression, and freedom of religion."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 68
I admit a bit of bias against her case given the organization that has taken up her case—that said our institutions of higher learning should be the freest of free speech zones.
No one should be forced to believe anything that they do not want to. But that same person, people such as you Kent, are trying to force your beliefs upon us and make us believe it. Be careful of casting stones. That makes you a hypocrit.
There is also the moral decision to go into a helping field that has a set of moral/ethical standards that recognize the dignity of all individuals and to provide them with a consistent and equitable level of care and then reject that. There is a moral decision to regard a group of people as inferior. There is a moral decision to let your choice of religion intrude on other individuals lives.
A person makes a choice about their profession. A person makes a choice about their religion. If they do not think that they can, for any reason fulfill the requirements of the profession because of their religion, perhaps they need to consider another job. If they can't accommodate [accomidate] the requirements of the job, perhaps they need to move on.
Additionally, you're mixing some points there Kent, as I see it. It's tough to call something an aberration [aborition] and subscribe to the concept of (intelligent) design. Isn't it all in the design? I'm also curious about which abberant species died out because they were only one sex, which is implied by your comment. In actuality, there are species that are able to change there sex depending on a variety of conditions. There are also species that are both sexes. There is also homosexual behavior that has been documented in a number of species that are still able to propagate [probigate] successfully.
a well written article, John M.
Think about it: if I said to you that my religious beliefs told me that black people were inferior to white people, do you think I should be a social worker?
No one is forcing her NOT to believe something. On the other hand, no one is forcing her to be a social worker. It's a choice with ramifications.
As usual, I think Joe T. is on the money with this one.
" Just another example of a minority overtaking the majority, Why is this? Because people dont have the moral fiber to cry B.S. when they see it. The only reason we have to deal with these situations is because of the imorality running rampant in this country. Like a bunch of children running around with no supervision. Are you afraid to make a moral judgement and say something is wrong? Homosexual behavior is an aborition of normal sexuality, and they should'nt have any parental rights. In nature, same sexes cant reproduce, by design, so the aborant species dies out, not by fostering or adopting to probigate the species. Whats next, rights for pedifiles?, the list goes on. I will call it what it is, wrong and B.S. No one should have to accomidate an aboration. I hurt for those trapped in the sin of homosexuality, but its still sin, out of control. Get some morals and stand your ground. Its only logical, by design! Allways in Love,"
Kent -
Although I may not take the same religious angle you do in this argument, you did make some excellent points in your post.
Moral fiber to stand up to the PC nonsense running rampant in our society is really lacking. To make a judgement about anyone or anything seems to be akin to being a Nazi these days. Its sick, and the Left is to blame.
This story just makes me ill. The GLBT agenda seems to be getting in the way of an otherwise seemingly good student just trying to learn her trade. Forcing their belief system on her just makes fewer people want to go into this arena. Sad too, because we need more Social Workers with moral fiber.
Yeah, and YOU shouldn't be a social worker either, because you hold views that would obviously get in the way of serving the population you are hired to serve.
You're also an idiot.
BTW, buy a dictionary.
I think that there is also a form of morality that acknowledges the dignity of people. If a person didn't want to provide service for Jews or Atheists or Mormons because they found their lifestyles immoral, would that be appropriate?
- use education (and the NEA) to further teach and inform America of the 'rightness' of the GLBT way.
- march in the streets in Gay Pride parades, extolling the wisdom of GLBT beliefs. And sue the city if they don't let you march.
- have a catchy multi-colored banner that looks like it is very tolerant of all opinions.............except those who disagree with its 'rightness'.
- cozy up to politicians and promise large blocs of voters if they adhere to the GLBT line of thinking.
- erode local morality and decency laws, because those are just icky and cramp our style.
- infiltrate Hollywood, and promote GLBT views on TV so that everyone can see 'how to behave'.
- excoriate publicly anyone who refutes or de-legitimizes GLBT beliefs.
- always bring Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter into the discussion as "insensitive louts of the Right Wing" even when the discussion has nothing to do with them.
- infiltrate corporate America, and implement corporate 'GLBT sensitivity training'. Once again, if they refuse, sue them.
- Christians must be converted, or ridiculed - whichever works best and fastest.
John, you mean you didn't get your copy? Go to Boytown and get one. Look for the rainbow banner.
LMAO!
I didn't know you knew the gay agenda. That is not the gay agenda at all. Right now, gays and lesbians are working on marriage equality and the Employment Non Discrimination Act. If you think it is an agenda well I can't help you.
I live in Chicago...........are you kidding? Most 3 year olds here know the GLBT agenda. Its crammed down your throat like a..................
Well, its crammed down your throat, let's just leave it there. LOL
I believe that every single state voter referendum for Gay Marriage has gone down to humiliatingly lopsided defeats at the ballot box. So why go against the will of the people if they've spoken so strongly about this topic?
Of course.
Its the one that's been around for at least 50,000 years :
- get married.
- have babies.
- raise them, love them, teach them.
- let them go.
- marry them off to other heterosexuals.
- be happy.
- play with your grandchildren.
- repeat this cycle into eternity.
I think Gay Marriage has been given a legitimate shot at the ballot box. It has failed miserably. Maybe this just isn't meant to be.
Leviticus 24:16
anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.
Numbers 1:51
Whenever the tabernacle is to move, the Levites are to take it down, and whenever the tabernacle is to be set up, the Levites shall do it. Anyone else who goes near it shall be put to death.
From Leviticus:
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Leviticus 20:27
" 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death.
Leviticus 24:16
anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death.
Also, I hope that you have brought up the issue of having female teacher, judges, legislators, etc with your local government, as well the stores that sell fancy clothes, pearls, gold, or hair braiding services:
From 1 Timothy 2:
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
You'll probably want to bring up American farming practices as well:
Exodus 23:9-11
"For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest the crops, 11 but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it, and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove.
I bring these up only to point out that no one follows all the rules laid forth in the Bible, no one. Everyone interprets the Bible to an extent. They look for the messages that they see in it. There are bound to be differences in those viewpoints. I guess on some level, we are all taking chances with the way we chose to live our lives vis-a-vis our religious texts; and will have to account for those decisions at a later point.
I would say that your heterosexual agenda is closer to the hopes I have for myself than the homosexual agenda is.
I think that if you'll look across posts on the subject, you'll see that what you presented as a homosexual agenda (with talk of conversation, castigation, rightness, infiltration, and ridicule) is more along the lines of the posts of zealots (of any stripe) than gays in particular. I think gays are like most people, their agenda likely includes:
1) try to make it though each day
2) get an education
3) get a job that you can deal with, pays well, and makes a bit of difference in the world
4) find someone you can love and want to spend the rest of your life with
5) decide if you want to try to bring kids into the world
6) try and raise them to be the best people they can be
7) leave the world a better place than you found it
8) laugh
9) have fun
10) die peacefully
Although I value you and the clergy in my personal life, I have huge misgivings about using quotations from the Bible to back up my secular beliefs. It is a divisive tactic, and I won't do it...............but at the same time, I can't accept that you do it either. Just trying to keep the playing ground fair, here.
Although I am married and straight, I do not advertise this. It is my belief that if someone asks you about your status in private, it is OK to engage them............but until that happens, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy should apply to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.
I don't believe that there should be extra laws for those of one sexual orientation or not, so I'm against all these public pushes for GLBT rights. They are already covered by mountains of previous legislation.
What I strenuously object to is the shameless tactics of GLBT folks to force my acceptance of their lifestyle. Please don't insult my intelligence by trying to tell me I'm wrong, misguided, or mistaken. The agenda is plain and clear, and here in Chicago it is out in the open - as it is in many of our larger cities.
I appreciate what you're saying about homosexuality being a genetic situation. I had a friend die of AIDS in my arms many years ago, and in his last dying words he told me that there was no one to blame but him and his outrageous lifestyle. He asked me once "do you think I'd live this pained existence if I could just quietly live the life of a straight guy instead?". The answer was obvious.
A quiet, non-pushy existence is all I ask from any of my neighbors, straight OR gay. But that is not the GLBT way - at least not from what I've observed over the years...............and that is what I object to.
Heterosexuality if forced down our throats every day all the time in every situation. I don't think the few who are out of the closet should bother you all that much. The GLBT way is to just get what everyone else already has. No more, no less.
I would think that everyone would want to strive for what I listed as the Heterosexual agenda. However, in my travels I have noticed that GLBT folks are not the most peaceful folks around. Large percentages of especially the Gay Male population are what I'd call a zealot. You know, the ACT UP types. The ones who rollerblade in a thong of chain mail and no shirt at a Gay Pride parade while telling you "its my right" to do so, at the top of his lungs, so everyone can witness the public castigation you just received. Those folks do this movement more harm than any epidemic ever did.
I live a quiet, unassuming personal lifestyle. Its all I ask of my neighbors of all types, colors, religions, etc.
I don't wish to accept the GLBT lifestyle as mainstream or legitimate, but at the same time I recognize they have a right to practice it. Forced acceptance isn't even a probability - and I think this is reflected in the negative voting results the Gay Marriage issue has received from the populace.
I can assure that the majority of gay people neither own nor have ever worn a chainmail thong. It would be like saying that Hugh Heffner or Howard Stern or Jenna Jamison or all prostitutes stand for the entire straight community. It's just not fair. I've been to those parades and seen those same folks; I struggle a lot with that being the message that is seen publically. You made that point earlier, I believe, when you lamented that every time conservatives are attacked, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh is brought into the conversation, whether they belong there or not. Bringing chainmail thongs into a converstaion about marriage is a similar tactic. Because being gay is, for the most part, an invisible minority, you probably don't even realize the number of people you see every day who are gay. Most are living peaceful lifes like yours.
That said, when individuals don't have the same set of rights (the right to marry the person they love, to adopt children, to serve their country in the military openly, to live without fear of being attacked for simply being who they are), I think those individuals have a right to speak up about it. There are states where gay people can lose their job solely for the reason that they are gay. It isn't a special right to protect against this, it is a basic right that is afforded to other groups. I understand the point that right now a person in that same state could lose their job for being straight just as easily, but my guess is that this is a much more rare occurance. Although the laws are equal, they are not equitable: yes a gay man can marry, but not the person (gender) of his chosing.
One more thought, don't ask, don't tell just doesn't work the same way for both groups equally either. Wearing a wedding ring, having pictures of your family, talking about where you (not you, Bret, a generic you) and your spouse went to dinner or what you did over the weekend: these are all "telling" your sexual orientation. I'm not asking for acceptance from you, Bret, you don't have to agree with anything that I do or think, but, living here, I do believe that I have a right to the same ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that you do. And if you wanted to work on a law banning chainmail thongs from public spaces, I'd be right there with you...no one needs to see that.
You're probably right - most likely we live similarly regarding this issue.
Here's where I think we differ : you're OK with things the way they are, and I'm disgusted by it. You'd probably never know by my outward appearance, however. It's just become so routine to see - and that is what I find repulsive. Fearing a lawsuit, no one says anything.
No one seems to object anymore - except at the ballot box, where they can't be labelled a bigot, or worse.
I guess what you're talking about is the standard, the starting place, the norm, the baseline...........and that is what was given to us by nature. Tab A fits in Tab B pretty nicely, and produces Baby C. The mechanics of it are near-perfect. Not so in the GLBT way.
I'm glad you find as much humor as I do in the chainmail thong. The Chicago Gay Pride parade this year had tons of them - each more outrageous as the day went on.
Let me just say this: if, as you wonderful, kind, thoughtful, generous Christians, assert, God is love, then let's just look at these comments and see who it is who is speaking from a place of love and an attempt to understand, to be at least civil. Then see who's doing the judging and the namecalling and the condemning and the hating.
I have no hope that anyone will actually do that, will actually even consider asking themselves hard questions about the way they are in the world. That makes me sadder than I can say.
You aren't afraid of lawsuits. I pray that on some level you're just plain ashamed of yourself.
You're sort of sliding around on your reasoning: it's digusting, it's not natural, they're too loud, they're too demanding, they wear thongs, they are trying to convert me...it makes is challeging to try and engage.
Your previous post lays out the situation in a well informed manner. You should write an article including that post.
Bret, You saw the pride parade this year and I did not get to it. I had a family emergency. I hope it was a nice parade. Much of what you see is more camp than the reality of how life is for gays and lesbians.
Its folks like you that make me happy that I can vote against the GLBT agenda in anonymous voting booths. The PC-crazed Left would sue my ass if I even whispered this in public. If I could speak freely and on an even playing field, I would. However, I live in Chicago, where no such arena exists.
And Wendy, I would never wrap myself in my cloth of Christianity on a site like this and in a discussion about secular issues. I would much rather argue the issue itself. In the long run, it isn't even about me, but about the millions of others who are just as disgusted by the aggressive nature of the GLBT situation. We vote in referendums about this stuff..............I just wonder why our votes don't seem to matter to those that don't like them.
And finally Wendy, I do not argue the issue from a position of shame. I just argue it truthfully.
"You're sort of sliding around on your reasoning: it's digusting, it's not natural, they're too loud, they're too demanding, they wear thongs, they are trying to convert me...it makes is challeging to try and engage."
Choose any of them. However, if we want to keep this about the facts and not interpretation, let's argue all the referendums that have been defeated in state elections on the Gay Marriage topic.
I would like to discuss the fact that there are millions of us out here in America that feel the Gay agenda has attempted to steamroll us - even when we vote overwhelmingly against it. Do we need to keep voting on it, or will once every few years be enough to have our legal wishes exercised?
It is irrelevant whether the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. I suspect that that's not the case, and it's usually easier to get the paranoid nutjobs out to vote than it is the average Joe America who basically says, "I don't care what people do in their own lives; it's their business." But in any case, the Constitution is designed to validate the will of the majority WHILE AT THE SAME TIME protecting the rights of the minority. Up until 1968, it was illegal for blacks to marry whites in some states. And I'm sure that if you held a referendum in any of those states, that kind of bigotry would be approved of. That doesn't make it right or American.
I disapprove of homosexuality. It would never stop me from renting to them, or selling them anything.
I oppose Gay Marriage because I disapprove of it for financial reasons. Insurance, for example. I have been at 2 companies that took on the added burden of gay partners under their insurance umbrella. Since insurance for gay couples is much more expensive when incorporated under a larger group health plan, our insurance rates skyrocketted both times. Why? The reason given by our health care provider was the added costs of AIDS treatments, and weaker overall health in the gay community. Our health care provider was sued for that statement, but we all knew it was the truth.
Your anecdote about black/white marriage in the 60's would not have the same health effect, so therefore I probably never would have opposed that. The GLBT agenda does - so I oppose it. That's not the only reason, just the best economic one.
Needless to say, I don't want to be seen as supporting their lifestyle choices by paying for it. I dropped my health care coverage soon afterwards, so in the end, the GLBT agenda ended up affecting me in ways I could never have imagined.
You are amazing. It seems that the GLBT community has seriously harmed your life in many ways. As a gay man, I want to apologize. No one should have to go through what you have been through. Maybe you are the like canary in the coal mine, here.
You don't have to apologize.
I spend my money where I think it will do the best good for me. I think there are a lot of people that don't consciously want to support the GLBT agenda - they just seem hopeless against it. These are the millions of folks who vote against Gay Marriage and other GLBT issues, at the ballot box.
Many of these same folks don't care about an issue as long as it doesn't affect them. However, once it does affects them, they care a great deal. Insurance is one such issue. The problem is - this stuff is all going on below the radar of most people. It doesn't pop up all the time, so most people think "hey, I voted against this, so now its not a problem". If only it were that easy.
There are others, if you care to discuss them, but you get the point.
A few thoughts. One would think that gay marriage would assist in limiting the behaviors that would lead to increased risks among gay men. Therefore, it would seem that you would support it. As has been seen time and time again, individuals who are very closeted, perhaps married, and proclaimed homophobes are just as likely, if not more likely to engage in very high risk behavior, putting more people at risk.
Gay individuals are now contributing to companies' insurance premiums which includes insurance on children, which they are less likely to have, and spouses, which they are less likely or not able to have. They are having to pay larger premiums to get their 'unrelated' partners private insurance.
Perhaps the better argument for you to make is to question why it is the gay people have higher insurance from the people providing your company with your plan. I believe that there are some strong arguments that could be made against such a position.
Finally, I hope that you find the same level of indignation that your company would dare to provide insurance for those who smoke, drink, eat fast food, are overweight, pregnant, are old, ill, or disabled, drive fast, are a minority or poor, live in an urban or very rural area, or don't exercise as all of these also increase your premiums as well.
As far as the voting, I do think there needs to be a better job done by the gay community in taking the position to the people. However, it is so often misrepresented as an "attack on marriage", the bill is a "defense of marriage" or a "defense of traditional values" which is just silly, I think you'd agree. If two men getting married across town ends a straight marriage, it must have been on very weak ground to start with. Surveys have found that the wording of such a proposal makes a great difference in the way in which people respond to it. Most people believe that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against. Most don't realize all the benefits that one gets from marriage and when they do, do not necessarily want to preclude others from those rights.
I tried to find some stuff on additional health risks to gays and lesbians, and the only non-partisan (either way) thing that I could find (admittedly with only about 10 minutes of looking) was from the student journal of the American Medical Association, which stated the major health risk to gay and lesbian patients is provider homophobia.
"A few thoughts. One would think that gay marriage would assist in limiting the behaviors that would lead to increased risks among gay men. Therefore, it would seem that you would support it. As has been seen time and time again, individuals who are very closeted, perhaps married, and proclaimed homophobes are just as likely, if not more likely to engage in very high risk behavior, putting more people at risk."
I really don't care to get deeply into this subject and find out its root causes - that's for the GLBT folks to iron out. I just don't want to take on the added burden of a group with high insurance costs. How this group attained its "high-risk" status from Actuaries is not my concern, as it is not their concern how I attained my "low-risk" status. I feel that delving deeply into this subject would require a certain level of 'wanting to fix the problem'..............and that can only lead down 2 paths :
1) we spend time, money, and effort studying every aspect of the Gay lifestyle. We put out huge sums of money to educate and bring them into the mainstream of thought. We help and counsel them. We ultimately accept them, even with their shortcomings.
OR
2) we take them as they are, classify them, and let things stay the way they are.................with no money expenditure.
I think the insurance companies would be sued out of existence if #1 was implemented.
You make some interesting and commendable arguments. However, I think you need to make a very strong case for Gay Marriage to the real, true homophobes out there - not the people like me who have a lot of friends who are homosexual (I just don't like their lifestyle). Those are the people that constantly vote against the GLBT agenda.
Actually fearing homosexuals would be ridiculous here in Chicago, especially on the North side, where I live. They're all around me - a much higher percentage than the median population, for sure.
Bret, you are a homophobe. Deal with it. I don't particularly care, just so long as you don't get it all over me. If you don't discriminate in hiring and renting, then good on you -- that's all anyone can ask.
Homosexuality is not a "lifestyle." Homosexuals have many "lifestyles." Around where I live, their "lifestyles" involve going to PTA meetings, having barbecues, going to Home Depot on Saturday to pick up the home improvement supplies, taking their children to soccer practice, mowing their lawns.
As for the insurance issue, the last freakin' person I'm going to ask about who to insure and not to insure is the insurance company, because if they had a say in it, then (as someone else pointed out) the smokers and the fatties, the Type 1 diabetics, the people with a family history of breast cancer -- in short, anyone with even the POTENTIAL for being sick -- would be kicked out of the group. Sorta like how in Florida and Louisiana they're refusing to insure people for floods. Why? Because they might have a flood! My insurance rates have gone up consistently every year, and since my company does not insure gay partners, it's not that. Consider the possibility that someone's blowing smoke up your skirt on that subject.
The notion that gay people are not as healthy overall as heterosexuals is a statistical sleight of hand that basically justifies not doing what you don't want to do. It all depends on how narrowly or broadly you define the group under discussion. For instance, if you limited the population to only gay WOMEN, I think you might find that there is no statistical difference between the gay and straight population -- not sure, but it's an educated hunch. If you limited the comparison to between gay men and some other high risk group -- say, poor people of color living in high risk neighborhoods -- you'd get a whole other statistic.
And again, not to belabor the point, I think you'd find -- if you did a statistical analysis -- that the average black male in this country is a hell of a lot less "healthy" than the average white male -- they're more likely to die from violence, more likely to develop heart disease, etc. etc. etc. I know that you wouldn't approve of denying medical insurance to black people because of those kind of statistics, so why should gay people be any different?
Lookit, Bret, there are a lot of people whose "lifestyles" I don't like either. I don't particularly like fundamentalist Christians, although some of my closest coworkers are fundamentalist Christians. But there is a world of difference between personal preference and legal rights.
Because homosexuality is not a position someone takes. It's not an argument that is made. It is not a belief system. Any of those things can be argued, with validity. But when you say you are opposed to the fact of someone's existence, it's a whole other thing. I know, I know, you will say that you're not opposed to their existence, just to their "lifestyle," but what people fail to understand is that it is NOT a "lifestyle." To call homosexuality a "lifestyle" is a complete misunderstanding of the word.
Look, if I told you that I hated Jews, that I considered it a "choice" that people made, whether to be Jewish or not and that therefore I was somehow justified in "disapproving" of them, wouldn't you call me anti-semitic? I mean, wouldn't you be right about that? Because I would be saying that Jews are only truly acceptable to me when they're not Jewish. Indeed, I think it would be a whole lot easier to argue that being Jewish is in some ways, a choice. Does that mean then that there are no anti-Semites in the world?
You know, TJ, I just never run into homosexuals who say wow, being gay looks really cool, I think I'll become one of them. Never met one. It is pretty clear to me that people are not gay because they choose to be but just because they are, plain and simple. So there's nothing to "oppose," except possibly their very existence.
Is heterosexuality a choice as well? Or do you take a Freudian/Kinseyian position that we are all naturally bisexual and just fall through social pressure one way or the other? Did you wake up one morning TJ and say, golly that guy is so hot, but I'm gonna resist temptation and like that girl instead?
Also, you must then believe that all gays and lesbians are inherently weaker than heterosexuals, for they have failed the trial, right? They are somehow deficient that they were unable to overcome their desires?
Finally, if you talk to people of any sexual orientation, the vast vast majority will tell you that they didn't have a choice; that this was something that was there as long as they can remember. For many gay people, that feeling of being different existed before they were even aware of either sex as attractive or desirable. This being the case, might it not be worse to deny the way in which God made a person; to tell them to shut down their potential for love, for connection? Because if God is love, then to reject the potential for love in one's life is nothing less than rejecting God.
And that's the point you people seem to not be able to get a handle on. I speak for PFLAG in public schools, in the Safe Schools Program here in Massachusetts. We very specifically and emphatically speak ONLY about civil rights as it relates to gays, particularly in schools. We do NOT discuss religious beliefs, and if anyone asks us, we tell them that that's a conversation to have with their parents and/or religious leader. If anyone asks sexual questions, we simply say that it's an inappropriate and personal question -- if they have questions, they should speak to their parents or doctor or health teacher. What we DO say is that gay people -- particularly gay children, since that's mostly who we are talking about in schools -- have a right to live their lives without being attacked in school or the streets. They have the right to be physically safe. They have the right to NOT be bullied and harassed and tormented, by classmates or teachers or administrators. And we educate kids as to the consequences of their behavior -- what "fag-baiting" and other namecalling does to human beings on the receiving end.
If you call this "teaching approval for homosexuality" or whatever, so be it. I say that it is people like you who create an environment where violence and hatred can fester and grow -- who give some kind of moral approval to hating homosexuals. I don't know how anyone calls that Christian behavior, but the consequences of your attitudes are real and profound and dangerous.
______________________________________
From 365gay.com
Missouri State University has demoted a professor and agreed to financial terms with a student who claimed the school targeted her for abuse when she refused to endorse a gay adoption project.
The settlement ends a federal lawsuit brought by Emijly Brooker who claimed her First Amendment right to free speech was violated. The university said that not all of Brooker's claims against the university were proven, but that it was concerned about some of them.
Under the agreement Prof. Frank Kauffman steps down as head of the Master of Social Work Program and is reassigned to non-teaching duties for the remainder of the fall semester. The official complaint against Brooker for refusing the assignment will be removed from her record and the university has agreed to pay her $9,000 and waive academic fees for two years in the Master of Social Work program. The school also agreed to pay her living expenses for two years as she pursues her graduate degree.
And I honestly don't see what God's intent has to do with it? God also intended women to be silent and not rule over men (Timothy) and for Levites to be the only ones that build houses of worship (Numbers or Leviticus, can't remember off the top of my head), and that daughters could be sold into slavery (Exodus). So until I see you advocating for all that, I don't think your limited biblical slice has any merit.
Numbers 1:51
Whenever the tabernacle is to move, the Levites are to take it down, and whenever the tabernacle is to be set up, the Levites shall do it. Anyone else who goes near it shall be put to death.
From Leviticus:
44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
From 1 Timothy 2:
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Leviticus 24:16
anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.
Again I'm not judging you, but wondering how often you repent for not stoning someone to death when you hear them blashpeming, whether your temple was built by Levites or not, if you, in fact vote against female teacher, leaders, and policitians, or have exercised your right to own slaves from canada or mexico?