Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, August 11, 2008
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Unholy Toledo
by Mike Adams
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Mike, below is the statement that Larry Burns Lawrence.Burns2@utoledo.edu referred to earlier. Please let me know if you need anything else.

Thanks, Matt Matt.Lockwood@utoledo.edu

“The University of Toledo is a value-driven institution. UT’s values are clearly stated in our strategic plan and elsewhere. One of our primary values is inclusiveness. This means UT’s doors are open to every student, employee, patient and the community.

“The University welcomes respectful dissent and input from others on all issues with the understanding that free speech and debate make our institution stronger. However, people holding certain jobs within a public institution have special responsibilities concerning the utterances they are allowed to convey.

“The requirements of the job previously held by Crystal Dixon required her to lead a critical function regarding personnel actions for the University. Given UT’s values, Ms. Dixon’s stated views drew into question her ability to be inclusive and caused the University to conclude that she is unable to continue to function in her role as associate vice president for human resources.”

Matt, thank you. I have two questions regarding the following statement: "Ms. Dixon’s stated views drew into question her ability to be inclusive and caused the University to conclude that she is unable to continue to function in her role as associate vice president for human resources."
 
1. Are you saying that you excluded Mrs. Dixon because she was not inclusive?
 
2. Did Mrs. Dixon ever fire someone because she was intolerant of their views?
 
Mike Adams adams_mike@hotmail.com

Mike, we are not going to comment beyond the statement…Matt

Matt, I think it would be in the university's best interests to comment further. You           asked me to "let (you) know if (I) need anything else." I need some help understanding your statement because it seems somewhat contradictory. I am asking you legitimate questions. I hope you will consider my (narrowed) request that you answer just one question. It follows:
 
1. Does the University of Toledo have a zero tolerance policy regarding intolerance?

This is an important and legitimate question that you should answer. The choice to ignore it is more than just disrespectful towards me. It is also disrespectful towards The University of Toledo. I cannot imagine how a university unable to answer such a direct question could continue to call itself an institution of higher learning.
 
Please understand this to be a respectful and serious inquiry.

Mike Adams 

Matt, I am disappointed by your non-response. Let's try to do this one paragraph at a time. This should be easy to do, given that there are only about a half-dozen paragraphs contained in Ms. Dixon's guest column. Paragraph one is reprinted in its entirety here below:

 "I read with great interest Michael Miller's April 6 column, "Gay Rights and Wrongs." I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider. First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one's personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative."

My questions about this paragraph follow:

 1. Did you draw the same conclusion I did; namely that this was an effort by your former employee to expand the marketplace of ideas - in other words, to promote diversity?

2. Do you disagree with Mrs. Dixon's implication that homosexuals "are of ultimate value to God." Just in case you were wondering, I agree with Dixon.

3. Finally, was there anything in this paragraph that caused UT to fire Mrs. Dixon?

Mike Adams

Matt, I am going to depart from my previous suggestion that we analyze Crystal Dixon’s controversial column “one paragraph at a time” because I am beginning to think that her firing was a direct result of what she said in paragraph two, which was, by far, her longest paragraph. So, here are the first four sentences of that paragraph:

“As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are "civil rights victims." Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended.”

1. Have you ever known a black person to wake up and decide not to remain black?

2. Have you ever know a gay person to wake up and decide not to remain gay?

3. If your answer to #1 is “no” and your answer to #2 is “yes” then how can blacks and gays be lumped together for purposes of identity politics, which is otherwise known as “diversity?”

Finally, I would like to leave you with a serious question to ponder over the weekend: Imagine you were an employer and a black homosexual came walking into your office seeking employment. You would, no doubt, notice he was black before you noticed he was gay. Does this not lend some veracity to Mrs. Dixon’s argument?

(TO BE CONTINUED) …

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
SkorpioG homosexuals can go straight

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010509/apon line013921_000.htm

http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2007-03-12-voa5 7.cfm

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/wsjletter01.html

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/survey.html

http://www.leaderu.com/stonewall/pages/jeff_k.html

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bulletin01/07.html

http://www.leaderu.com/stonewall/issues/change.html

http://blog.catholic-convert.com/?p=1501

http://erlc.com/article/ex-homosexual-overcame-helping-othe rs

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/72005e.asp

The point is that if the one in Mike's article and these mentioned above can willfully change their sexual orientation then homosexuality is a choice that can be turned from. These listings demonstrate that you have been lied to. I can find others if you want.

To Birdman
You are confusing an act with nature. Murder does not equate to homosexual. Homosexual is a state of being, where the opposite is heterosexual. You are heterosexual and you have heterosexual acts. By your absolutist reasoning, if someone experiments with or has sex with another of the same gender, even once, they forever are a homosexual. This is extremely narrow thinking and prevents you from considering things beyond that narrow definition. You apparently only know what you know, and when others try to give you more information, you reject it.

Sexuality is based on how you feel and what you consider normal. However, you claim that I can wake up tomorrow and not be gay, because you consider it an act and not a state of being. Then by that logic, you can wake up tomorrow and become gay. To prove this theory, I would like you to do just that. Tomorrow, I challenge you to be gay and go out and test your theory.

Please report back. I will listen to everything you have to say from then onward. If you don't find this to be patently absurd, then stop and say so.

Does this have _any_ meaning?
"Thank you!!!! I realize that you resent someone treading on your territory. But don't let me stop you, keeping posting your pretenses. If you write something totally outrageous, I will respond again."

Thought not.

What a birdbrain!

SkorpioG

You said, "If Ms. Dixon honestly "left" the so-called lesbian world, it's clear she never was a lesbian to begin with."

What makes a man an adulterer? Isn't the act of committing adultery the determinant factor that makes him an adulterer? And one act alone makes that case.

What makes a man a murderer? Isn't the act of committing a murder the determinant factor that makes him a murderer?

A person is never a homosexual until that person once committed a homosexual act.

Any person can stop committing adultery, or homosexual acts merely by willfully ceasing in that activity.

If an act, such as murder, is unlawful; a penalty hangs over the head of that person guilty of that act. A murderer, if found, will always be tried for murder.

But adultery and homosexual acts are not unlawful. Any person who once was an adulterer and stopped becomes a 'former adulterer'. Any person who once committed a homosexual act and stopped becomes as 'former homosexual'. Anyone (specifically Christian) that recognizes that the person has ceased an activity will not hold past actions against him.

So for you to insist that a woman must always be lesbian and never be allowed to turn away from that state says more about your faulty nature that her actions.

MellorSJ2

Thank you!!!! I realize that you resent someone treading on your territory. But don't let me stop you, keeping posting your pretenses. If you write something totally outrageous, I will respond again.

Some dictionary definitions
pretend |pri'tend|
verb
1 [with clause or infinitive ] speak and act so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not


birdbrain |'b?rd?bran|
noun informal
an annoyingly stupid and shallow person.

Judgements
"To criticize popular taste is to invite the charge of elitism, and to defend distinctions of value - between the virtuous and the vicious, the beautiful and the ugly, the sacred and the profane, the true and the false - is to offend against the only value-judgement that is widely accepted, the judgement that judgements are wrong."
Roger Scruton

Swampfox

fox: "Obviously, Ms. Dixon can't wake up one day and deny her race."

But she did deny homosexual activities. If she can do it, others can too.

fox: "Do you think that she should be employed at a university which is inclusive to gays and lesbians in employment in the position of associate vice president of human resources?"

Do you think that she should be fired from a public funded position simply for voicing her opinion? Isn't that discrimination? Come on, fox, think!!!

MellorSJ2

MSJ: "If that is my choice, that doesn't allow you to prevent me from making that choice, and it doesn't allow you to take away my civil right to be treated equally because of my choice."

And if it is a choice, then you that choose this lifestyle live and die by that lifestyle. It has nothing to do with your insistence that I approve or accept your lifestyle. If it is a choice then I cannot be forced to pay for or fund it in any way.

MSJ: "I'm still waiting, BTW, for just one of the people who claim it is a choice to choose to be gay for a day. After all, if it's a choice, you can choose too."

You are absolutely correct! I can choose! And my choice to NOT live this lifestyle even for a day. Why would I intentionally endanger myself for no apparent benefit?

Now that we agree that there is NO genetic connection, that there is NO inherent characteristic that compels homosexual activity, maybe we can move ahead with rational debate. I would expect that from now on, Mellor, you would refrain from pushing the "I can't help it" excuse.

WBHeff
My favorite Hudson Q&A goes like this:

Q: How did AIDS get to California
A: In the rear of a Hudson.

(For those of you who are younger, the Hudson was an automobile produced up until the early Fifties. Also a screen actor who could have had any woman he wanted but preferred to take it in the a**)

To Swampfox
I think she stepped over the line. Gays and lesbians can try to deny that they are who they are, I did, it almost cost me my life.

----------------------
So what it came down to for you was this:
"Unless I am fellating other men and taking it in the a**, life is not worth living."

Can't you see how warped that is? How sick?
I don't deny that you had a dilemma on your hands. Help is not available since the psych organizations succumbed to intense political pressure from organized homosexuals and stopped recognizing homosexuality as a pathology after decades of research had shown them otherwise. They abdicated their responsibility to provide relief to the sick.
What would you do if you were prone to some other form of deviance such as sexual attraction to children or even other species?
And don't go off on the predictable diversion of consent. I want to know how you would deal with the warped attraction.

To Birdman II
So you apparently believe in the Gay Agenda (insert ominous music...duh duh duh duhhhhhh), where a secret alliance of shadowy figures seek to undermine the family and turn the USA into a Left Wing workers paradise?

Please...don't be so dramatic. If Ms. Dixon honestly "left" the so-called lesbian world, it's clear she never was a lesbian to begin with. So she experimented with it, dated women, even *blush* had sex with them. So what? If deep down she doesn't feel she is gay, then she isn't gay. Your opinions on that matter are irrelevant, and it hardly proves any preconceived notion you came to the debate with.

What's your problem will?
Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you can't stand to have a dissenting opinion expressed?

Are your arguments for acceptance of the gay lifestyle so weak that you can be defeated by narrow-minded Nazis, the KKK or "intolerant christians ... with Leviticus in hand ... bearing fanatical and bigoted views...?

Anyone with true confidence in his position could swat the platitudes of intolerant bigots aside easily. And anyone interested in learning the truth would welcome an alternative argument from someone as intelligent and EXPERIENCED in the subject matter as Ms. Dixon.

But you aren't confident. And you're not interested in truth or learning anything. You are an insecure weenie who is interested only in convincing himself of his own dogma by silencing all dissent.

And you liberals have the hypocrisy to call conservatives fascists and oppressors.

You are a puke.

Solution to the free speech issue
Invite Ms. Dixon back as a guest speaker to defend her opinions on campus with compensation. However, also allow someone with opposing views to speak, too. It would make for a good discussion that should be done on a number of campuses. I think even Mike Adams would agree.

To Birdman II
I didn't know that gay people had an obligation to continue support for the woman's magazine? This sort like the recording artists who whined about the lack of playtime on some radio stations after they became afflicted the GWBush hate syndrome. Gays and lesbians are encouraged to deny their sexuality by our society. It is done all the time. I did it. Obviously, Ms. Dixon can't wake up one day and deny her race. Do you think that she should be employed at a university which is inclusive to gays and lesbians in employment in the position of associate vice president of human resources?

It doesn't matter, birdman
Let's pretend for a minute that it is a choice.

So?

If that is my choice, that doesn't allow you to prevent me from making that choice, and it doesn't allow you to take away my civil right to be treated equally because of my choice.

I'm still waiting, BTW, for just one of the people who claim it is a choice to choose to be gay for a day. After all, if it's a choice, you can choose too.

Swampfox: "The gay community vilified
her angrily and withdrew financial support from her magazine, upon her announcement that she was leaving the lesbian lifestyle."

I am so glad, Swampfox, that you quoted the part about her announcement to leave the lesbian lifestyle. As I and others have said all along, homosexuality, whether man/man or woman/woman, is elective; it is a choice. How else could she leave the lesbian lifestyle? If she was born lesbian and was genetically geared to lesbianism then she would have no cloice to leave.

But, she left by her own will. And that is what angered the gay community - it shoots down the gay argument that gays cannot help themselves. And that is why she must be silenced and NOT allowed to exercise her freedom so speech. And that is why the U of T did what it did. It is not a matter of right and wrong. It is not a matter of civil rights. It is all about the gay lifestyle must be accepted and approved by society.

Ms. Dixon, in this fight, is expendable as far as the gay community is concerned. And that expendibility is extended to all who dare speak the truth about this degenerate lifestle.

Full text of the Dixon letter, part #3
The reference to the alleged benefits disparity at the University of Toledo was rather misleading. When the University of Toledo and former Medical University of Ohio merged, both entities had multiple contracts for different benefit plans at substantially different employee cost sharing levels. To suggest that homosexual employees on one campus are being denied benefits avoids the fact that ALL employees across the two campuses regardless of their sexual orientation, have different benefit plans. The university is working diligently to address this issue in a reasonable and cost-efficient manner, for all employees, not just one segment.

My final and most important point. There is a divine order. God created human kind male and female (Genesis 1:27). God created humans with an inalienable right to choose. There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God's divine order. It is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when the world or even God Himself, disagrees with our choice that violates His divine order. Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin (John 8:1-11.) Daily, Jesus Christ is radically transforming the lives of both straight and gay folks and bringing them into a life of wholeness: spiritually, psychologically, physically and even economically. That is the ultimate right.

Full text of the Dixon letter, part #2
The gay community vilified her angrily and withdrew financial support from her magazine, upon her announcement that she was leaving the lesbian lifestyle. Rev. Carla Thomas Royster, a highly respected New Jersey educator and founder and pastor of Blessed Redeemer Church in Burlington, NJ, married to husband Mark with two sons, bravely exposed her previous life as a lesbian in a tell-all book. When asked why she wrote the book, she responded "to set people free... I finally obeyed God."

Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor's degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself.


Full text of the Dixon letter, part #1
Here it is:

I read with great interest Michael Miller's April 6 column, "Gay Rights and Wrongs."

I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider.

First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one's personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative.

As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo's Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are "civil rights victims." Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives. Charlene E. Cothran, publisher of Venus Magazine, was an aggressive, strategic supporter of gay rights and a practicing lesbian for 29 years, before she renounced her sexuality and gave Jesus Christ stewardship of her life.

The impertinence!
First an impertinent questionnaire, squared by the impertinence of believing you can frame the debate.

We've seen these questions before, puppychen, and no one answers them until you do.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Asking me to take the questionnaire is called "displacement," Mellor "Suck Jism."

The issue my questionnnaire is intended to highlight is the sexual behavior of gay males, not straight males like myself.

Put up or shut up!

LOL!
"NARTH is a very credible source of information."

I see Puppychen is back. Are _all_ of these people cut-and-paste artists?

We've seen your lies before. We're not buying.

(Oh. BTW, let's see your answers to the questionnaires first.)

TAKE THE PUPPYCHEN QUESTIONNAIRE 3
11. Have you ever engaged in:

(a) Insertive an*l intercourse?
(b) Receptive an*l intercourse?
(c) Insertive oral-an*l intercourse?
(d) Receptive oral-anal intercourse?
(e) Insertive “fisting”?
(f) Receptive “fisting”?
(g) D*f*cating upon a sexual partner?
(h) Being d*f*cated upon by a sexual partner?
(i) Urin*ting upon a sexual partner?
(j) Being urin*ted upon by a sexual partner?
(k) The oral ingestion of fec*l matter for sexual titillation?
(l) The oral ingestion of urine for sexual titillation?
(m) Sado-masochistic sexual activity?
(n) Sexual activity with animals e.g. m*sturbating or f*llating dogs?
(o) Group sex or orgies?
(p) Sex in public places e.g. parks, beaches, public toilets?
(q) Sex with an adult whilst a minor? If so, with how many different adults?
(r) How old were you, and how old were the adult(s)?
(s) Sex with a minor whilst an adult? If so, how with how many different minors?
(t) How old were you, and how old were the minors?

12. Have you ever had (or do you currently suffer from) a sexually transmitted disease? If so, which ones, and how many times?

13. Have you ever engaged in sexual activity whilst knowingly suffering from a sexually transmitted disease?
14. If so, did you use a condom? On all occasions, or just sometimes?

15. If you have engaged in sexual activity whilst knowingly suffering from a sexually transmitted disease, did you inform your sexual partner(s) on all occasions, or just sometimes?

I’m sure everyone on this thread awaits your answers with interest.

TAKE THE PUPPYCHEN QUESTIONNAIRE 2
A refusal to answer will be considered incriminating. Answering truthfully may blow (sic) your argument. Answering falsely will (if you have any personal integrity) blow (sic) your argument to yourself:

1. How many lifetime sexual partners have you had?

2. What percentage of your sexual partners have you only had sex with once?

3. How many sexual partners have you had in the last year?

4. If you are currently in a relationship, how long has it lasted?

5. Do you have an agreement with your partner to engage in outside sexual activity?

6. If so, how many outside sexual partners have you had since the relationship began? How many outside sexual partners has your partner had?

7. If you are in a supposedly committed monogamous relationship, have you had outside sexual partners?

8. If so, how many outside sexual partners have you had since the relationship began? How many outside sexual partners has your partner had?

9. Apart from your current relationship, what is the longest relationship you have been in?

10. What would you estimate as the average length of your relationships?


TAKE THE PUPPYCHEN QUESTIONNAIRE 1
You gays who post here want to frame the debate as a "civil rights" issue based on the assertion that homosexuality is "normal, natural behavior.

This was the strategy laid down by gay activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen:

"In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent--only later his unsightly derriere!"

Let's now refocus the debate on behavior: specifically YOURS.

You overwhelmingly refuse to engage with the statistical picture of homosexual behaviour and pathology that we’ve established. If you do, it is to state that it is simply a spiteful caricature bearing no resemblance to reality.

If this is indeed the case, you should be prepared to show us how you differ from it by answering my little questionnaire in my next post. If you can’t (or won’t), my point is made. Put up or shut up.

CREDIBLE?
To Swampfox

NARTH is a very credible source of information.

Most member are registered psychologists who, based on their accrued clinical experience, differ from received gay activist dogma.

Their empirical observations demonstrate that around 50 percent of gays and lesbians undergoing either religious counselling and/or secular therapy can permanently change their sexual preference to what nature intended it to be.

Those figures look pretty good when you consider that providing similar therapy to drug addicts and alcholics has around a ten percent success rate.

Every large-scale survey of gay male sexual practices discloses levels of promiscuity and a range of perverse sexual practices that would stagger most straights if more widely known.

Sexual desire in all its forms is a powerful but not after all uncontrollable determinant of human behaviour. Most people learn to harness and direct their sexual desires in a socially appropriate manner, which finds its ultimate expression in marriage. That often means periods of sexual abstinence.

It may also mean refraining from seeking sexual gratification from each and every object of sexual attraction once one is in a relationship.

Most people learn to live within these limits. Every large-scale study of homosexual behavior show shows that gay males are overwhelmingly unable to do so. This points up my contention that homosexuality is nothing but a pathological sexual addiction.

Swampfox - what was your point about
Ms. Dixon "coming out" that had any relevence to the article?

If you are looking for sympathy from me for your choice of lifestyles, you won't get it. If you are looking for acceptance by me for your choice, you won't get it. If you are looking for tolerance, fine, go your way and I will ignore you.

Your lifestyle is a choice and i do not advocate your choice, I do not support your choice, I do not accept your choice. Too many homossexuals chose your lifestyle and have died prematurely from an ugly death. But that is your choice.

Back to the article. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. U of Toledo violated Dixon's guaranteed right. If U of Toledo accepted any money from the Federal Government then U of Toledo becomes a spokesman for the Fed and the government then is guilty of abetting that violation. At the very least, U of Toledo is open to a law suit; and if the Fed Government wants no part of that law suit, I would expect that the Feds would cut U of Toledo lose to fend for itself (meaning that from now and forever U of T would receive NO Fed money).

For you to state that, "Ms. Dixon took personal umbrage that gay rights groups were comparing the Black Civil Rights movement with the Gay Rights movement" (meaning that she has no right to tha t opinion) tells me that you agree that she shoud be persecuted for her stating opinion.

Just because she has a guaranteed right to free speech does not mean that you must listen to her opinions.

Please pardon any mis-spelling or errors as I typed this freestyle and on the fly with no spell check.

Swampfox poses a question to anti-gay
posters...

"Would any of you choose to be gay or lesbian?"

Interesting question. This question points directly to the position that I have always ... advocated that gayness is a choice.



"And, if you found yourself to be gay or lesbian what course of action would you take?"

I would probably retake the test since I do believe that your condition is desired condition and my condition is natural and acceptable.

To Puppychen
Do you really think that NARTH is a credible source for any discussion?

To Birdman II
In her letter to the editor Ms. Dixon took personal umbrage that gay rights groups were comparing the Black Civil Rights movement with the Gay Rights movement. She made the statement that she couldn't change her race, but gays could wake up one day and decide not to be gay. As for her parent's reaction upon being told that she is a lesbian, I guess my point is that in being black, white, Asian or whatever race, you have a system of support from birth about it. It is not so with being homosexual.

For the record I am a true oddball. I am gay Republican, who agrees with Dr. Adams on a number of issues. I don't think that abortion should be used as a means of birth control and in the right of the individual to bear arms.


Same song, 98th verse
And here we go again -- an article concerning freedom of speech, and we're off with the gay bashing/straight bashing express.

Here's a fresh view for you. I'm an academic. I'm an evangelical Christian. I'm in no political party -- the only difference between them now is how they get their hands on the money to overspend (Republicans borrow it, Democrats raise taxes). Neither major candidate really connects with me right now (I don't consider Cynthia McKinney a serious candidate). There's a lot of time between now and November. We'll see.

Every day I work and relax with both straights and gays. That includes students, colleagues on the faculty, and friends of my family. And you know what? Nothing you do in your bedroom is anything that I really give a freaking darn about. You're straight? You're gay? Fine. I DON'T CARE!

So...am I the only one?

(Before you ask, I am a straight male, married 30 years with two kids.)

BORN THAT WAY?
Gays claim to be "born that way" thus casting the burden of change onto society instead of accepting that it lies with them.

Homosexuality is a disorder of psycho-sexual development as shown in the article on the link below:

http://www.narth.com/docs/pieces.html

What bunkum to claim that if society was only more accepting gays wouldn't be promiscuous.

The homophile is drawn to absorb masculinity from his partners, i.e. he is "acting out" based on his mental disorder.

Even in gay-friendly societies such as Holland and Denmark the modal form of gay male sexual behavior is promiscuous an*l sodomy with multiple anonymous partners -- even for those in relationships

one study in Holland found that out of 107 "committed" homosexual couples only one had after one year not yet engaged in "extramarital" sexual relations. The average individual in the study group had had eight "extramarital" sexual encounters during the course of one year.

Gay icons, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, wrote this about male homosexuality: "gay men aren't very good at having and holding lovers ...[because] gay men tire of their partners [sexually] more rapidly than straight men." The average homosexual male first "seeks [sexual] novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; [but] eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill."

And:

"The cheating ratio of 'married' [committed] gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%."

As I say, a disorder of psycho-sexual development.

The Answer Is More Oversight
There needs to be independent splitting the money equally between liberal student activities and Conservative ones. We are paying for operation of the schools anyway. Funded by tax payers, should be tax payer controlled. Not school admin. choice.

SwampFox asks, "Why do gays/lesbians
have to "come out"? . . . If Ms. Dixon came home and told her parents that she was black it would be of no surprise. However, if she came home and told them that she was a lesbian, what would be the result."

Now these are good questions. They have nothing to do with the point of the article but they are good questions none-the-less.

Why, indeed, do gays/lesbians have to "come out"? I did not see any point to their coming out. And I wish they had "stayed in" and never "come out". Further, I would rather they now just "go back in". Oh, to dream about the rebirth of shame.

Regarding the second question, since I do not know Ms. Dixon's parents I would not know the result. I presume SwampFox believes that the result would be unpleasant; maybe he believes that Ms. Dixon would be exiled from the family, disowned, and/or dis-inherited.

If we extend the question to include the possibility of Ms. Dixon choosing to exercise her freedom (making it more relevent to the article) and voicing a favorable opinion on Sen. Obama within the confines of a Conservative household, would SwampFox think of her father as being unreasonable and unjust to punish on her as above?

Isn't that exactly what U of Toledo did to her? If the U of Toledo accepted any Federal money, doesn't that make the Feds accessories to their violating her Constitutional right to free speech?

On the one hand, SwampFox feels personally persecuted; but on the other hand, he feels Ms. Dixon's persecution is acceptable. Such confusion is the working of the Liberal mind.

Oh Yeah!

Mike's back from vacation.

To Skorpio
Skorpio states, "I know that the article was written about the mistreatment of a faculty member because she expressed her opinion on a topic." The fact is that she was not a faculty member. She was associate vice president for human resources. Did she use her title in her letter to the editor?

CVN65
Homosexuality has existed in societies for a long, long, long, long time. Read your Plato and other greek and roman philosophers. Homosexuality is a constant throughout hundreds of years of human existance and is much more an established convention than, say, christianity, which is relatively recent (invented in the past 2,000 years...meaning the virgin birth and bodily ascension and so on).

To CVN65
Here was the thinking the university had about her firing:

“The University welcomes respectful dissent and input from others on all issues with the understanding that free speech and debate make our institution stronger. However, people holding certain jobs within a public institution have special responsibilities concerning the utterances they are allowed to convey.

“The requirements of the job previously held by Crystal Dixon required her to lead a critical function regarding personnel actions for the University. Given UT’s values, Ms. Dixon’s stated views drew into question her ability to be inclusive and caused the University to conclude that she is unable to continue to function in her role as associate vice president for human resources.”

Was her very public letter cause to fire her? It sure has raised a storm of protest from a number of people and organizations.

I lived in small town in South Carolina back in the 1990s. There was one physician who was a vocal about his views on homosexuality. He just happened to be chief-of-staff of the hospital at the time. And, used that title in his letters. After several months of his letters to the editor to the local newspaper the staff finally issued a stunning rebuke in the newspaper that said that Dr. X was speaking for himself and not the hospital or necessarily other physicians in town. He continued to write his letters but didn't use his hospital title.

To Primus54
I know that the article was written about the mistreatment of a faculty member because she expressed her opinion on a topic. I am 100% for free speech in all forms. Free speech by its very nature will be seen as offensive by some, or provacative by others. Squelching or preventing someone from excercising their right to speak their mind freely is wrong and should never be tolerated in any instance, except where a public danger (shouting fire in a movie theater) would be created. Frankly, she should never have been disciplined.

That said, the subject of Ms. Dixon's article is fair game for discussion. The fact that many anti-gay activists who post their bombastic views on other threads are out here in force repeating their opinions is what ALWAYS happens when even the most-remote connection a topic has to anything homosexual is posted on TH.

What's deeper in this discussion of who's rights are more important than someone else's? If everyone has a right to speak their mind, do I also have a right not to listen? If I choose not to listen, what's to prevent someone from feeling slighted, if say, that speech is religious in nature? Could that person invoke both their right to speak and practice their faith, or claim religious discrimination? Many anti-gay activists are trying to use the freedom of religion as a protected right when they shout at me for not conforming to their views.

To CVN65
You did not read the article. This condition is a genetic disorder that has been determined to be carried by the mother.....and, can also just happen.

Blanc
You are welcome. Have a nice day. Be back tomorrow.

Thanks to Swampfox and CVN65!
I didn't read the comments from readers but I did notice that the article's main subject had expressed some difficulties in dealing with her abnormality after she was made aware of it. I didn't equate that with the kinds of issues that were being discussed in this thread. I understand the corollary that might seem obvious, that to a person who seems confused in issues of sexual attraction, but I really didn't see it. Except for the biological fact of chromosone arrangement these people are women. It might be jarring to find out that they have a genetic defect that says otherwise, but it seems to me to be for the most part a difference that makes no difference. Thanks for both of your replies!

Blanc

Swampfox
Do you have a comment on the hypocrisy of a University system that publicly declares itself in favor of "diversity and inclusiveness" yet fires someone for expressing non-liberal views on her own time? Have they redefined "diversity" at some point? What do you think of positions that people are unwilling to defend? Do you think that they are strongly held? When one seeks to silence one's opponents, rather than debate the merits of their premise, they reveal their lack of conviction in their own beliefs.

Kris
The point was to redirect the thread into anything other than the premise of the article. Dr. Adams often chronicles the quest for "diversity and inclusiveness" at our institutions of higher learning. These quests almost always seem to be characterized by a desire for diversity of appearances only; opinions must toe the "PC" party line. How could it be that "tolerance" of all is called for, except if one is white, Christian or male? Why is it that all viewpoints must be considered except if they disagree with the current liberal mantra? The simple fact is that this woman expressed a political/religious view that went against the liberal "dogma" and she was punished for it. Mike Adams merely points out the overarching hypocrisy of a university system that preaches "diversity and inclusiveness-except, of course if you don't agree with us". If it wasn't so widespread it would be funny. BTW- there are a number of genetic chromosomal abnormalities, XXY, XO, to name a few; they are usually quite rare and self-limiting (usually are sterile). A genetic basis for homosexuality just makes no sense; as there is no reproduction (or little) the "gay genes" would burn out in just one generation.

To Blanc
Did you read what some of the readers had to say in the comments section? Did you read where they were lied to about their sexuality and the problems that would encounter in order to spare them fitting into our society?

To Fabius
Fabuis writes, "Gays had the APA remove Homosexuality from its list of abnormalities, I think some time in the late 1980s." Wrong, it was removed from the list of disorders when the American Psychiatric Association publish DSM-II in 1973. For more information on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual you can go this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Ma nual_of_Mental_Disorders
DSM-1 was issued in 1952. Currently the mental health professionals are using DSM-IV.

Swampfox, RE: the ABC News article
I read this site often. I have never posted until today. I am not entering the debate going on here , but I do think your use of that article doesn't in anyway support your previous posts as I understand them. The article you site speaks of an acknowledged birth defect, an imperfection. I did a little web research before I posted and most women who suffer from this rare condition are exactly that... women. They grow up and are raised as women and despite infertility, are completely externally feminine in every way. It also noted that they normally always identify sexually as women. Without the benefit of a lab and 21st century science, you would have no way to differentiate these women from any other woman. I'm not sure what point you drew from this.

Respectfully yours,
Blanc

To Fabius
Fabius writes, "Homosexuals (mostly men) are promiscuous because they can never achieve the satisfaction that heterosexuals achieve in sexual intercourse. Therefore, homosexuals are constantly looking for that next partner to obtain the satisfaction that they will never find." Being promiscuous whether you are gay or straight is destructive. I don't know where you get the idea that gays are looking for another partner because they are unsatisfied. Personally, I think that some gay men are more prone to promiscuity because of lack of support they get in our society. Not until recently would you ever think that a gay couple would live openly in South Carolina.

SkorpioG
I will try to accept your claim of being a libertarian at face value - even if the issues you want to see written about sound more like the liberals' agenda.

But, I'm sorry - you have still missed the point.

This article was NOT an "anti-gay" article - it was about "diversity hypocrisy".

Unfortunately, this thread of comments HAS become that which you describe - both pro & con.

If you are always looking for some hidden meaning to validate a conspiracy - you will generally find it - even if it exists only in your mind.

skincolor cannot be changed,behavior can
Mr. Adams. I read this on LifeSiteNews.com and thought it applied to your article.

Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist who founded the "direct action" group OutRage! that specialises in media stunts such as disrupting Christian religious services, wrote on Spiked Online that he agrees with the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a "gay gene."
Contrary to the findings of some researchers who have tried to posit a purely genetic origin for same-sex attractions, Tatchell wrote, "Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that's all. Predisposition and determination are two different things."
Homosexual activists have adopted the "gay gene" theory to bolster their assertion that any objection on moral grounds to homosexual activity is akin to objecting to left-handedness or skin colour. It has supported the accusation that Christians and others who object to the homosexual movement are racists and bigots.
Tatchell even went as far as to acknowledge the existence of some who have changed their "sexual orientation." "If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined... how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't."
Sexuality, he wrote, is "far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow."



Audacity

And we have the audacity to call ourselves a free people. Look around, we have our own brand of fascism. Namely a tyranny of rights.

You must accept the mark in order to buy or sell.

To SkopioG
It would not matter to many of these people if a genetic cause was ever found. They would still say that homosexual "behavior" is unacceptable. And, that any sex should only be between a married heterosexual couple. I would suggest that you click on the link that I posted above about some women who are born with an XY chromosome.

Will
Ya know, I think if woulda been wunnerful if your parents had either both been homosexual, or maybe they coulda at least had one offspring that lived. ( in case this went by over your head, which it probably did, in either case, you would not have been here with you snotty nose drivel).

the Old Coot
Georgia

Fabius
See the cut-and-paste distortions and beliefs of Fabius are a systemic of the anti-gay activists. It's quite similar to what Rush Limbaugh calls the "Drive-by Media"...make undocumented and distorted claims, fire them off like a shotgun, and run away as fast as you can.

Fabius
All I know is that statistics say that 2 out of every 3 males in San Francisco is gay.

A note to straight guys: If you are single and looking for a little casual action, you'd probably make out extremely well in S.F. There are the normal percentages of straight women, yet a disproportionate percentage of available straight men. One of my best friends is straight, and I took him to a gay bar when he came and visited me when I lived in San Fran, and he ended up getting 2 dates, 2 phone numbers from (yes, real) fairly attractive women (straight women tend to hang out with their gay friends).

A straight guy could make out like a bandit if he played his cards right.

To Primus54
You are free to believe whatever you want. The fact is that TH has now run an anti-gay article for the past 12 weeks in a row. While admitting there exist far greater perils to the country (divorce, illegal immigration, soaring budget deficits, etc.) TH has yet to run any of these topics weekly. When they do, I will back off the claim that TH is trying to whip up the so-called conservative base by running anti-gay articles.

I frankly don't like Obama and don't like the shadowy controllers and advisors he has waiting in the wings to "help" him on Day 1. I am a Libertarian and believe every person's home is their castle and everyone should keep to their own business. When confronted by people who think I am wrong for being who I am and feel that they have a right to shout in my face about it and erect restrictions on my liberty, I will fight them day and night with everything I have. En garde!

Love and approval
Some people cannot tell the difference between love and approval. I love my family. That is my duty and sometimes privilege. I am not bound to approve of them. Indeed my love compels me to disapprove of them when they are wrong. Homosexuals demand approval. They are not happy to freely practice their behavior. They demand more. They must never, ever have to look into the eyes of a disappointed, accusing society. If they cannot have approval they will use the leverage of the courts and government bureaucrats to silence and eliminate those who do not approve.

AliveInHim
Please rethink your view that gay people out of the blue "decide" to be gay.

Or, put another way: Do you wrestle with feelings of lesbianism? Have you ever suddenly "decided" to have sex with a female or been conflicted with same sex desires in the past?

If you answer "no", then why assume that (the vast majority of) gay people were not born with their attractions (like you were with yours)? Did somebody have to "teach" you to be attracted to men? Nobody had to teach me to be attracted to men. I was attracted to all different types of guys in high school (I actually knew I was gay before adolescence).

You're saying you did not "decide"... or have not been tempted....but you assume others have?

This sounds presumptuous on your part. It might do you some good to LISTEN to some of the gay posters on TH (and there are many liberal AND conservative gay posters here willing to engage you). Good luck.

SkorpioG
People such as yourself accuse the right of seeing bogeymen, yet your own bogeyman is this so-called conspiracy to rile up the base to avoid an Obama landslide.

I've got some news for you - anyone who has been paying attention and who hasn't been emotionally blinded can see that Obama is unelectable - even against whom I consider to be a weak candidate (as far as the conservative "base" is concerned).

The real question will be if the Dem super delegates find it more palatable to lose the election with Obama (so as not to appear "racist" and avoid Denver being set afire), or whether they dump Obama in favor of Hillary to at least have a shot at winning the White House this year.

Politics is a curiously interesting - and it never ceases to amaze me how Democrats can hold the winning hand yet manage to lose because they are "too smart" by half.

You go ahead and continue to live in your fantasy world, imaging some cigar-smoking, white men sitting around a table dreaming up the next "anti-gay" article for Townhall to post, and I'll try to remain grounded in the real world so that some of us can save you from yourself.

To Aliveinhim
To Aliveinhim, "And what do you make of those who successfully leave the homosexual lifestyle-and they do exist? Were they not homosexual enough?"

I am sure some have left the "so-called" homosexual lifestyle. Some have rather committed suicide than deal with same sex attraction. But, I thought we all would like to have healthy children. Healthy in the since of mental and physical health.

Here is a fascinating story about woman who are born with XY chromosomes that is on today's ABC News website: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MedicalMysteries/story?id=546 5752&page=1

To Swampfox
You know as well as I do that the anti-gay activists on here are not interested in talking about homosexuality or gay people in any meaningful way. To them, we are barely human, worthy of pity at best and scorn and damnation at worst.

They see us as a test of their religious faith -- they want to shout from the rooftops their disgust and anger at us for not being run off and not being smited. In their eyes, their religious beliefs are being curtailed by not being allowed to shout and prostyltize us. Society realizing we're not the boogeymen and deciding to treat us like human beings burns some of them up to the point they need to come here and bounce their hate off the soundboard.

I guess it's better to have them come here and sound off then brutally beat us up on the street, murder us in school, shoot up a church that extends us a hand in friendship, etc.

To Beowulfe
"The black civil rights movement is COMPLETELY dissimilar to this BS "gay rights" garbage. Blacks were fighting against discrimination based upon what they were, whereas homosexuals are fighting for "free stuff" based upon how they CHOOSE to live their lives."

This is nothing more than your opinion and your foaming-at-the-mouth expression of your feelings of disgust at the existence of gay people. Period, as you say.

You also claim I have the ability to be something else tomorrow, simply by waking up and deciding to not be gay. By that logic, you too possess the same ability to wake up tomorrow and lust after men. Since neither is possible, why do you insist it is so?

The struggle for gay rights IS a struggle for civil rights. To make the specious claim that it is not is to ignore the plight that blacks faced up through the 1960s. If you need other examples, check out how the Chinese were treated in the 1860s on the West Coast, or how the Italians were treated in the 1920s, or the Jews, Irish, American Indians, etc.

Swampfox
And what do you make of those who successfully leave the homosexual lifestyle-and they do exist? Were they not homosexual enough?

You can still choose to be chaste no matter what.

Eddietoo answered your question, by the way.

Here's mine:

Son/daughter: "Mom, I'm gay".

Me: "That doesn't change the fact that you are my child and I love you no matter what".

Any grieving I would do over such a sad situation would be done in private with my spouse.

That is exactly what most parents would do-and I personally don't know of any who would do otherwise. Or did your folks disown you, that you feel you must extrapolate to assume the rest of us would do the same?

To Primus54
You call me smug, yet fail to grasp the reason TH runs a weekly anti-gay article (and will probably continue to do so until the November election): the Far Right is scared to death of an Obama landslide and thus is desperately trying to get all so-called "conservative" voters whipped up and out to the polls.

All the other reasons given, like free speech, public health, caring for our souls, etc., are mere side-shows meant to distract attention from the real purpose. Gay people are the perennial boogeymen, used to illustrate the perceived "evils" that could befall the country if X or Y happen. They're after your children too, and then they'll close the churches, and then ____ and then ____, etc.

So, you are free to label me whatever you want. Open your eyes and observe from my position; things might appear different to you.

disageements
It seems as if the point is that intelligent people are no longer allowed to disagree. If you have differing viewpoints, one side must be villified, scorned, and described as a bigot or worse. Our country was built on the premise that we could disagree, and were free to express our beliefs without fear of retribution. I think that is what is being lost in the discourse of politics, moral values, and religion.

To beowulf
Forget the marriage issue. Do you think people chose to be homosexual? And, can they just wake up one day and decide to be heterosexual?

Yes, we know will...
According to will, "tolerance" is only good if you are "tolerating" the perverted viewpoints that he, HIMSELF, agrees with. Thank you for admitting as much, kiddo.

Fascists of the world unite!
"TH's obsession with all things gay continues on to the November election..." - SkorpioG

And had you fascists, and your 4 NON-elected judges in the most corrupt, backwards state in the nation not imposed "gay marriage" on the entire nation, we wouldn't have to fight against your fascism, now would we?

The FACT of the matter is that "marriage" is NOT a right. Period. End of sentence.

Marriage is nothing more than a recognition by a third party that a certain state exists.

In one swipe of their judicial pen, the 4 America-hating fascists on Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have rewritten thousands of years of laws and traditions simply to push the agenda of a few perverts who not only "want to live their life", but DEMAND that YOU approve of the way they live their life.

That is, after all, what a marriage is. It is NOT an institution of how the married couple ought to live their life. It is an institution imposed on OTHER people. It is an ENDORSEMENT by other people.

Well, guess what? We, the PEOPLE, did NOT endorse gay marriage, and every single attempt thus far to gain the PEOPLE'S endorsement has been met with the staunchest opposition possible.

The black civil rights movement is COMPLETELY dissimilar to this BS "gay rights" garbage. Blacks were fighting against discrimination based upon what they were, whereas homosexuals are fighting for "free stuff" based upon how they CHOOSE to live their lives.

To SkopioG
The obsession over THIS issue is timeless. If a gay gene were found to be the cause, some would call for genetic testing and a genetic cure. Some might even opt for an abortion.

I am still waiting for one of the anti-gay posters on this board to answer my questions that I posed earlier. They seem to be strangely silent.

Will!
So many straw men and so little time. Can you think of any more straw men? Is this the debating technique they teach at MoveOn? Go back to school.

will,

perhaps you can enlighten us again as to how homosexuals are discriminated against.

Swampfox,

I would tell my son or daughter that sexual orientation is what it is. His or her obligation to remain chaste is not eliminated because of his or her sexual orientation.

diversity
being a homosexual is not being diverse it is being devient.

wiseone...

No, true diversity does not accept ALL viewpoints on homosexuality.

Gays are, in fact, a de facto civil rights issue on campuses. As are women's and african-american's civil rights. The point is to ELEVATE the discourse, to find the common cause, to encourage the vision of how much we all have in common, to foster tolerance.

If a group of neo-Nazi skinheads appear on campus, demanding to be accepted, demanding "tolerance" for their cause, rejecting them is not scrapping a diversity agenda. It is PROTECTING a diversity agenda.


When intolerant christians appear on campus with Leviticus in hand, not looking for common cause but bearing fanatical and bigoted views, then this is detrimental to fostering an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding. Just as if a new KKK group formed on campus.

I wonder...
If Cyrstal Dixon was Muslim if things might have turned out differently? I cannot imagine any university anywhere with the guts to fire a Muslim based on what she wrote in an OpEd. If the university did do that (esp a state U like Toledo), everyone from the Govenor, to the US Attorney General, the ACLU, and Al Qaida would be up in arms. AL Jeezera would camp out in front of the Univ President's office 24x7; there would be riots from Jakharta to Istanbul.

SkorpioG
And again, I repeat that "will" and "
MellorSJ2" attempted to hijack this thread - and their opponents and backers have managed to bring them the satisfaction of being successful in their attempt.

In your case, despite your smugness, your first sentence proves that even "intellectuals" such as yourself can't see the forest for the trees.

The subject of this column was about censoring the opinion of someone who doesn't tow the "accepted" PC line.

Perhaps you could lend your impressive talents to defending such a practice - or admit you have no defense and are merely distracting from the point - just as "will" and "MellorSJ2" have done.

Here We Go (Again...)
TH's obsession with all things gay continues on to the November election...

Here come the usual suspects of anti-gay activists (more like shills) who spout the same nonsense they always do, demanding everyone pay attention to their newly-discovered "wisdom" about the "evils" of homosexuality. Refuting this "wisdom," which draws its strength from religious texts more than anything else, is referred to as being "anti-Christian". Anyone engaging in refuting this "wisdom" is called a "homosexualist," a "militant" or some other new word of the week.

Anti-gay activists are more concerned about being perceived as right (and gay people wrong) than the substance or truth in either side's talking points. Anti-gay activists also proceed from the assumption that gay people for some reason choose to be gay, either as some sort of affront to society or are merely confused. Either way, with the simple healing power of Jehovah and prayer (to them it's apparently that simple) all can be made right. Rebutting this notion means you are anti-Christian and whatever gay people have to say is irrelevant.

True diversity
Forget about Ms. Dixon and her allegedly controversial column.

True diversity and true inclusiveness at UT (and all other institutions of higher learning) would welcome all points of view on homosexuality. True diversity and inclusiveness would insist that Ms. Dixon be allowed to express her opinion that a homosexual can wake up tomorrow and decide not to be gay anymore.

The left's definitions of "diversity" and "inclusiveness", like all of their other PC censorship, is self-serving and destructive. They are euphemisms that are used to ustify their attempt to by-pass the First Amendment rights of people who disagree with them.

It is sick they these arrogant hypocrites are allowed to get away with ordering non-liberal employers that they must hire people without regard to race, creed, color, religion, or national origin (or even their ability to read and write English) and then firing anyone who disagrees with their oppressive social politics.

In the end it is the left that has no real faith that their policies on homosexuals and other defined "minorities" will demonstrate the kind of "self eviden[ce]" to which the Declaration of Independence alludes when identifying "inalienable" human rights. In other words, even the left knows their "gay rights" ( or women's rights, or any other minority's rights) agenda won't prove itself to be valid. That's why they can't tolerate the existence of opposing opinions.

Two more questions.
What if your son or daughter came home on day with the announcement that they were gay or lesbian? What would your response be and what course of action would you take?

Question to the anti-gay posters
Would any of you choose to be gay or lesbian? And, if you found yourself to be gay or lesbian what course of action would you take?

choice
I find left-handed people offensive. The Catholic Church had the right idea in the fifties, trying to force people to write right handed, as God intended. Every day, all they had to do was wake up and say "Today I will be right handed".

Please ignore the studies that show that people who show a "preference" for writing left handed and are forced to be normal like everyone else develop severe mental problems including depression and sometimes seizures, which no longer manifest when they "accept" left handedness. After all, "sinister" people are named from the latin word for "left". Anyway, they deserve all of the afflictions they get for trying to defy natural order.

I may be gay, but thank God I am not a left handed freak.

Mr. Normal Right Handed

Homosexuality, what is it and why is it?
The forum is open. Why are some people homosexual and does it matter? Why do gays/lesbians have to "come out". Why would someone choose to be a member of a group that has been so vilified by some religions and even common law. If Ms. Dixon came home and told her parents that she was black it would be of no surprise. However, if she came home and told them that she was a lesbian, what would be the result. Some countries even go so far even in todays world to declare the death penalty for homosexuals .... Nigeria, Iran and Saudi Arabia come to mind.

Scotch:
I love your satire! "All the BEST (my accent) people believe ..." LOL!

"It is a science, it is right, it is correct." Laugh harder.

"*I am a very smart person, and I know this to be true because I have studied this deeply and read all the texts and articles about it." Love this! It mimics all the idiots.

"...*I am a very smart person, and I know this to be true because I have studied this deeply and read all the texts and articles about it."

Have you ever considered writing comedy professionally?

"stepped over the line"
So there is a line which must not be violated? Who establishes the location of this line? You? Me?

"Stepping over the line" is code for "I don't agree with what you are saying and it makes me angry!"

This constitutes a special protection.

Gender Confusion
Since Ms. Dixon describes herself as "a Black woman", I believe she should also describe herself as an "alumna" rather than an "alumnus" of UT. Otherwise, so much for the comprehensive nature of that school's education, not to mention graduate division.

To Tedmug
Tedmug writes, "Thanks for the softball. How about the special right to be insulated, to be sheltered from any comment regarding homosexuality that you find discomforting? How about the special right to have an employee fired for making the statement that homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic destiny? Any more questions?" Do you think that we are insulated from anything. I am a conservative gay who supports McCain. Talk about being on the edge. I find too many gays/lesbians who are mesmerized by Obama.

That the woman chose to write a letter to the editor expressing her personal umbrage at civil rights protection being granted to gays and lesbians because they can choose their sexuality, but she can't choose another race .... I think she stepped over the line. Gays and lesbians can try to deny that they are who they are, I did, it almost cost me my life.

Has anyone found the gene that makes someone an anti-gay Christian?

Mr. Adams
Dear Mr. Adams,

You seem to be an intelligent man, and your Ph.D would verify this. Therefore, I must respectfully submit that for you to put forth the ideas that you espouse in your column, you must be an evil man or a very misguided man. Here's why:

*All the best people believe that homosexuals are born that way. The Woman's Studies departments of all Universities have ample evidence to prove this. It is science, it is right, it is correct.

*I am a very smart person, and I know this to be true because I have studied this deeply and read all the texts and articles about it.

*I also know that this is true because I am a caring person with a high and elevated consciousness which I have developed through a number of weekend retreats sponsored by people of extremely high consciousness. I know this is true from the inside out!

*In a world where right is self evident, and the truth is as clear as the nose on your face, there are occassional situations where someone like Ms. Crystal Dixon threatens the truth. When this happens, those of us who feel so deeply, care so much, and live in an exalted higher level of consciousness have just one option ... WE MUST CRUSH MS. DIXON AND ALL OF THOSE LIKE HER LIKE BUGS. I HOPE SHE NEVER WORKS AGAIN, CERTAINLY NOT FOR THE GOVERNMENT. YOUR TURN IS COMING, MR. ADAMS. WE WILL GET YOU, TOOO.

*So, as a kind, loving, high minded and knowing person, Mr. Adams, I would strongly suggest that you knuckle under, espouse the correct views, and join the team ..... OR WE WILL CRUSH YOU LIKE A BUG.

Namaste!

Special rights?
"What special rights tedmug?"

Tedmug said, "receive special protection", not "rights". There is a difference.

It's a homerun!
"Ladies and gentlemen I think that he got all of this one. I don't think that the park can hold it! That ball is going, going, gone!"

(Sorry, what's the point in posting if you can't have a little fun.)

Tolerance
Tolerance means everyone agrees with me.

Small minds on college campuses are a dangerous thing.

Answer to the question
Question: "Why did Rock Hudson get all those leads in the movies? Surely the directors knew."
Answer: Actors earn their pay by pretending to be someone and or something they aren't. Surely you knew that. (Don't call me Shirley)

Special rights
Thanks for the softball. How about the special right to be insulated, to be sheltered from any comment regarding homosexuality that you find discomforting? How about the special right to have an employee fired for making the statement that homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic destiny? Any more questions?

Special rights?
What special rights tedmug?

Mike Adams
The question is: does Mike Adams make compelling arguments regarding the current atmosphere of repression on our college campuses? Does he really get at the truth? Does he, among other things, tell how homosexuals receive special protection at the expense of the legitimate rights of others. The answer is provided by Will, Mellor, swampfox, et al. and it is a resounding "yes!" The aforementioned posters writhe in perplexity when Mike "tells it like it is." His words convict them and they howl in protest. It is as if they think they can change the truth by constantly rebutting (he just said,"rebutt") Mike Adams. But the truth is.

To Baynee
Baynee, my taxes have been paid in full, too. Oh, yes, as I keep saying, I am gay.

Why did Rock Hudson get all those leads in the movies? Surely the directors knew.

Alumni
Boycott and withholding of money ALways work. UT alumni that disagree with the university's decision should slam them by not giving another dime.Do not support anything involving the university.

Money talks and bullsh#t walks.

Villanova University bestowed a law degree on a loser who tortured and murdered his girlfriend. Now when we get alumni solicitations for funds I take my dog for a walk and pick up his poop with the paper.

Boycott!!

By the way check out how much Southwest Airlines gave to gay pride?? week for their parades.Delta looks better and better.

YOU ALL ARE LOST IN THE MINUTIAE
Why shouldn't we be able to discriminate? We discriminate when we pick a mate. We discriminate when we pick actors for movies and plays. Should a director have to pick a Black man if he applies to play George Washington or an Asian to play Martin luther King Jr? Should a photographer have to pick a man who applies to be a Playboy Playmate centerfold? Should a man be able to claim discrimination because he wasn't considered when he applied to be a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader? You say "Ah, but my taxes support the institutions of higher learning". You are right and they shouldn't, because my taxes do as well and I object. I object at being forced to labor for someone else's gain. When a man doesn't own the fruits of his labor he is by definition a slave.


Clik

Enough already
It doesn't matter if there is genetic. I didn't wake up one day and say, whoppee, I am gay. I didn't have to go to my parents and tell them that I was white, but I did have to tell them that I was homosexual.

Should she have been fired after she wrote the letter to the editor? I think that she should have reassigned a different position other than the one that she had.

Nonsense
"The University welcomes respectful dissent and input from others on all issues with the understanding that free speech and debate make our institution stronger."

The institution and instructors with whom I'm familiar would also publicly say something like this. Unfortunately, certain students quickly find out free speech and debate are welcome only when stating certain viewpoints.

Creighton Beryll
Give it up!

You're way too late to try to get the same effect like Will and Mellor. They stay up every night, clicking repeatedly on Townhall, waiting for Dr. Adams's column to appear.

Mellor doesn't even take time to read the article.

Keep trying, though. One day you may make it with the big boys.

Pent up frustration
It is painfully obvious that posters such as "will" and "MellorSJ2" use Mike Adams columns as the proverbial punching bag to vent their anger and frustrations.

The proof is that, no matter the actual intent of the article, it always comes down to "reverse homophobia". (Hey! I made up a new descriptor - hope it is PC enough.)

Unfortunately, the "punching bag" turns out to be the weighted blow-up clown we had as children - that, no matter how hard it is struck - reverses course and strikes back at the puncher.

The end result is that Mike's threads get hijacked from the real point of discussion - and we are forced to endure sanctimonious and elitist defenses from the likes of "Creighton Beryll".

Now - anybody want to discuss the real intent of the column?

Excellent point, SDN
"Which liberal value carries the most weight, I wonder? The right to sodomy or the right to an abortion? Good times."

I got a clue to this from a radio debate several years ago between a leftist pro-abort and a Christian pro-lifer. This was when the false "gay gene" report was first floated. I don't recall the name of the show, because the moderator showed incredible even-handedness.

He asked the pro-lifer, if it turns out there IS a "gay gene," and parents don't want to bring a gay child into the world, would you agree to abortion? And you could hear the horror in the pro-lifer's voice as she answered "Of course not!"

Then the moderator asked the pro-abort the same question. And, to be fair, you could hear the reluctance in his voice as he answered that even if it was the only reason for the abortion, he'd still support it.

Meanwhile, everyone leave "Will" and "Mellor" alone. For one thing we're interrupting their man-date. For another, the way some of us talk, you'd think there was some kind of "Gay Men's Health Crisis" that has decimated millions with chronic and fatal diseases, or something.

Creighton Beryl
"It's a fact of life that some people are homosexual."

Nope. One thing that will amaze people 50 years from now is that we actually fell for the idea that homosexuality was an innate biological condition, like blue eyes or hemophilia.

Ken
What difference does it make whether a genetic basis is or is not found for homosexuality? It's a fact of life that some people are homosexual. Deal with it.

Homosexuality is a "non-value adding behavior?" What "value" does it not add? Procreation? So what? There's no shortage of that. Homosexuality doesn't exist at the expense of heterosexuality.


-CB-

anderson659
More childish insults and character assassination from anderson659. Note that he never offers up any cogent arguments or addresses those offered up by others.


-CB-

Egon

I'm no fan of the idea of "homophobia." I think it's presumptuous to assume that the reason somebody objects to something is out of fear.

This assumption is the result of liberals' tendency to assume that the only reason anyone would hold views which run counter to their own is because they "feel threatened."

That being said, how about a more suitable word? Try "bigotry" on for size.


-CB-


Eating their own
LOL. I love it when the left eats its own (I'm assuming the black female vice president was a liberal, and I have about a 98% chance of being correct). But even Inner Party members have to be eliminated if they deviate in the least from Party dogma.

Drivel?

anderson659 writes:

> The usual resident homosexual militants are here
> to offer their drivel about homosexuals. So far all
> have missed the point about the article and went
> straight into their militant stance.

Oh, the irony!

This, coming from the guy who not only offers endless
drivel about homosexuals, but whi fails to respond to
legitimate points and rebuttals raised by anyone who
disagrees with him on the topic of homosexuality.


-CB-

Careful Will and Melior

One could take your statements to be hetrophobic.

And the topic of the article was about free speech in an academic environment, a rare thing these days.

If they could they would
Expell you, that is Mike.

You expose their intolerance. Their fascist ways to snuff alternative views.

How do they live with themselves?

I hope your article causes them many sleepless nights, as well for all the godless trash talkers on here.

You have stroked their ire Mike, you must be doing something right!

Will, I hope a genetic basis is found
because it will amuse me mightily when activists like you try and stop parents who have determined their fetus carries that gene from heading to the abortion clinics in droves.

Which liberal value carries the most weight, I wonder? The right to sodomy or the right to an abortion? Good times.

The Cause
Mike, No wonder they fired her! She expressed belief that she has a creator.

Not for a moment
Will, even trying to sneak a bogus fact into a post must be challenged. The fact that you want a genetic finding that there is some sort of "homosexual gene" does not make it so. No proof has ever been "discovered" scientifically of such a gene. And probability would suggest that it will never be discovered. I say probability for a reason ... and, here is the reason. If I conduct a study and am unable to prove my hypothesis that a gene exists that guides sexual behavior into abnormalities such as homosexuality, then I have not proven the link. Another researcher conducts the study, with the same result, followed by another researcher, and another, and another, and so on. You see now I can utter the law of probability that says that there is probably no genetic relationship. Make sense?

Your 80% foolishness was a juvenile attempt to distort a discussion with a non-factual utterance. Such obfuscation is beneath contempt, but I will heap some on you nevertheless.

Homosexuality is a non-value adding behavior that only results in disease and societal harm. At any point where honest people gather to consider the longer term dangers to our species from this scourge I do hope the facts are presented carefully. It is important the practicing homosexuals be given no doors to bolt the discussion.

Finally, I pray that the good people of California are able to see past the efforts of Jerry Brown and pass the constitutional amendment this year. And then, I hope the good people of California will take the opportunity to clean house of the rogues in black robes that created this constitutional mess.

Will MellorSJ2 and the rest
MellorSJ2 and Will came out to entertain everybody with yheir obnoxious, childish presentation of, well nothing. MellotSJ2 and Will are examples what people need medication for. Arguing with these two is like teaching a pig to sing.

All it does is irritate the pig and frustrate you.

MellorSJ2 is another homosexual militant who occasonally like to post as if he is straight. He is also a virulent anti Christian America hating type who hates Dr. Adams faith.

Notice how he lauds, Will, the homosexual militant who also hates Dr. Adams and posts on his every column,

Ignore their posts, it is useless to make any factual points with them, neither one has the ability to process information beyond homosexual talking points, or the intelligence to offer a reasonable debate.

Dealing with these two is like polishing a turd. At the end of the day , all you have is a shiny turd for your efforts.

Mellor SJ2 by the way is also very much a moral coward. He hates Christians, but loves Muslims. They abuse fudge packers like him with death,torture, and every other form of discrimination but he has nothing but praise for them. Makes you wonder why?

And as usual he missed the point of the article. Hopefully, he grabbed his binky, jar of vaseline, and toodled off to bed with his trap door down so he can make himself feel better.

Nice work, will!
But you forget that half of these folk can't construct a sentence, let alone write something with polysyllables. And the idea that one person might reference Jonathan Swift, let alone two, well, you're fantasizing.

Nah. They're too busy cutting and pasting their lies.

Ned

I taught for several years at an HBCU, Morehouse College in Atlanta. I must say that I never felt that I was treated differently because I am not black. The students were amazing and the full-time profs were either friendly or indifferent--not at all hostile; I have taught at five different colleges and universities and Morehouse was my favorite teaching "gig."

I was just a Ph.D. candidate, though, and not tenure-track--just a hired gun, temporary migrant labor if you will. One white professor was denied tenure while I was there, despite having a published book (which will usually get you tenured, as long as your teaching is good). He also impressed me as a highly intelligent, collegial fellow.

He sued. I don't know how it worked out, but had he been black there is no question that he would have been tenured.

The problem is not so much that HBCU's like Morehouse are hotbeds of anti-white racism. My experience at Morehouse was fantastic (with the exception of the time one misguided soul yelled, "Hey Whitey!" at me while I was walking to class). I was looking for discrimination, as a protective measure, and I just didn't see any.

The issue is the acceptance of a racist concept, a segregated black college. Once you buy into that, I can understand the interest in keeping the faculty black.

As is so often the case, it's a question of giving into faulty premises, and thus being compelled to accept an absurd (and in your son's case unjust) conclusion.


Cheers!

Norman the Once and Future Prof

Hey will!
I wondered what on earth "Unholy Toledo" could be about, went over here, saw Adams' byline, and lo! within a paragraph, there he goes again.

And, like clockwork, here come crazy pastor anderson, who has dropped--temporarily?--his lie about either of us posing as straight men, and the faaaaabulous one back with his lies.

How long can it be before dreadnut and No Talent make an appearance?

Don't you just _love_ how "militancy" equates to making your point? (Unless, of course, you're another nutty xian.) And how you never get an answer to what constitutes "flaunting"?

I think I might have a chat with Soros though :)

Orwell was right - some people are ...
As a former college professor and college administrator, I can only applaud Mike's attempt to force logic and rationality onto PC-blinded college spokespersons/administrators. It ain't gonna happen.

The only way this is going to get resolved is for Ms. Dixon to sue in Federal Court to defend her First Amendment right to express her political views in newspapers without being punished for holding those views.

FWIW, my son (also a college professor) spent four years on the faculty of a "historically black" university - and because he wasn't black, he was treated in ways (routinely, and constantly) that if he'd been black and at a "historically white" university there would have been lawsuits, protests and public outcries. However, since he was white at a black school, he had no rights and could be treated however his superiors and the college administration (and the students) chose to treat him.

He is now a tenure-track professor at a fully integrated (faculty, staff and student body) university, and is being treated with respect due someone of his professional accomplishments and commitment to professionalism, to his students and to his university.

Odd, isn't it, that more than 50 years after "Brown" and more than 40 years after the landmark Civil Rights legislation, some people are still more equal than others (sounds like Orwell, doesn't it?), and that in universities, conservatives, Christians, heterosexuals, men and whites (among others) are less equal than liberals, atheists, gays, women and people "of color" ...


will
The technique of calling us "redneck" is really the slur of the commie elitist homosexual militant.

"Homophobia"
Like the word "Gay" replacing Homosexual(not too long ago it meant something entirely different) "Homophobia" is being pushed in lieu of "Utter Contempt" which is, in most straight peoples minds the correct definition of their feelings towards all "cuties"...

Will and MellorSJ2

Do you guys have jobs? Seriously. You hate Mike, yet here you are at or near the pole position (no pun intended, well maybe a little . . .) every time, right after midnight.

Or is posting on TH your job?

Soros has deeeeep pockets, after all . . .

If he's not paying you, you're getting robbed.

Will MellorSJ2 and the rest
The usual resident homosexual militants are here to offer their drivel about homosexuals. So far all have missed the point about the article and went straight into their militant stance.

This is an article about free speech, and the agenda driven policies of institutions of higher learning who are too cowardly to allow dissent from the pC dogma.

Here come the militants to do their best to convince people they are indeed victims.

Mike, Mike, Mike...
As a criminology professor you must know you will never get a rational, reasonable response to your critical examination of this issue.

It is, after all, impossible to apply common sense to human behavior... especially to the behavior of a 'liberal' human.

Like driving at really high speeds after consuming alcoholic beverages, trying to mix logic into a conversation with a liberal will only end with a crash. You'll have a headached before you'll get an understandable response from U. of Toldeo.

But then again, you knew that all along.

And your article made me grin.

Free speech dead on campus
Just look at the struggles young Republican's have had getting equal funding for their speaker choices into most campusus. It is as if David Horowitz was satan.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Oh no!
Mike's back from vacation.

Typical academic response
There are so many like this administrator around. Attempts at regimenting thinking to the politically correct ideology.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.