|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 2, 2010 23:18:17 GMT
Wow! I haven't been following this thread and have only made one previous post. I could see that it has been a heated topic of debate so I just finished reading all ten pages that have been posted to date. I read them quickly so my apologies if I missed a fine point.
Here's what I've learned so far:
-> Mouse and Anna are two very intelligent ladies who've put up some really good posts. -> Skylark has raised some interesting points. -> A homophobic bigot is someone who disagrees with RV and/or Riotgrrl -> The real problem here hasn't been highlighted. It is political correctness run amok. Bigotry is not a good thing. Political correctness is even worse.
Christian fundamentalists are definitely pig-headed one dimensional thinkers with blinders on. In that regard, they're very much like liberals. Except liberals are worse.
These girls should simply have asked to recuse themselves from homosexual counseling just as a judge would have done in a legal proceeding. I hate it that they're being punished because their views are not politically correct (this despite the fact that I'm an athiest and don't share their religious views.)
My favorite nephew is gay. He thinks he's a girl but he has a penis. He even got married to another gay guy. They both have successful professional careers (in California) and they're good people. Could he be an effective counselor at a college? Yes I think he could. He's smart, well educated, and an objective thinker. He means well. His heart's in the right place. He's a good guy. He would not try to talk his students into turning gay. I guarantee it.
If he did encounter a one of Riotgrrl's homophobic anti-gay bigots as a student, I'm sure he'd ask for them to be reasssigned to another counselor. There would be no need to fire him or make a big issue out of it.
These girls are being punished by the whacko left-wing liberal extremists who dominate academia in America. It's a real shame.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2010 6:16:57 GMT
And what the hell is a homosexual life-style? i havent a clue........has anyone a clue but i think it all very strange...i agree with anna that this aim for some sort on utopian society where we all join hands and sing cumbyya is the hope of the politically correct mob who 50-60 years ago would have been just as politically correct on the other side saying how dreadful homosexuality was and outing closet homosexuals with the same fervour as today they out christians and the unreconstructed...... the fact that terms such as un reconstructed are used indicates that they have a missionary zeal to determine all to ""their"""way of thinking or to use the more right on term.....values.... and who is the aribeter of these values ?i who decides and who enforces.. and that is where i have a problem its the way these things are enforced...its nasty and in its own way just as bad to demonise those who dont follow the thinking of today as ever it was to demonise homosexuality
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2010 6:41:19 GMT
Keeton and Ward say that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice". I'm not sure what they mean by that; someone on here once upset other posters by saying that having children is a "lifestyle choice" but to some extent it is; everyone can (unless they are raped or their contraception fails) choose whether to have children. Likewise someone can choose to stay celibate, but I don't think they mean that either.
As for the course being PC - well, it will reflect current thinking, and there is nothing to say that the knowledge they rely on today won't be overturned within the decade. For example, I was a volunteer for stroke patients with speech problems for just four years, and within that short time the methods the speech therapists asked us to use took a complete and radical U-turn, and all for the better.
But the point is that if we wanted to do that work we had to go along with current thinking. I wasn't happy with the "bombard the patient with stimulus" approach and was very glad they dropped it. But the point is that while it was in vogue, I used it, just as these students must learn to employ whatever counselling method is considered right at the time. There probably isn't any scope for innovation at that level.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 3, 2010 7:45:06 GMT
These girls should simply have asked to recuse themselves from homosexual counseling just as a judge would have done in a legal proceeding. I hate it that they're being punished because their views are not politically correct (this despite the fact that I'm an athiest and don't share their religious views.) What a shame you still haven't read the thread properly. Or any of the supporting links. Under the Code of ethics for their chosen profession, they cannot recuse themselves. Which, presumably, they knew when they started the course or soon after. Of course anyone who would give different treatment to different people on account of their sexuality (or race or gender or religion or nationality) is a bigot. What this has to do with the 'left' escapes me. I wasn't aware counsellors wanted to nationalise the top 100 industries or whatever. Usual sloppy political rhetoric from you Bushad. Regurgitating phrases you've heard on Fox News does not constitute a reasonable argument. If you wanted to place counselling and its ethics on to a right-left scale (although why anyone would defeats me) counselling is by definition 'right-wing', based as it is on the needs of the individual counsellee. The left wing would consider such a profession bourgeoise (sp!) individualism.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 3, 2010 7:46:21 GMT
What is the biblical argument against homosexuality? There seems to be as much in favour of intense same-sex relationships as against. And what the hell is a homosexual life-style? The biblical argument on homosexuality is in Leviticus, and the issue for those who follow the bible is whether they have to actively kill homosexuals or whether it's sufficient to just leave them be as they'll burnin hell anyway. These kind of bible-bashers are such lovely people . . .
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2010 8:21:14 GMT
actually the thinking on homosexuality is dependent on how extreeme the speaker is in both christianity and islam the less extreeme aknowledge homosexuality...see it not as a life style choice but as a human condition and the objection is in the ..activity of homosexuality their thinking is that celibacy is preferable to induging......
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2010 8:34:41 GMT
I agree with Riot. If someone uses letters after their name, they can be expected to adhere to the standards of that particular professional body, and fulfil the roles carried out by its members.
The time to ask be to be excused from any activity is at the job interview; it is then a matter for the individual employer, who may already have counsellors able to take on that work .
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2010 8:37:20 GMT
and befor the out raged cries of its not human to expect them not to have sex etc we expect those who have inclinations toward children not to indulge..we expect those who have inclinations towards beastiality not to indulge as we dont consider it ..normal... so those who dont see homosexuality as normal have exactly the same thinking... just remember it is only recently that homosexuality has become relativly acepted in our societies.... times change..and then change again...what is aceptable in one age or one society is then unaceptable in the next..fashions change
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2010 8:41:00 GMT
I agree with Riot. If someone uses letters after their name, they can be expected to adhere to the standards of that particular professional body, and fulfil the roles carried out by its members. The time to ask be to be excused from any activity is at the job interview; it is then a matter for the individual employer, who may already have counsellors able to take on that work . the time to sort it out is in the job description and the interview and very true proffestionism should over ride personal angsts and prefferences
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2010 8:44:22 GMT
Mouse, that was a point I was trying to make in post 142...ideas do change, yes, and I hope that the counselling profession continually looks critically at the methods it uses and adapts where necessary.
But while individual counsellors may harbour private doubts about current thinking, they will have little scope to divert from approved methods so long as they claim certain qualifications and membership of a professional body.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2010 9:11:26 GMT
Mouse, that was a point I was trying to make in post 142...ideas do change, yes, and I hope that the counselling profession continually looks critically at the methods it uses and adapts where necessary. But while individual counsellors may harbour private doubts about current thinking, they will have little scope to divert from approved methods so long as they claim certain qualifications and membership of a professional body. absolutely agree with you..have done through out the thread i was just trying to emphasise....and this is one of the main problems with membership of proffetions where they close the doors on alternative opinions..try to close down ideas which do not fit in with their owm..trouble is its now gone way beyond just proffentional bodies...i find that rather sad leaves no room for indivialism alternative thinking it can lead togood people being sidelined or even scorned and mocked..looking back over the centuries there are numerous examples...and yes i know it was in fields away from school counciling...but its the overall mindset i have a problem with the wich hunt
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2010 9:15:06 GMT
I suppose that is why I remember the incident of the Sikh man from my own college days; his view of homosexuality was being held up for ridicule by another member of my tutorial group, and I felt uncomfortable about it. Mocking someone about their beliefs is not the way to change them!
Incidentally, I note with interest that Julea Ward's college was criticised by the court for the way they interviewed her over her beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2010 9:41:06 GMT
"""Incidentally, I note with interest that Julea Ward's college was criticised by the court for the way they interviewed her over her beliefs."" yes i noticed that..bigotry would apear to cross boundries i always feel uncomfortable about ridicule[although i am as guilty as anyone]and then chastise my self for my stupidity..but not if i were a in a serious situation....i think that is possibly why the overly camp irritate me[unless its meant to be funny]they imo degrade the issue and make it easy to mock.. when the reality is its a serious issue..its people lives and the quality of those lives..but i digress......so will shush
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Aug 3, 2010 10:01:57 GMT
What is the biblical argument against homosexuality? There seems to be as much in favour of intense same-sex relationships as against. And what the hell is a homosexual life-style? The biblical argument on homosexuality is in Leviticus, and the issue for those who follow the bible is whether they have to actively kill homosexuals or whether it's sufficient to just leave them be as they'll burnin hell anyway. These kind of bible-bashers are such lovely people . . . Don't David and Jonathan count? Or Ruth and Naomi? The same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve (and how spouses are supposed to feel toward each other) is used in Ruth 1:14 to describe how Ruth felt about Naomi. Her feelings are celebrated, not condemned.
And throughout Christian history, Ruth's vow to Naomi has been used to illustrate the nature of the marriage covenant. These words are often read at Christian wedding ceremonies and used in sermons to illustrate the ideal love that spouses should have for one another. The fact that these words were originally spoken by one woman to another tells us a lot about how God feels about same-gender relationships.(from Would Jesus Discriminate?Christers who use the bible to illustrate anti gay feeling are being selective, and forgetting the circumstances in which the bits they use were written: for eg: Gore Vidal reckons that the anti gay stuff in leviticus was to condemn ritualised prostitution (male and female) in temples dedicated to the Great Goddess: the word Abomination, used to describe a man lying with a man, comes from a Hebrew word meaning Idolatrous. At this point (when Leviticus was written) the Jews had just gone back to Babylon, and were pretty horrified at what they saw there - idolatry and such-like - and also wanted to establish themselves as the dominant religion. Jesus said nothing about men lying with men. It can't have been that important to him. Or maybe it was very important; the Catholic church is currently making a big thing of the way he surrounded himself with young men, and no women.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2010 10:14:53 GMT
well if we delve far back enough we come to the worship of the bull and the moon but jesus was close to mary magdalene and martha......but we can speculate and still come up with 5 instead of 4
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Aug 3, 2010 10:19:22 GMT
Yes, these "Christian" types in the USA really take to heart Jesus's message of love.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Aug 3, 2010 11:28:04 GMT
Here's what I've learned so far: -> Mouse and Anna are two very intelligent ladies who've put up some really good posts. -> Skylark has raised some interesting points. -> A homophobic bigot is someone who disagrees with RV and/or Riotgrrl -> The real problem here hasn't been highlighted. It is political correctness run amok. Bigotry is not a good thing. Political correctness is even worse. Congratulations, Das, you have managed to find yet another thread you are too stupid to make a sensible contribution on, instead being forced to make inane statements. Why not make the effort to look at the actual issue?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Aug 3, 2010 11:53:29 GMT
Dearest RV! What about say an Orthodox Jew, who is a great counselor in virtually all fields. He/she however politely declines to pretend that he/she approves of marital relationships between Jews and non-Jews.
Well, if they cannot councel that couple, they cannot councel at all. If the rules state they need to be able to councel 'all students equally' then if they cannot, then they are not fullfilling the job requirements of the course and they are kicked off the course. Anna, why has it taken you TEN LONG PAGES and yet you appear to be as flumaxed now as you where last week. You go over the same ground repeatedly, but yet none of the information appears to sink in. Anna, please help me help you: What are the concepts that you are struggling with? What is so difficult to understand about this case? Really, your own cut and paste explains it clearly, but for some reason, you are unable to grasp the following: 1) The college requires the student to complete all the requirements of the course. 2) She is unable to do so (for whatever reason) 3) The college enroll the student into a further class 4) The student refuses to take the class. 5) The student is toast. I am sorry Anna, I cannot make it simpler than that. I have used the term 'backward culture' to describe some areas of America and that non PC term has caused offence, but I am at a real loss to understand the difficulty you have with this. You seem unable to get past the fact that this woman is unable to meet the requirements of the course. I cannot understand why you think the college should lower their standards, just because of this woman. If she chooses her faith over her job, then that is fine by me, but why does she think her faith means that she should be excused from some of the requirements of her course is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Aug 3, 2010 12:03:07 GMT
i find that rather sad leaves no room for indivialism alternative thinking What are you on about now? This is nothing to do with 'alternative thinking', this is to do with the REQUIREMENTS OF THE COURSE, not about thinking about it, this is about the standards the college sets for courses. It is funny because when colleges lower their standards in other courses to make allowances for students who cannot make the grade, you are the first to complain, but in this instance you WANT the college to lower standards. MAKE YOUR MIND UP WOMAN.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2010 12:05:16 GMT
That's unfair, Random Voice. Anna has bothered to present some information that has helped me, at least, understand what may lie behind the cases, and that's what has made this thread so very interesting.
One of the women, and I can't remember which but I think Keeton, initially agreed to attend the "further class" but pulled out claiming that she was required to change her religious belief.
I'm prepared to keep an open mind on it.
|
|