A website under development in the gaylibrary.com family of sites is www.gaysafety.org which reads:
Gay Safety is under development as an additional to the Gay Library and will be up and running at the end of September 2007. Check back often.
While many already possess such self defense and military skills, it is necessary for the worldwide gay-allied community to acquire a relatively-uniform knowhow and expertise to defend and enforce human rights against human rights violators, using lethal force as needed to prevent and punish violations.
The Stonewall Rebellion celebrated on Christopher Street Day each year in the month of June serves as a reminder of our capacity to hold the top human rights violators and their bloodlines accountable for GLBT persecution. There is not a single nation on Earth where such violators and their bloodlines can escape our retribution when they violate our human rights.
The gay-allied community will always outnumber the top human rights violators and their bloodlines, and will always have access to every weapon imaginable. Regrettably yet realistically, lethal force is required in retribution to enforce human rights when politicians, businesspeople, and “nonprofit” leaders turn corrupt and catastrophically fail to meet their obligations to uphold the human rights of all family members, gay and straight, young and old, male and female, without exception.
The silence from Omaha is very loud.
UPDATE – 8/15/07 – The violent statements have been removed from the “gaysafety.org” site. Here is a screen capture of the site containing the disturbing material. Other offensive material has been blocked from view on the gayhumanrights.org and gaystraightalliance.org sites.
UPDATE – 8/16/07 – Yesterday, the Christian Post published an article online about this set of sites. As noted above, the sites have been cleansed of offensive messages. A PFLAG of Omaha media representative, Bob Dorr, has emailed to say that his group will be making a statement soon in response. Mr. Dorr takes these messages seriously and expressed gratitude to me for letting him know about they were on these sites.
Hi Jag,
I just called the church and left a message for one of the pastors to call me back and also left my email address. If I do not hear back by tomorrow, I will call again.
The comment above that you made in a prior post is what I was addressing – I believe it is obvious that our bodies were “designed” to accommodate sex between a male and female. That we are given a choice as to who we want to have sex with and how we want to have it is a whole different story.
There are really about three arguments here, so let me separate them and discuss accordingly:
First, if we dicuss the intent of the Designor, that debate goes nowhere. If we are talking about God, well, issues of faith aren’t particularly subject to point and counterpoint. If we are talking evolutionary design, then this argument runs into the problem that homosexuality is. It exists. Thus it is the result of evolutionary design. Again an argument that is pointless to have.
As for accomodation of opposite sex, you wished to set aside procreation for the discussion. Fair enough.
The remaining components are sexual pleasure – both physical and fantasy. And here is where your argument fails. Without being overly graphic, the male body records as pleasurable certain physical stimulae that can only be achieved through certain sexual acts between men. Why this is the case is, of course, open to debate. Yet it is indisputable that God and/or natural selection determined that pleasure is derived in this manner. That of itself could be an argument in favor of homosexual “design”.
Also (and you’ll have to forgive my ignorance of female anatomy here) it is my understanding that some women achieve orgasm easiest through sexual stimulation other than that which results in procreation. This too argues against the “obviousness” argument.
Finally, Ann, you throw choice out there. And more than once, I might add.
So let me say that yes, one chooses with WHOM one has sex. One does not choose, however, the underlying determinants as to what parameters that whom will fit into.
Again without being graphic, the male body works in such a way that not all stimulae result in an ability to perform sexually. While a great many same-sex attracted men are capable of sexual functioning – at least when young and the sex drive is highest – with a variety of people male or female, this does not mean that this remains the case through life or that sexual coupling results in satisfaction.
So while a gay man might be able to “choose” some person, he may not be able to perform. The “plumbing” arguments just aren’t convincing.
And furthermore the choice is not solely with what body to couple, but rather with what person. And that, Ann, is where you display a misunderstanding of sexuality.
Just as being assigned some body of the opposite sex would not fulfill the romantic/emotional/relational/sexual needs of a heterosexual, it would do even less so for a homosexual person. Emotional connection is a far larger part of sexuality than is what body part goes where.
Hi Jag,
The church just called me back and I talked with one of their pastors. He was very polite and professional. I explained the purpose of my call and then began to ask questions. He said that neither he nor anyone else on the staff, that he knew of, had or has any knowledge of the article Dr. Dobson wrote. I shared the basic content of the article and the subsequent criticisms from the two authors. I also shared the letters of commendation and Dr. Dobson’s response to the criticism. Again, he said he wasn’t aware of the article, that it never came up in any of their meetings, so he really couldn’t comment on it – made sense to me. We then began a very cordial exchange of diaglogue and he shared with me the basic philosophy of the church – that whatever God wanted to be clear is in the Bible and everything else that is not in the Bible can be agreed to be disagreed upon. He said that is where they draw the line and it works with their congregation. He said the church welcomes everyone to join them for services. He said political or social issues are always going to be contentous so they do not discuss them in a Sunday morning service. He was curious as to why I specifically called this particular church and I told him an acquaintance was concerned that there was no response from them about the article. He said there could be no response if they were unaware of it. He asked when the article was written and I told him. I thanked him for his time and told him I appreciated his kindness in talking with me and that if I was ever near his church on a Sunday I might drop by.
Let me know your thoughts, ok?
Timothy,
Thank you for the information.
Jag,
Please see my answers to your comments below – thank you for your patience in me responding.
J – “not hostile, but not affirming” to me, means at best “tolerant.” I don’t know about you, but being “tolerated,” is not pleasant..and I wonder if it should be acceptable – especially if you claim neutrality. It doesn’t feel neutral to me. Does it to you?
A – I think how we perceive things is what matters. I do understand how you feel and can see your point. My perception is not the same – if someone is not hostile or affirming of me, it just means they do not take enough interest in me or what I do to care one way or the other and that is ok with me. I cannot make them care – it is up to them.
J – As a woman, I don’t want to be “tolerated,” if I were black, I would not want to be “tolerated” – it doesn’t feel neutral, it feels at the very least like one should stay in a hole somewhere. It is a far different feeling being tolerated than being truly welcomed, accepted or …what I would ideally hope for…just seen as the same as anyone else – with true neutrality. I just don’t see that.
A – I understand this point as well – it is not a good feeling to just be tolerated by someone else. I also understand, through personal experiences, that I cannot change how someone feels toward me. All I can do is be the most appropriate person I can be in any given circumstance and know when to dis-engage myself if I feel it is necessary to my well being.
J – You also stated “Few people have extended themselves or made themselves available the way he has – to all of us.”
Not so. He seems not “available” to the gay christian. I would say, this is the group that seems terribly ignored – both as a therapist and a christian advocate of neutrality, as he claims SIT is.
A – My experience, both as an observer and as a participant is that he is always available to all of us. I have only seen him as fair and open minded. I am not sure if his neutrality in therapy would equate to him being an advocate of the gay Christian. This is something that I guess he would have to address himself. I see his involvement with the gay Christian as one of answering questions and providing clarity as requested or needed.
J – I have yet to hear how the Christian Therapist who practices SIT is supposed to help their gay client who is struggling with their identity in a hostile society live in congruence with “their” religious beliefs – coping with a church community that often rejects them, “coming out,” and having a family.
A – All good points – I’m not sure if a Christian Therapist, or one who practices SIT, would be the right therapist to faciliate this particular client. I certainly do not have the credentials nor verifiable knowledge to make any comment about it one way or the other. I do know there are many other therapists who could help this client and there are also many churches who are gay affirming as well. Perhaps those churches have their own therapists or can recommend one that fits all the needs of the gay Christian.
J – These are the concerns that I have. That SI Therapy seems to speak often about those who wish to align to their beliefs when those beliefs involve change or alignment to his notions or interpretations of christianity…but what of the client who adheres to a reconciling methodist faith, who is gay and a christian and struggles with issues around this?
A – Those are very valid concerns. Perhaps SI Therapy is not the right one for these concerns. I know there is a particular frame work with SIT that I think is very good and should be given a chance, however, in interviewing a therapist, only the client can make the decision as to who they want to work with.
J – It seems to protect the practice of some reparative-like therapies, without getting into any details about the other spectrum (of assisting them in acceptance of their gay identity) in what is supposed to be a “neutral” practice. .
A – I really do not believe SIT is a form of reparative therapy or protects it. They are very different in my eyes – one tells you what is the matter, the other allows you to tell the therapist what is the matter. It is my understanding that SIT is very client driven, and stays neutral when a client is exploring and discovering and coming to terms with how they want to live their life.
J – These other details, about the gay christian, for example, are issues which I would expect would be particularly difficult for some christian therapists to practice in his circle – and no discussion on this. I would think this would be essential to a truly neutral practice.
A – Yes, I would agree – I also think that is why SIT is such a progressive way to approach therapy with a client, it keeps the focus on the client and what they value and how they want to live – not the therapist.
J – I expected more from someone who claims neutrality, than only hearing one side of the therapy practice. It’s exclusive.
A – I have never heard him espouse only one side of the therapy practice to the extent it is exclusive. He is interested on what the client wants and starts from there.
J – Some interpret that exclusion as hostility, and in not wanting to go on the record to advocate for even the basic rights of those who are gay (like in housing or employment), it seems a bit…well..exclusionary.
A – Ok, but what is his obligation to share with anyone his personal beliefs? I think he and others are very capable of being very effective and competent therapists without incorporating or sharing their personal beliefs. How others interpret his choice to keep his personal beliefs personal is up to them – I see it as having no impact on his clients and/or others.
J – We may all see gluttony as a sin, people who eat too much and know they do, and some may not even want to stop…but we don’t punish them in what church they can join, we protect them when they lose jobs because of weight, and we want for those people to have absolute equal treatment in this world.
A – Jag, yes, the hypocrisy is staggering in any area of discrimmination – try to remember what people say in public and what they say and feel in private can be two completely different things. Just like in the forum for the Democratic candidates the other night with the emphasis being on gay issues – my stomach turned when I saw and heard how they answered some of the questions especially when I have actually heard them behind closed doors making fun of gays and the issues. Your example of gluttony is a very good one – I agree and also know the same things happen here, what is said to them in public is very different than what is said behind closed doors.
J – My point?
Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin (which I do not), treat it the same as all others. If you don’t…that’s, well….you decide.
A – I agree!
Ann –
Thank you so very much for your back-and-forth with me, as well as your phone call. I am surprised that they had no idea of the article, and espouse that they are not political…it’s the same church who hands out pamphlets when voting season comes around as to where the politicians stand on the issues…
I have emailed them many times regarding their stand on homosexuality…to which, I got an “everybody’s welcome,” but see on their web site that they use a 12-step program to address it. That sound more like “you are welcome to come if we can change you.” They had a music minister who admitted same-sex attractions, and went mysteriously away for “assistance,” never to return.
Either way, thanks a million. It is good for them to hear that someone is concerned about the lack of action.
Ann –
I have to say, I was surprised to find the “parts fit” argument from you. I have no disagreement that male and female bodies can join, but as can men and men, and women and women. What goes where seems to be the issue of debate – and that seems only a matter of preference – unless you want to procreate.
I was thinking that maybe it is because I separate out procreation from the equation of who could or should couple naturally. I see compatibility based on so many things that the “parts only have to fit this one particular way to be valid,” stance seems not to work out. Not to be crude, but I’m sure my “parts fit,” with tons of guys out there…but just because they happen to fit, doesn’t make us a right pairing, a compatible one, or even just a good one. Otherwise, I could marry the first man I was exposed to because his parts fit and we have the theoretical capacity of reproduction.
I have to say, I was surprised to find the “parts fit” argument from you.
Jag,
Here is what I am trying to say and never meant to argue – it seems obvious to me that the female and male bodies were designed to accommodate each other sexually. The word accommodate does not equate limitation. I also said and am saying now that we all have the privilege to have sex with who and how we want – that is a personal preference and a choice we have the right to have. I did not say what we cannot do sexually or incorporate God into the design observation. I am completely aware of the emotional aspects of sex, notwithstanding Timothy’s remark to the contrary, and understand that any really “good” sex will have an emotional foundation to it. When I was younger I don’t know if I could have said something like that
Also, between all the graphic references to sex, body parts, and stimulus to those body parts that have been referred to recently on the blog, I have to decide whether I have been traumatized or tickled 
Jag,
You are very welcome! I was a little taken aback when he said they were unaware of the article as well. Was so glad I read it from your link so I could tell him about it. They hand out voting material? That does suprise me as he said they agree to disagree on politics and social issues and do not bring them up in a Sunday morning service. I’m wondering if it could have been considered a source of information rather than suggesting how someone should vote – who knows? I am going to look at their web site again – I did not see the 12 step program. That they offer it is not a problem as I see it. It is up to the individual who wants to attend and their reasons for doing so. I see it as a personal choice. If a person sees no reason for attending, then that should be respected as well. I feel very badly about the music minister leaving, especially if he/she did not want to. I really wish I knew more about it and the circumstances. Since I don’t, I cannot form any opinion and only hope he/she is happy and content elsewhere in a new church home.
Hello Ann –
As you elaborate more on your argument regarding anatomy, I completely agree..as you aptly state: “The word accommodate does not equate limitation. I also said and am saying now that we all have the privilege to have sex with who and how we want – that is a personal preference and a choice we have the right to have.”
Unfortunately, the use of “accommodate” has been used in other circles to justify exclusion. That is not the case with you – thank you for your clarification.
Yes, the “celebrate recovery” program on the website is a 12-step program that is sometimes used for homosexuality – but also for other things they see as an addiction….like alcohol. You stated regarding that program… “That they offer it is not a problem as I see it.”
These are my thoughts, for what they’re worth….
Offering a program that has not been shown to work, and in fact may be doing harm to individuals is not appropriate. The individuals who are attracted to such a program (for their homosexuality), likely have unwanted same-sex attractions – but due to their faith exposure, do not see any other way to live in God’s grace but to change it. They are not presented with options, or embraced if they would choose to continue to lead a life which included a same-sex partner, family, etc..
People have the right to choose, but I am often conflicted as both a doctor of psychology, scholar, and christian. For example, we know that regardless of genuine effort, prayer or program, these affectional inclinations do not change for everyone…and if that is the case, how can we not embrace our sisters and brothers in Christ?
Offering hope through means which have not been proven, seems more cruel than kind, leaving clients frustrated, and feeling guilty if they remain with their inclinations. Reinforcing the message that they are somehow “more” in God’s grace for leaving their affectional inclinations seems even more cruel.
We agree here “If a person sees no reason for attending, then that should be respected as well.” However, will they be treated the same? Given positions within the church? Celebrated when they adopt a child with their partner?
The research has proven over and over again that same-sex couples can and do have long-term, committed and happy relationships – some including children, and others not. There are many churches in America that will celebrate that, and their commitment to God.
God and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive – and programs that offer these messages reinforce that they are. Believe me, they won’t be having an out gay minister anytime soon. My question…if you are welcoming and accepting of everyone…why not allow a married (to another woman) lesbian woman to be a minister also?
As for your other thoughts…I’m on board with you on this “between all the graphic references to sex, body parts, and stimulus to those body parts that have been referred to recently on the blog, I have to decide whether I have been traumatized or tickled.”
Thanks again.
Jag,
Thanks for reading my comments with an open mind and heart – I really appreciate it. We might not agree on some things but you sound really great and I hope to keep an open dialogue with you and learn from you. It is late and your last post has given me more to think about
so I will read it again tomorrow and respond soon. Whew, I am relieved that there has been a reprieve with the posts today from what goes where, what stimulates what, what sexual acts are natural, etc. 
Ann –
I’m glad we can continue the conversation, and it’s made me think of things from different perspectives – thanks for that. We seem on different sides of the issues at times, but I think that we both have an inner drive to understand these conflicts with an open mind and an investment in finding the “truth,” whatever that may be.
and if you think there’s been a reprieve on the stimulation talk…you should read the other posts, there is much comment lately on advertising and stimulation/arousal…interesting indeed.
Ann and Jag,
I’ve refrained from commenting on this particular thread because I’ve been engrossed in the conversation you two have been having. I still have nothing to add. I just want to thank both of you for demonstrating that people who believe differently CAN communicate respectfully. Thanks!
Thanks Eddy!
…but please realize, all are welcome into civil discussion – hop in if you have something to say!
Warren,
I’m sorry I’ve been gone so long – school has been getting in my way
You said: “Sex is the means to the end so it is not far fetched to think that being attracted to the opposite sex is a given. However, I also believe that the natural law arguments are inadequate or dissolve into contradictions when you look sexual practices that heterosexuals do that are “unnatural.”
First, I’m not sure what you mean by sex is a means to an end – what end is that? Is it pleasure or procreation – and what do you mean that being attracted to the opposite sex is a given???? I’m not sure I understand what you are driving at. There is absolutely NO PROOF for a “straight gene”, anymore than there is a gay gene – that, plus the fact that homosexuality can be found in nature suggests, at the very least, that it is natural.
NOW, if we are talking solely about procreation, then YES, we have to talk about heterosexuality – but really only then. If you could elaborate on some of your earlier statements I’d appreciate it.
As for that statement I made that sexuality is set very early in life – possibly by the age of 5 – I have to admit that it is something I believe I learned in my human sexuality class several years ago – but I’m glad you called me on it – I have nothing, at the moment, to verify that that is correct – I will dig out some books and do some research though
Ann,
You said: “I believe it is obvious that our bodies were “designed” to accommodate sex between a male and female. That we are given a choice as to who we want to have sex with and how we want to have it is a whole different story. ”
I’m not disagreeing with you that men’s and women’s bodies were made to have sex with each other, all I’m saying is that men’s bodies were made to have sex with each other too – I think that’s pretty clear, and it goes beyond simply who we choose to have sex with. I apologize if I danced around that issue earlier.
Jayhuck –
See Ann’s above comments, she addresses your statements rather positively. See my response on 43579 that includes a quote from those comments regarding your point.
I’m not disagreeing with you that men’s and women’s bodies were made to have sex with each other, all I’m saying is that men’s bodies were made to have sex with each other too – I think that’s pretty clear, and it goes beyond simply who we choose to have sex with. I apologize if I danced around that issue earlier.
Jayhuck,
I think our bodies and minds and hearts are made to accomodate a sexual act to reach orgasm (sorry for the graphic reference) – how we decide to do that and with who or what ( sorry for the graphic reference) is up to us and that usually follows our preferences. We don’t choose our feelings or desires but we do choose to have the sexual act or not and with who.
Ann –
You asked earlier, and the other reason I do not see Warren as unbiased, is that he has worked for a college ranked as one of the top 5 unfriendliest places for gay/lesbian students in the country (according to the princeton review, 2006).
I would like to hope that he has worked for change in this area…and possibly he has. Have you Warren?
Perhaps we could turn JAG’s analogy around. Perhaps we should be wondering why a school that has been ranked among the ‘unfriendliest’ would have (and keep) a man such as Warren on their staff. They surely know of his sponsorship of this unusual blogspace where we have the freedom to have this discussion. Perhaps we should have the Princeton Review define precisely what they mean by ‘unfriendly’.
Eddy,
Just because something is generally (overall) unfriendly doesn’t mean that there is a complete absence of friendliness! Does that make sense???
I would like to hope that he has worked for change in this area…and possibly he has
Jag,
I don’t know if it is his responsibility to do so. I could ask you and others what you have done to prevent the killing of thousands of pre-born children each year but I don’t. I am only responsible for myself and respect Dr. Throckmorton for what he has done to open up dialogue between people where there once was only dissent, that he is providing resources for those who’s voices are rarely heard – the individual who has unwanted same gender attractions, for keeping us updated on news regarding science and studies, for being progressive in his thinking, for having the courage to stand up to colleagues, and that he does these things in a way that keeps the same people and new ones talking.
By the way, I have probably been admonished by him more than most of you – so my knowledge about his fairness to all is very credible.
Jag,
I have not forgotten the other post you wrote and I want to respond to – got caught up in these other ones – thanks for your patience.
Jag,
Please see my comments below -
J – As you elaborate more on your argument regarding anatomy, I completely agree..as you aptly state: “The word accommodate does not equate limitation. I also said and am saying now that we all have the privilege to have sex with who and how we want – that is a personal preference and a choice we have the right to have.”
J – Unfortunately, the use of “accommodate” has been used in other circles to justify exclusion. That is not the case with you – thank you for your clarification.
A – Thank you for not including me in those circles.
J – Yes, the “celebrate recovery” program on the website is a 12-step program that is sometimes used for homosexuality – but also for other things they see as an addiction….like alcohol. You stated regarding that program… “That they offer it is not a problem as I see it.”
A – Ok, I did not know Celebrate Recovery was a 12 step program but know of people who have gone to it.
J – These are my thoughts, for what they’re worth….
Offering a program that has not been shown to work, and in fact may be doing harm to individuals is not appropriate.
A – Why has it been shown not to work and shouldn’t the person who is in the program assess it based on their individual experience? Believe me, I do not endorse many of these different “quick fix” programs but the person I know who went to Celebrate Recovery had a very positive and sustainable experience from it. If I ever have enough time, I might go to one of the meetings and let you know what I think.
J – The individuals who are attracted to such a program (for their homosexuality), likely have unwanted same-sex attractions – but due to their faith exposure, do not see any other way to live in God’s grace but to change it.
A – I think you are right “on the money” with this. Hopefully, with more positive exposure to other ways of thinking, a person will see that it does not matter how they identify themselves or how others identify them – when it comes to our faith, God accepts us as we are.
J – They are not presented with options, or embraced if they would choose to continue to lead a life which included a same-sex partner, family, etc..
A – I don’t know if I can completely agree with this – I have experienced gay men and women and their families embraced and presented with lots of options. Whether they specifically address your’s or other’s concerns, I am not sure.
J – People have the right to choose, but I am often conflicted as both a doctor of psychology, scholar, and christian. For example, we know that regardless of genuine effort, prayer or program, these affectional inclinations do not change for everyone…and if that is the case, how can we not embrace our sisters and brothers in Christ?
A – We can and do – I make it a part of my every day life and I believe you do as well – let’s continue and make a difference. We cannot change others but hopefully they will notice and like what they see.
J – Offering hope through means which have not been proven, seems more cruel than kind, leaving clients frustrated, and feeling guilty if they remain with their inclinations.
A – Yes, I agree.
J – Reinforcing the message that they are somehow “more” in God’s grace for leaving their affectional inclinations seems even more cruel.
A – Yes, I agree.
J – We agree here “If a person sees no reason for attending, then that should be respected as well.” However, will they be treated the same? Given positions within the church?
A – I am not sure but if I was there I would treat them the same and I think you would too. I cannot change how others feel, all I can do is try to be a good example.
J – Celebrated when they adopt a child with their partner?
A – I know there are a lot of churches who would join in this celebration.
J – The research has proven over and over again that same-sex couples can and do have long-term, committed and happy relationships – some including children, and others not. There are many churches in America that will celebrate that, and their commitment to God.
A – Yes, I agree.
J – God and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive –
and programs that offer these messages reinforce that they are.
A – God and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. Anyone who offers the message that they are is underestimating God. BTW – that is an opinion not just an observation! If I am ever in a position to clarify your statement, you can count on me that I will.
J – Believe me, they won’t be having an out gay minister anytime soon.
A – There are out gay ministers, aren’t there?
J – My question…if you are welcoming and accepting of everyone…why not allow a married (to another woman) lesbian woman to be a minister also?
A – I believe there are ministers who are female and married to other females.
J – As for your other thoughts…I’m on board with you on this “between all the graphic references to sex, body parts, and stimulus to those body parts that have been referred to recently on the blog, I have to decide whether I have been traumatized or tickled.”
A – After the initial trauma wore off and the realization set in that there are so many ways to have sex, I have decided to be tickled. Oops, no pun intended
Thanks Jag for keeping an open dialogue with me.
Thanks Ann, for your detail-oriented comments and attention in responding. I think we’re on the same page more than I initially thought…
interesting!
and just for clarifications sake, all the references I made to churches not welcoming or celebrating their gay members, families or given positions of leadership within the church were meant toward more mainstream christianity, not the churches who are the exceptions in their faith… for example, reconciling methodist churches are a modest portion of all in the methodist faith – most which take a far different stance on homosexuality than their reconciling counterparts.
You give me hope Ann, that we can all come together and have rational discussions about such topics.
Ann,
I guess I have to retype this – men’s bodies were made to have sex with other men just as easily as they were made to have sex with women. When it comes right down to it, I think we are really on the same page with this, but I think its important to point this out. I thought I had left this message earlier, but when I scrolled up I couldn’t find it.
Eddy –
As an academic, I could and would never work at a place that did not have a nondiscrimination policy that included sexual orientation, and did not offer partner benefits. That seems unwelcoming for gay/lesbian faculty and sends a clear message on the position of their partners in the eyes of the school.
Moreover I think it trickles down into how they treat its “out” gay students the same as their straight ones – and if there are students who feel comfortable enough to be out at all. I would want a place that would not berate or find intolerable a same-sex couple dating and holding hands in the courtyard, and giving a kiss goodbye the same as straight ones who are courting. That the GLBT students were allowed to have clubs (just as “clowns for christ” are allowed).
I think it would set a precedent at a christian school.
However, Eddy, to answer your question about the Princeton review process, here is a more specific telling of it:
“Based on surveys answered by 110,000 students, the Princeton Review created the 2006 edition of “The Best 361 Colleges” and included best and worst rankings for food, partying, academics and quality of life for gay students. Ninety percent of the survey was conducted online and the rest of the responses were filled out by students in high-traffic campus areas across the country, according to the Princeton Review.”
So, more than just unfriendly, this survey examined “quality of life” for gay students BY students…it’s how they perceive it.
Unfortunately, Warren’s school is one of the 5 worst in the country. I would hope he would address this.
Warren, any thoughts?
Thanks JAG.
I understand the scenario you portray–but I don’t envision it happening at Warren’s school. I don’t see them endorsing a poker club anytime in the near future either. They define themselves as holding to a more conservative Christian tradition. It’s at the very root of ‘who they are’ and their mission. LOL. If they even have fraternities and sororities, I’m willing to wager that they have rules unlike any you’d find at your typical college. I also suspect that young heterosexuals who are dating are not completely free regarding Public Displays of Affection. (Students at conservative Christian schools are very familiar with ‘the six-inch rule’.)
men’s bodies were made to have sex with other men just as easily as they were made to have sex with women
Jayhuck,
I still think this is subjective – there are many who believe this and many who don’t.
Ann,
The only thing subjective about it is whether or not the creator “intended” for men to have sex with each other. Otherwise, I think its a statement of fact to say that men can easily pleasure other men, and its no more “difficult” than a man pleasuring a woman.
Jayhuck,
It is subjective as to who wants to have sex this way and who doesn’t. It is a personal preference which makes it subjective. You said it was easy for men to pleasure themselves with other men, yes, but this is subjective to those involved, not a blanket statement for all men.
Ann,
Not to belabor this point, but it is also subjective as to who wants to have heterosexual sex too – that is also a personal preference – and you can’t make a blanket statement about all men being able to do that either.
Eddy,
I think its wrong of you to compare gay students to a poker club. I understand what you are trying to say, but I think there is a better way to say it.
Not to belabor this point, but it is also subjective as to who wants to have heterosexual sex too – that is also a personal preference – and you can’t make a blanket statement about all men being able to do that either.
Jayhuck,
I know I can’t and didn’t.
Ann,
My apologies then – maybe we are really on the same page with this?!
Jayhuck–
It’s all about context, my dear boy. I’m not comparing gay students to a poker club…I’m comparing a conservative Christian college to a ‘regular’ college.
(LOL! Here’s a thought. If you understand what I’m saying…then I’ve made my point. If you think there’s a better way to say it…then say it. Otherwise, you are simply criticising without any real foundation or substance. And, I really don’t get the point of that.)
Jayhuck,
Yes, we are on the same page about it being subjective and not a blanket statement – thanks for your post – no need to apologize though, you did nothing wrong and I appreciated the dialogue
Eddy,
I guess I understood the comparison of gay students to poker clubs as I’ve understood some evangelical comparisons of gay people to alcoholics and pedophiles in the past – I saw it as in the same vein. My apologies if I was wrong – I really don’t think that was what you were going for, but that’s how it felt – to me anyway!
I got what you were saying though. And yes, the fact that Warren’s school is a more conservative Christian School is exactly why it was rated as being very unfriendly to gay students.
Eddy –
“I also suspect that young heterosexuals who are dating are not completely free regarding Public Displays of Affection.”
I would wonder if they are equally free. I have been to the campus many times, and I have seen at that school, many heterosexual couples holding hands, kissing before departure, etc…but I wonder if the same would be okay for same-sex couples who are dating as well?
Any thoughts to clear this up Warren?
The fact that this school was rated to be unfriendly by the students themselves is what gave me a bad taste in my mouth, and makes me wonder about the culture of the school and what values it is promoting about their fellow citizens.
JAG-
Because they believe that the behavior is sin, I can’t imagine them allowing public (or private) displays of gay affection.
I regret that our only choice seems to be to define that in terms of ‘friendliness’. Reminds me of a child that thinks mom hates him because she scolded, corrected or said ‘no’. The mom sees a behavior that she finds unacceptable and makes her feelings known…yet she loves the child.
I have proof that the school does not live up the Princeton Review ‘unfriendly’ label…it’s Warren. Yeah, they may believe that its sin but it’s clear that they have a heart towards gay people. Where you draw the line, I don’t know. But it’s not as black and white as gay-friendly and gay-unfriendly.
Sorry to speak ‘for Warren’…I figure, if I’m off-base he can speak up. I believe he blogged yesterday that although he’s keeping the blog open, he may not even have time to read–much less respond.
Eddy –
Thank you for your response. It strikes me, that if I cannot be a christian woman in a committed same-sex relationship and be allowed to teach there (even if my credentials are superb), that they may not have a “heart towards gay people.” They see me as a sinner, which is unfortunate. For both the school (in attempting to attract the “best and brightest”), and for the messages that are innoculated into the youth that attend. They never see that there is even a possibility of being a gay christian.
Truth is, there are gay Christian youth who attend there. They are going through the same dating rituals as everyone else, and to be made to feel stigmatized and not accepted into the faith community as they are is quite unfortunate – it seems to go against the “neutrality” that is so talked about on the forum.
For the most part (and please correct me if I’m wrong), it seems that people have the stated belief on this forum that you can be both gay and christian – at this school, that is not the case. It’s the reason that I see so many gay and lesbian people abandoning the faith community.
I appreciate when you said “where you draw the line, I don’t know.” I don’t know either. But if you think about it the other way around – telling someone that their “heterosexuality” is a sin but “having a heart towards heterosexuals” is a difficult thing to balance…if it can, be arguably balanced at all.
You also stated “But it’s not as black and white as gay-friendly and gay-unfriendly.” I agree, yet disagree with this. This was a notation (not being friendly towards GLBT individuals) given by the students themselves, and that is what concerns me. These ratings are not done by scholars (who may look into the practices of the professors, etc..), they are done by polling the students. I wonder why students feel it is so unwelcoming?
My approach is different that the schools, but I suppose it is a part of the pipe-dream that Christianity begins to welcome its gay members as equals, begins to see that many same-sex couples can and do live solid Christian lives, and letting gay youth know that you can live a good life, find an amazing partner, and don’t have to change anything about yourself to be loved by God. It’s not so black-and-white…you can either be gay OR be a christian…you can be both.
By keeping the school Christian, allowing faculty to be gay, or the students – it would be revolutionary to have a community of people much like this forum. There are gays, ex-gays, and never-been-gays…I think we all come from the place of Christian values – and sure, we debate, but what a wonderful model.
Why be exclusionary…and why not just hold everyone – gay and straight – to the same behavioral standards. No pre-marital sex, substance abuse, etc…