|
Post by Liberator on Jul 16, 2011 3:16:07 GMT
There's a simple contradiction here: Homosexuality means preference for your own sex over the other.
Racism, traditional sexism and every other prejudice mean prefernce for your own kind over the other. I cannot see how in any way, homosexual 'pride' in rejecting the other sex as equal human beings worth making love with differs in any way from disgust at white black person-lovers (of which I am one) or Nazi Jew-lovers.
The normality is to accept anybody as friend, and with sexual maturity, friend with sensual-sexual component too - seems there is now new term for it Friend with benefits, but I'd class that just Friend. But social indoctrination pressures that we may not treat the other sex equally inn that respect, and women are expected to pretend resentment to men who admit to fancying women sexually as honestly as women admit to wanting sex thrills without personal involvement and prefer to wank off with a machine than to relate to a man as a human equal that they might have to have some feelings for.
All the same, no machine yet that women scare of equality with men put up them, has yet emulated oral sex., and he biggest sick joke, that the feminists most ashamed of their vagina as passive (which of course for any woman with any self-respect,. it is not) are the sluts most addicted to machine vaginal masturbation because they cannot tolerate the relaxation and trust of throwing orgasm with a man's tongue up them. They can no more bear to lose control with a man than their male chauvinist rapist equivalents that they so envy and demand men to be, can with a woman.
|
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 16, 2011 4:31:11 GMT
This thread is about whether or not there can be diversity and dissenting viewpoints among counselors. Let the counsel seeker also have the freedom to pick and choose. [/color][/size][/quote] But that goes against the whole definition of a counsellor. I graduated from social work. The first thing we were ever taught was to be objective, and separate our own beliefs from that of the client. Showing certain emotions during counselling is seen as unprofessional. We have to objectively listen, with no prejudice, and then dispense advice from that. If Ward, hypothetically, was the only counsellor available at hand, i.e. all the other counsellors were with someone else, and a homosexual walked in in severe crisis what do you think would happen? If she turned that person away, because no one else could help them because everyone else is busy, what kind of counsellor is she? I imagine she would be fired, or at the very least, not hired as a counsellor at all. [/quote] Hi Lauren! Since you're new to the discussion here i'm reposting Mrs. Ward's own words on this dilemma on this YouTube video! The media is as well as well as many others are using the "politically correct" definition of "counseling", which in relation to homosexuality means a non-critical affirmation and support of this sexual orientation!
Mrs. Ward never refused to "counsel" this man as the English language dictionaries still define counseling!
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jul 16, 2011 5:13:46 GMT
Hi Lauren! Since you're new to the discussion here i'm reposting Mrs. Ward's own words on this dilemma on this YouTube video! The media is as well as well as many others are using the "politically correct" definition of "counseling", which in relation to homosexuality means a non-critical affirmation and support of this sexual orientation!
Mrs. Ward never refused to "counsel" this man as the English language dictionaries still define counseling! Anna, you said the politically correct definition of counselling, in relation to homosexuality means a non-critical affirmation, and support of this sexual orientation. Mrs Ward said, and I quote, "I had never refused to counsel homosexuals. I had simply refused to affirm their lifestyle." Now answer how refusing to affirm a person is homosexual, is anywhere near non-critical affirmation? Affirming doesn't mean she has to give up her Christian values. She could still think homosexuality is a sin until the cows come home, but when she is with a client, she has to accept that her client is gay, and that is her clients lifestyle, which she refuses to do.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 16, 2011 5:47:04 GMT
Hi Lauren! Since you're new to the discussion here i'm reposting Mrs. Ward's own words on this dilemma on this YouTube video! The media is as well as well as many others are using the "politically correct" definition of "counseling", which in relation to homosexuality means a non-critical affirmation and support of this sexual orientation!
Mrs. Ward never refused to "counsel" this man as the English language dictionaries still define counseling! Anna, you said the politically correct definition of counselling, in relation to homosexuality means a non-critical affirmation, and support of this sexual orientation. Mrs Ward said, and I quote, "I had never refused to counsel homosexuals. I had simply refused to affirm their lifestyle." Now answer how refusing to affirm a person is homosexual, is anywhere near non-critical affirmation? Affirming doesn't mean she has to give up her Christian values. She could still think homosexuality is a sin until the cows come home, but when she is with a client, she has to accept that her client is gay, and that is her clients lifestyle, which she refuses to do. If a homosexual seeks the counsel of someone like Mrs. Ward then he/she is hoping to be freed of homosexuality or homosexual desires. In a diverse world this option should be possible!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 16, 2011 8:11:47 GMT
If a homosexual seeks the counsel of someone like Mrs. Ward then he/she is hoping to be freed of homosexuality or homosexual desires. In a diverse world this option should be possible! If a homosexual person wants to be freed of homosexuality or homosexual desires, there are organisations set up with the specific objective of helping them to do this (with notable lack of long-term success, it should be noted). However, that is by no means the only reason why a homosexual person might seek counselling. If they presented themselves to a general counselling service in a University, say, they would rightly be affronted if the counsellor set about freeing them from something they had expressed no desire to be freed from.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jul 16, 2011 15:26:46 GMT
If a homosexual seeks the counsel of someone like Mrs. Ward then he/she is hoping to be freed of homosexuality or homosexual desires. In a diverse world this option should be possible! Actually, if you watch the video you provided me, it clearly states that a homosexual sought Mrs. Ward's counsel over a relationship problem with his same sex partner. He went to her for help with his relationship, which is one of the aspects of counselling. And the ONLY time a counsellor can suggest to a client to be 'freed of homosexuality or homosexual desires' is if the client initiates it first, not the counsellor.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jul 16, 2011 15:28:02 GMT
However, that is by no means the only reason why a homosexual person might seek counselling. If they presented themselves to a general counselling service in a University, say, they would rightly be affronted if the counsellor set about freeing them from something they had expressed no desire to be freed from. Agreed.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 6, 2011 14:10:31 GMT
Julea Ward's Appeal is being decided!In July, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit of Julea Ward, seen here, against Eastern Michigan University (EMU) after the school successfully contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics, which forbids counselors from discrimination in clinical practice.
Read more: www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/05/appeals-court-to-hear-case-graduate-student-dismissed-for-refusing-to-work-with/?test=latestnews#ixzz1a6fyS8vK www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/05/appeals-court-to-hear-case-graduate-student-dismissed-for-refusing-to-work-with/?test=latestnews QUOTE: Graduate Student's Lawsuit Against College Pits School Policy Vs. Religious Beliefs An attorney for a graduate student claiming she was wrongfully dismissed from her counseling job at a Michigan college because she refused to counsel gay and bisexual clients on their relationships argued in federal court Tuesday that his client was discriminated against because of her religious beliefs -- while the school insists her actions violated school policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati heard arguments in the case involving Julea Ward, a Detroit-area public school teacher. In July 2010, a federal judge dismissed Ward's lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University (EMU) after the school successfully contended she violated school policy and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics, which forbids counselors from discrimination in clinical practice. Following Tuesday's hearing, Jeremy Tedesco, an attorney for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said he believes the Appeals Court will overturn the ruling because it violated Ward’s First Amendment rights. "Ultimately, the university has a really tough battle here," Tedesco told FoxNews.com. "The bottom line to us is that this is very clear violation of her First Amendment rights in a couple of different contexts." Tedesco argued that Ward's rights were violated when she was required to enter a remediation program to change her beliefs toward homosexuality. He said EMU officials violated the U.S. Constitution when they refused to accommodate Ward's sincerely held beliefs by not allowing her to refer her client to another qualified candidate. "Rather than allow Julea to refer a potential client to another qualified counselor -- a common, professional practice to best serve clients -- EMU attacked and questioned Julea's religious beliefs and ultimately expelled her from the program because of them," Tedesco said in a statement. He said there is no timetable for the appellate court's decision. According to ADF attorneys, Ward was assigned a potential client seeking assistance regarding a homosexual relationship shortly after she enrolled in the counseling program in January 2009. Realizing she could not affirm the client's relationship without violating her own religious beliefs, Ward then asked a supervisor for assistance. After being advised to reassign the potential client, EMU officials informed Ward she would need to undergo a "remediation" program in order to stay in the counseling program, the attorneys claim. Ward was later dismissed from the program, and EMU officials denied her appeal. "Julea followed accepted professional practice and the advice of her supervising professor when she referred the potential client to someone who had no conscience issue with the subject to be discussed," Tedesco's statement continued. "She would have gladly counseled the client herself had the topic focused on any other matter. Julea was punished for acting professionally and ethically in this situation." In a statement to FoxNews.com, university officials said they are confident the July 2010 ruling will be upheld. "This case has never been about religion or religious discrimination," read a statement issued by Walter Kraft, vice president for communications at EMU. "It is not about homosexuality or sexual orientation. This case is about what is in the best interest of a client who is in need of counseling, and following the curricular requirements of our highly-respected and nationally-accredited counseling program ... This case is important to Eastern Michigan, it also is important to universities across the country, as well as to the several universities in Michigan that have filed briefs in support of our position in this case." In February, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting EMU. "Students seeking counseling must be able to trust that they will receive the help they need, free from discrimination," ACLU Deputy Legal Director Louise Melling said in a statement. "Counselors are entitled to their own religious beliefs, but they do not have a right to discriminate as part of their professional training at a public university." Michael Steinberg, legal director of the ACLU of Michigan, said public school counselors should not be "able to close the door" to homosexual students looking for guidance. In a 48-page opinion, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward's lawsuit in July, citing the university's rational basis for adopting the American Counseling Association's code of ethics. "Furthermore, the university had a rational basis for requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values," Steeh wrote. "In the case of Ms. Ward, the university determined that she would never change her behavior and would consistently refuse to counsel clients on matters with which she was personally opposed due to her religious beliefs -- including homosexual relationships."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2011 17:40:18 GMT
Ah thanks - I wondered what had happened to that case!
When will the decision be made?
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Oct 26, 2011 11:55:31 GMT
I still don't understand how she even had a case, but I still agree with the University on this, and since the university brings up the point at the end of the article about her being strongly influenced by her religious beliefs, she could also use her religious bias towards future students she counsels in other situations where a student is contemplating abortion, premarital sex, and whatever else the bible says is wrong.
She can't be impartial if that is the case, and counsellors need to be impartial.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 2, 2012 14:04:19 GMT
This thread was started with an article about Jennifer Keeton. The court has ruled unfavorably in her appeal. It seems the ruling court doesn't see diversity among counselors and their beliefs as corresponding to the 1st Admendment concept of free speech. Will this go to the Supreme Court? ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=10404&MediaType=1&Category=26 QUOTE:Jennifer Keeton Loses Fight To Counsel Her Anti-Gay Views December 20, 2011 Jennifer Keeton, the student fighting for her right to counsel her anti-gay views, has lost her legal challenge, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported. On Friday, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court's ruling in favor of Augusta State University's decision to expel Keeton from its counseling program. Keeton sued the university last year after they declared her anti-gay beliefs incompatible with the counseling profession. She argued that professors had violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of her faith. In its ruling, the lower court said it was reasonable for a public university to enforce academic standards. The three-judge appeals panel unanimously ruled that Keeton was unlikely to prevail in her case. According to the lawsuit, Keeton was presented with a remediation plan in May 2010, in which faculty members said her views on gay and transgender persons are “professionally suspect.” The plan called for Keeton to attend a minimum of three diversity workshops with an emphasis on the gay community, increase her exposure and interaction with gay populations (attending gay pride was suggested), and increase her study and research on improving counseling effectiveness with LGBT people. The graduate student was advised that failure to complete the plan could result in dismissal from the program. Keeton described the plan as an attack on her religious beliefs. The plan would require her to “tell clients wanting to hear it that homosexual sex is moral,” she said in court papers.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 2, 2012 14:29:24 GMT
It seems the ruling court doesn't see diversity among counselors and their beliefs as corresponding to the 1st Admendment concept of free speech. That's not what it's about. She can believe what she likes - but she must not impose those beliefs when she's counselling. Her claim that would be better expressed as that 'the plan' would require her not to tell clients that homosexual sex is immoral. And quite right, too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2012 16:42:57 GMT
Thanlk you for updating us on that, Anna.
I had been wondering about the Julea Ward case; people were giving evidence to the Supreme Court in October, and we have heard nothing since.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jan 2, 2012 17:04:19 GMT
She can't be impartial if that is the case, and counsellors need to be impartial. Are counselors required to never make a moral judgment? What about domestic violence counselors, for instance?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 2, 2012 21:36:26 GMT
Speaking for myself, I think a counsellor who didn't have some kind of moral principles wouldn't be very good at his or her job.
On the other hand, if you really believe (and I don't) that same sex relationships are immoral I'd think it would be difficult for you to give them advice since your fall-back position would be to turn away from the same-sex relationship to a heterosexual one.
I'm sure there are plenty of other counsellors who would have been more suitable choices and maybe the system ought to establish if there are possible "conflicts of interest" where principles are going to collide.
For instance, a friend of ours who's now divorced from his wife was a battered husband. Mike and I suggested he got counselling as a victim of domestic violence and unfortunately the woman he saw was one of the rad fem misandrist types who basically refused to believe that a 5ft 6 woman COULD physically abuse a 6ft 3 man.
She more or less accused him of lying and he left the counselling session feeling more depressed than before.
I guess the same-sex couples who were treated with disrespect by the counsellor in their case felt pretty much the same.
I've actually done a bit of counselling myself and I know that you have to try and empathise with the person or people you're with.
If you can't do that then you should at the very least butt out of the particular case, if not try and find another line of work altogether.
That's my two penniesworth, anyway!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2012 22:33:18 GMT
She can't be impartial if that is the case, and counsellors need to be impartial. Are counselors required to never make a moral judgment? What about domestic violence counselors, for instance? More pertinently, perhaps: what about someone counseling a client who thinks it okay to beat up their partner? They must of course take a moral stand so do different rules apply when dealing with criminality?
|
|
|
Post by lakshmi on Jan 2, 2012 23:42:51 GMT
This thread was started with an article about Jennifer Keeton. The court has ruled unfavorably in her appeal. It seems the ruling court doesn't see diversity among counselors and their beliefs as corresponding to the 1st Admendment concept of free speech. Will this go to the Supreme Court? Its diversity? If she believe that inter race marriage is evil its ok she will council students bcz its diversity? If she like to council students black ppl better not be doctors its ok bcz its diversity?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 3, 2012 1:12:44 GMT
It seems the ruling court doesn't see diversity among counselors and their beliefs as corresponding to the 1st Admendment concept of free speech. That's not what it's about. She can believe what she likes - but she must not impose those beliefs when she's counselling. Her claim that would be better expressed as that 'the plan' would require her not to tell clients that homosexual sex is immoral. And quite right, too. Hi Jean! Could we have an Orthodox Jewish counselor, who is only interested in conseling other orthodox Jews? Orthodox Jews oppose marriage outside of their religion and have disapproving views of homosexuality as well. I think the 1st Admendment should allow this. Would the university have the right to refuse to educate an Orthodox Jew as a secular counselor? Perhaps! But these universities then should make it clear that they promote an ideology just as the religions do!
I really would prefer having a counselor honestly disapprove of some aspect of my lifestyle real or perceived than waste time with some deceitful career slimer hypocritically being "tolerant" towards me to make a living..
I know for a fact that a lot of psychiatrists and psychologist in Germany don't like to deal with certain types of patients. Call it discrimination, if you like, but I call it "specialisation". Transgendered and homosexual patients are usually favored over substance abusers, paranoiacs and anger management cases by most therapists. The patient with a problematic that the therapist doesn't feel comfortable with never gets past the first appointment, where he/she is informed by the doctor/therapist that they are booked up with patients and a referral is made.
Miss Keeton and Mrs. Ward should have the right to refer homosexual patients to a counselor that doesn't share their beliefs, unless the homosexual patient wishes to undergo what is known as "restorative therapy". This attempt to alter the gender orientation has not been very sucessful.
I'm sure a lot of counselors would love to refer their uncomfortable cases to counselors like Keeton and Ward and take in return their homosexual patients, who are comparatively easy to work with.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2012 9:47:17 GMT
I believe one of the two women did get a counselling job with a Christian organisation. Her clients probably won't be surprised if she expresses somewhat - well, traditional views.
But the college was offering a universally accepted qualification and was entitled to expect its students to adhere to the standards they and the examiners set.
|
|