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
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Mike Adams :: Townhall.com Columnist
Salem's Witch Trial
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?


Dear President Jacobs (UTPresident@utoledo.edu):

I am writing today to ask for your immediate resignation from the position of president of The University of Toledo (UT). This request is a result of my recent discovery that you have written a letter to the Ohio legislature in support of passing initiatives that would extend benefits to the domestic partners of gay employees at your university.

It is now abundantly evident that you did not fire Crystal Dixon because she could not perform her duties at UT. You fired her because she disagrees with your political views and because she is interfering with your efforts to serve as a political lobbyist for the gay community. A university president simply cannot be allowed to a) use the power of his office to serve as a political lobbyist, while b) using the power of that office to fire employees perceived as opposing those lobbying efforts.

I am also concerned that you have formed some radical associations in your capacity as a lobbyist for the gay rights movement. Your fellow gay rights activist Kim Welter of Equality Ohio told the Toledo Free Press that it is “unfortunate that someone (Mrs. Dixon) who works in Human Resources for the University of Toledo would publicly express beliefs more appropriate for her place of worship.” In other words, Dixon should stay around like-minded individuals and stay out of the public square where only secularist views should be aired.

Some think that Welter was saying “That Negro doesn’t know her place.” I disagree. She was probably only saying “Christians shouldn’t flaunt their lifestyle. They should just keep inside the closet.” Regardless, President Jacobs, you have to be concerned about the radical views of some of your fellow gay rights advocates.

Before you resign as president of UT I want you to fire a clinical law professor named Robert Salem because, in my opinion, he cannot effectively perform his job duties at the university now that he has publicly expressed discriminatory opinions. The specific discriminatory opinion he expressed was the following remark to the Toledo Free Press: “(Mrs. Dixon) cannot effectively perform her job duties at the university now that she has publicly expressed discriminatory opinions.”

Unless Robert Salem is illiterate he is fully aware that Crystal Dixon did not express a discriminatory opinion. In other words, she did not advocate job discrimination. But when the learned Professor Salem said she should be removed from her job at the university, he was advocating job discrimination. And when someone advocates job discrimination, he should be fired.

Since this has the potential to create a domino effect – one that could literally put the university out of business – I think that calls for termination should come from somewhere outside the university system. That is why I have offered to submit my discriminatory opinions regarding Robert Salem.

After reading this statement, I’ve decided Robert Salem is also lacking the intellectual fortitude to serve as a professor of law: “(Dixon) has a right to her religious views and she has a right to freedom of speech, but the university has a right to have someone in that position that is going to comply with the university’s diversity policy.” Salem’s statement is problematic for two reasons:

1.    Constitutional rights are given to individuals to protect them from governments. They are not given to governments to protect them from individuals.

2.    Public trials are supposed to follow, not precede, accusations of wrong-doing.

Aside from his obvious incompetence, Robert Salem suffers from elitist attitude that is at odds with the UT diversity mission. He recently stated that “Because Dixon is considered a staff member at UT … she is not entitled to the same academic freedom principles granted to the university’s faculty.”

Translation: “In speaking out, Mrs. Dixon was being an uppity Negro.”

This kind of statement is dangerous because it constitutes a discriminatory opinion. UT should therefore fire Salem in order to prevent job discrimination. After all, UT “has a right to have someone in that position that is going to comply with the university’s diversity policy.” (Hat Tip: Robert Salem of the University of Toledo).

Finally, President Jacobs, I would like for you to amend a statement you made earlier this year. The statement read: “University of Toledo employees can – and frequently do – speak with the media, except in cases where their statements or writing interfere with their ability to do their jobs.”

The statement should have read: “University of Toledo employees can – and frequently do – speak with the media, except in cases where their statements or writing interfere with the president’s political expression.”

I look forward to your timely response to my discriminatory opinion.

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.
Coward In Chief?
And that brings us to a final point: can you imagine the press reaction if a Republican president (or even a candidate) hid from direct questioning from the media for five days during an acute international crisis? The media is still too enamored of The One to mention it, but Obama’s reclusiveness is odd in the extreme and deeply troubling. Isn’t he capable of directly engaging the American people except via a stream of ever-migrating written statements prepared by his gang of 300 advisors? It really is time for Barack Obama to step out from behind the palm trees and start answering tough questions (e.g. Why did you equate victim and victimizer as your first reaction? What precisely would you do now?). It is not becoming of a presidential nominee to go to the movies while war erupts and our international credibility teeters on the brink of utter collapse. It’s certainly not inspiring confidence in his ability to navigate during an international crisis. Voters should take note.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/202 72

Shut up, "will"
Preemptive strike...

A waste of time, to be sure - but I had to try.

Kick em again Mike
ypervert is as ypervert does. What's amazing is that these morons are supposed to be teaching critical thinking. One wonders if they could see the ridiculousness and hypocrisy of their deconstruction even if it came out of somebody else's mouth instead of their own. These guys would have been right at home in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or Maoist China where contrary opinons couldn't be allowed "for the good of the state." Morons, pure ypervert morons.

the big mick

IGNORE THEM!!!!!
Just wanted to say that again. If tripes like we all know who are ignored and posters stick to the topic at hand (again, it is freedom of speech, not homosexuality) without acknowledging these nutjobs it will be a far more enjoyable time for all.

bryce1, I get so weary...
... of lefties such as you who whine like some tiresome crybaby about Mike Adams' columns and campaigns.

Why do you and your "friends" continue to subject yourselves to something you find so "tiresome"?

Are you one of those people who get off "pain"?

As to Adams "coming out of the closet" - stop projecting!

bryce 1

Speaking of cry babies, I don't see anything about Bush in the article. Do you?

Perhaps Mr. Adams can run his next article by you to see if it meets with your approval before he publishes it.

"Ranger29" opines:
"The writer of this editorial needs help...
-----

Well - if there was ever a case of "it takes one to know one", it would certainly be true in fraud "Ranger Robert's" case.

How are those single rudder F-15s flying?

Ha, ha, ha...

Ignore Mr. Adams
If President Jacobs is smart, he will ignore this silly hyperbolic column by Mr. Adams. Ms. Dixon has a right to her opinion but she should have kept the university out of it. She didn't and had to pay the price. Her religion does not place her above rules of conduct. Sorry. Game over.

Salty
Unlikely unless Bush turns out to be gay. This the Adams obsession don't ya know.

Make that
Tis the Adams obsession.

curiouser and curiouser
Well, it should be interesting to see who shows up to defend Ms. (as I do not know the proper honorative) Dixon. This appears to be a clear case of a firing of a public (?) official because of political views.

Which is fine an dandy if when the case is applied to a private business owner. The public offices, however, are supposed to be colour-blind (no pun intended), and only interested in getting the best person for the job regardless of whether they are of the PC flavour of the month. It shouldn't matter what someone's political, ethnic, religious or sexual background is, I thought that the law was supposed to be applied blindly and to all.

I eagerly await the ACLU defense of Ms. Dixon from the modern communists/fascists that seek (clumsily) to indoctrinate the upcoming generation. And just as eagerly await the vitriol that will likely result from my grouping these two groups of the left because of their common goal and methodology(h/t Jonah Goldberg).

Actually Primus
I check on Adams to see if he will break his record of 5 columns in a row about homosexuality.

This one makes two for two since he came back from vacation.

Dear President Jacobs,

Should you by slim chance read this column (and this comment), please accept my heartfelt gratitude for fighting the good fight to "extend benefits to the domestic partners of gay employees at your university", for standing up to DO THE RIGHT THING.

Just because a recently converted (they're the worst) evangelical christian and former alcoholic "FINDS GOD", and subsequently finds the Book of Leviticus - and uses this Book to bludgeon others with....well, this doesn't automatically make this new convert "enlightened". Whether dressed in radical Muslim attire, ultra-orthodox jewish garb... or the plain simple clothing of the condemning, totalitarian-leaning evangelical, these are still the faces of the religious regimes that have for centuries repressed women and gays, sought to make them something less than natural, less than human.

I do not see your actions as those of a "political lobbyist", replete with nefarious intent, as Mike seems to insinuate. I see your actions, like many in our society, as redressing old injustices, setting things right, scraping away the bigotry and prejudice to simply right the wrongs of the past. A noble enterprise. The opposite of the contemptible bill of goods Mike is desperately trying to pass off as your agenda.


Thank you for doing what you do. We need more, not less, of what seems to me real "christian compassion" (and I am not religious) such as you've shown.

Will

I read the article
Maybe I'm a little slow, but my take on the subject matter of this article is the intolerant and un-American firing of a woman for expressing her first amendment rights.

I hope she sues.

Political activism
It's funny how the progressives within society won't learn from history.

Will, if you remove her rights to say her opinion in the public square without reprisal from a federal body then that means you can be the next one who is targeted by a federal body without regards for your rights. Are you really sure you want to open that door? Do civil rights really mean so little to you?

Will

I see you expect "tolerance" while you are a little lacking in that department yourself.
Typical lib.

Bryce
Have you heard about my squeaky chair? It's an old metal based swivel on rollers and it squeaks like crazy when I shift the slightest. When I get a real good belly laugh it starts sounding like Forest Gump after his mother paid off the principle! Squeek Squeek Squeek Squeek. It's going a mile a minute now. Squeek Squeek etc. If Adams (choke chortle squeek) is a yqueer because he opposes discrimination against those who do not accept the proqueer agenda, does that mean folks like you and perBert (ranger29Rober') and "Author" in criticizing Adams really are revealing your secret inner Evangelical??? Your theory seems to be to be opposed to something means you really are one! The mind boggles.
What I sincerely wish is that you prohomos would get a new argument other than "closet yqueer" or "homophobe" which I understand means the same thing in your universe. There goes the chair again. Squeeker Squeeker Squeeker Squeek!

big mick

This could happen to anyone
As I see this, no matter what you think of the subject matter as to why this person was fired, the point is that it can happen to anyone, anytime, if those in power decide that all must follow lockstep together.

And this was done in spite of laws in place to prevent these types of employment discrimination.

oh no
Not again! Will, Bryce and Robert are already here! I love Mike Adams, but I'm out of here!!

Ranger Rob! aka perBert!
Been over to apologize on the Coulter thread yet?
Hey, perB--has it escaped your notice that The MacChurian Candidate isn't all that outspoken about yqueer "rights"? If you so Moronic Mythical Middle "Moderate" then why you always on the prohomo side? If you ARE a Repube that would seem to make you a Gilt Bird Cabin (get it) Repube. Are you really supporting Mac the Knife because you THINK he's proqueer? Or is all that "Master and Commander" biz revealing you got some kind of B&D thing going for McShame? Like that Viet guy in "Good Morning Vietnam" who was looking for naked pictures of Walter Brennan!
Say, The MacChurian Candidate was dead right on Putin wasn't he? YOu going to back him if he sends US troops into Georgia to protect that Democracy?

mick

big mick
I beg to disagree with you about Robert, Will et al.

It seems to me to be saying that they love coherent and honest discussion, and always want to focus on the central theme under discussion.

Author
Oh so as long as she keeps it in the church she's entitled to it? You guys remind me of the Maoist Gang of 4. As long as Ms. Dixon voluntarily attends re-education class and self-criticism she can have her opinion--if not she must be fired for the good of the State.
God, what hypocrits--you're big on diversity, as long as it agrees with you!

mick

Hey Slick Willie!
You going to argue that Bob JOnes should have the right to fire openly yqueer professors or to NOT hire them? Or to lobby the Legislature for the right NOT to hire them?

Diversity if you agree with me--what a hoot of hypocrisy!

mick

Will
You get a pat-on-the-back from me.
Ol' Mikey gets a monotonously boring with his anti gay obsession. Makes one wonder. Could there be a 'bogey-man' in his closet?

And Joe, didn't Condi go shoe shopping while New Orleans was sinking? Doesn't Bush regularly go hide his head on his ranch when the going gets tough.

If Obama had gone public you would be one of the first to accuse him of meddling in things he should leave up to the big-bwave-pwesident (who is hooting it up in Beijing).

The subject of the article
is a breach of civil rights not the homosexual angle.

I know all the anti-God people on here will disregard this, but I have been taught to love all people. I believe we should love the sinner but hate the sin. Will (and all like-minded posters), I pray that you will find your way and see before it is eternally too late that only in a life that is God-centered can you be truly happy and live with a full expectation of an afterlife full of the joy of our Father. A minister of mine once said and I believe it to be true: If there is no heaven or no hell you still have everything to gain and nothing to lose by living a Christian life. A life truly patterned after Jesus' is the only way to true happiness. My prayers are with you.

BigMick in the House!!!
Hey stranger long time no see, how goes it?

On Adams, I'm sorry, but with the myriad issues facing America today this guy's obsession...and it really is an obsession...with the subject of homosexuality is a clear marker of a closet case to me.

Also, as I stated earlier, if Adams is truly concerned about the effects of political hirings and firings he and his readers would be better served if he addressed the situation at Justice which even Mukassey a recently as this week characterized as criminal.

This is a case that has implications for all America, not just the minutia of Adams and his circle.

cminer
Then YOU explain the "come out of the closet"
diatribe! That's the logic behind the whole "homophobe" myth.

If they loved honest discussion why are they applauding Dixon being silenced?
Or were you being facetious or satirical?

mick

Occams razor to L.A.R.
A simpler explanation would be that the prevailing mode of thought in Dr. Adam's world is the gays can do no wrong, regardless of the legality of their actions.

As I prefer to stay on-topic, I won't follow your diversions to irrelevancy. (even if Joe brings up an interesting point to debate... to be isolated in the white house, or where all the world leaders are.... hmmmm.)

mick
Nope, just following the logical thread of your "if they act like they're against it, they must be secretly for it" expression.

After all, it's not like they practice the items I mentioned. It seems to be heretical to say such things (from how they choose to present their "arguments").

Universities have always been
thought of as a "safe place" for education, a "bigotry-free" zone, if you will, so students can study and learn, unmolested by evangelizers.


What if Crystal Dixon's mission was to "encourage" jewish students to convert to christianity? What if she preached to students that her religion says that the only way to heaven is solely through Jesus Christ and, therefore, all jews, by definition Christ-deniers, are going to spend eternity in Hell?


Would you all still support her so-called "free speech" agenda under these circumstances?

explanation to all
It's a good night for a good scotch. That means that I'll sometimes make logicals leaps, and frequently indulge in satire. The "defense" for the actions of the PC crowd as listed here is ripe for satire. I just jump to the conclusion that folks will be able to thing logically and realize when I'm being satirical (Robert, Will, and other moonbats are recognized to be exempt from any logical thought processes)

And I'll also take prolonged "ahhhhhhhhhh" breaks after a good quaff. Fortunately for me the server is slow enough that no one will notice those.

will @ 1:50
That would depend upon the methods used. Universities are supposed to teach and practice logical thinking. If a professor issued about "if Christ was indeed resurrected, as these historical references prove" (note for dummies: proof is what she would have to supply, it's not my claim here) then I would agree with you. If a professor said outright "Jews and non-evangelicals automatically fail" then that would be wrong. Can you agree with that?

This is, however, not important to the main point: she was not a professor. She worked in an office that would not allow her to taint the views of any students. She was, however, targeted because of her beliefs. As per my posting of 1:07, are you sure you want to open the door to governmental oversight of personal beliefs?

I apologize
I apologize up front for sounding like a petulant liberal, who when they can't get voters to give them their way, they either run to activist judges who don't care about the law or they sue. That being said, I sure hope this woman sues the pants off that university. She had it right in her article because how depraved must one be, honestly, to try and say that ones color is the same as ones sexual preference? Homosexuals want tolerance - but only of themselves. They say we must accept them, while at the same time they REFUSE to accept anyone who disagrees with them. Rest assured though that liberals don't care - the truth , absolute truth, is a foreign concept to them. Truth, in their world, must constantly change: to lower and lower depths of depravity.

sorry Will
After a couple of quaffs I can't type as clearly as I think (I'm thinking). I've outlined my reasons for disagreeing with you. Can you not muster enough brain cells to engage, or are you cementing your "troll" status by engaging the title of the posts rather than the ideas behind them?

bryce!
Two thoughts.
One is that you're still buying into the "homophobe" myth.
Two is that Adam's metier is Discrimination by the Commiequeers in Academia.
That alone justifies his focus on this issue rather than yours.
But I happen to think that the Political Movement to "norm" homosexuality and to OUTLAW
(already happened in Canada and Australia--people have been prosecuted) ANY form of Christian Counter Teaching on this issue IS one of the KEY and CRUCIAL events of our time.
It cuts both to the heart of the Constitution, to one of the major differences between the two Major Political Movements of our Time, Conservatives and Commiequeers, and bids fair to undermine the bedrock of the Social Compact.
It is quite possible that you will see State Sponsored persecution of Religious People for their beliefs within the next decade. The groundwork has been laid by Waco and the FLDS raids and other arrests of what is conveniently called "cults". That some of em had it coming is not germaine. The point is "Religious Freedom" is a paper shield.
Bottom line, Bryce, is the yqueers want to silence me and I will not be silenced, any more than ANY of God's prophets were. This is a theological issue as well as a Constitutional and Societal one and with Apocalyptic implications.
WAY beyond "Adams and circle."

night, good talkin with ya
mick

Dixon has every right to speak her mind
But speech has consequences. Dixon was an adminstator for the Human Resources Dept which according to its' website "provides services for employees located on the Main Campus and the Health Sciences Campus."

Dixon the individual is welcome to her belief that the gay employees for whom she is a paid advocate have 'chosen a lifestyle' that wrecks havoc on their physical and emotional lives. The issue here is that when she asserted that opinion in the Toledo Free Press she made her ability to be viewed as a fair and unprejudiced advocate for all employees, gay or straight untenable.

Mick
The issue here is not free speech or the homosexual agenda. It is whether Dixon was able to serve in her role as an advocate for ALL employees without bias. Dixon made her bias regarding homosexuality clear in her piece. That is her right. But once she submitted the piece any claim that she could be perceived as an unbiased advocate for gay employees at the University was rendered nil.

to bryce @ 2:09
true, but quite irrelevant. Nowhere was it stated that her belief affected her work performance. Nor was the case stating that made during her termination. Instead it seemed to be a case of "you will stay quiet unless you agree with us", which would seem to be in contradiction of her civil rights, would it not?

sleep time
I'll respond to Will and Bryce (and any others) in the morning.

In the meantime please remember than a closed mind is the surest way to totalitarianism.

College Authorities
There is far too much politics in Colleges by professors and authorities. Their job is to make sure the students are educated academically and not politically. They can make up their own minds once they graduate as to what is right or wrong; they don't need some one of the homesteaders in the college to advise them. Yes a housecleaning is due.

C Minor
I don't know the particulars of Dixon's contract, but a Human Resources Administor who VERY publicly asserts a bias against employees for whom she is paid to fairly advocate certainly sounds like cause to me.

Thanks Will
I trust you and my favorite right wing wild man BigMick will continue to do the same.

Good Evening to all.

In this day and age...
... it is SOOOOO nice to know that the conservative Right in America still has a few red-hot dragons in its ranks, the sort who will stomp up and down outside the gates of places like UT, spew flames and bellow loud enough to shatter windows when these namby-pamby college faculty types forget their place regarding Amendment One!

Go get'em, Mike!

Subject: Mallorrsjerk2

Gee. It is amazing that you recognized yourself in my silly spoof.

I do not approve of your life style, and I abhor your beliefs, but,

God Bless You, I will pray for your salvation, and also pray that you do not aquire the dreaded AIDS syndrome.

May you go with God.


If you do, please FOAD.



Holy Roman Ratas of Pretoria... See of Natal...







Tolerance as defined by the Intolerant
"Creating an atmosphere free of bigotry (towards women, towards gays, towards blacks) is not, in itself, a POLITICAL act. It's simply extending equality across the board.


"The reason homosexuality (in fact, almost ALL sexuality) is considered "political" is because the religious activists keep pushing an agenda with their bibles. They are pushing their skygod's agenda. Like the uincleanliness of eating bacon or failing to circumcize your newborn.
__________________________________________

I guess hetero men or Christians of any stripe don't count in this equality scheme. In fact, it sure sounds like the writer has a real problem with Christians - the venom is just dripping from the words.

'How dare they oppose us - we will crush them wherever and whenever they express a contrary view.

We will not tolerate such bigoted opposition when we want want to redefine society's institutions. How dare they not accept our peculiar behavioral proclivities and support our demands that they subsidize our perverted living arrangements with whom we choose. How dare they think they have a right to an opposing opinion.'

How dare they indeed...

To Whom it may...

Mike Adams has made mistakes. So has everyone else on this Earth.

Who do you admire? Someone who admits their mistakes and tries to correct them, or someone who denies they ever made a mistake?

I go with Mike Adams !





New directive!!
Since there is an all-out push to re-define marriage, I call on all good conservatives to re-define "Domestic Partner". Actually, I'm not sure there really is a definition of "Domestic Partner," but I think it needs to be all inclusive.

Say, for example, my son and daughter decide to move to another state and, to save some cash, rent an aparment together. I think that if one has a job with benefits, they should be able to include their sibling on their benefits package. It should be the same for any two people living together. Aww what the heck, make it any group of people living together.

My daughter just moved out with some friends, they should all be able to claim each other for benefits purposes. LET'S PUSH FOR IT!!

grubby...

" grubby
Location: CA

Reply # 57
Date: Aug 14, 2008 - 6:14 AM EST Subject: Tolerance as defined by the Intolerant
"Creating an atmosphere free of bigotry (towards women, towards gays, towards blacks) is not, in itself, a POLITICAL act. It's simply extending equality across the board.


"The reason homosexuality (in fact, almost ALL sexuality) is considered "political" is because the religious activists keep pushing an agenda with their bibles. They are pushing their skygod's agenda. Like the uincleanliness of eating bacon or failing to circumcize your newborn.
__________________________________________

I guess hetero men or Christians of any stripe don't count in this equality scheme. In fact, it sure sounds like the writer has a real problem with Christians - the venom is just dripping from the words.

'How dare they oppose us - we will crush them wherever and whenever they express a contrary view.

We will not tolerate such bigoted opposition when we want want to redefine society's institutions. How dare they not accept our peculiar behavioral proclivities and support our demands that they subsidize our perverted living arrangements with whom we choose. How dare they think they have a right to an opposing opinion.'

How dare they indeed... "

~~~

"Grubby, Kind Sir.

Your post is confusing. Is this satire?

Do you have an agenda? What is your point? You ramble and touch on many points, but make no clear statement on any of these.

I am confused. What is your point?

The Foul Rat...


Great column, Mike!
But I think that your statement, "Constitutional rights are given to individuals to protect them from governments. They are not given to governments to protect them from individuals." is looking through the wrong end of the telescope--rights are given us by our Creator (see the Declaration of Independence). The Constitution does not give us rights, it constrains the government from interfering with those rights given us by our Creator.

The PC crowd in higher education are the "useful idiots" (was that from Marx or Lenin?) who are trying to destroy us from within. Unless we are vigilant and proactive, we will become the proverbial boiled frog. Remember that the louder Will, Bryce, Wobbie and the other silly libs scream and try to change the subject, the better your column.

Keep up the good fight!


I Was Right After All
This article is part of a coordinated campaign to whip up the so-called conservative base to start foaming at the mouth and get out to the polls in November. Mike Adams is using Michael Moore-style agitprop to convince people that Crystal Dixon's religious beliefs and her urgent need to express them is instead a free speech issue and it has nothing what-so-ever to do with homosexuality.

This drama has all the red-meat issues that get so-called conservatives up in arms: restrictions on religious proselytizing, Christianity's heavy handed image vs. homosexuality, the fear that gays are getting "special rights" (really the same rights as others), universities being Liberal bastions, conservative (code word for Protestant Christian) people are intimidated on university campi, etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Karl Rove couldn't have concocted a better political stunt.

My email to Pres Jacobs....
President Jacobs:

I have some questions you should consider thoughtfully, maybe even pray for your Creator's guidance in answering. If you are capable of answering them honestly, you will realize that you have made a terrible mistake, and that you should apologize to Ms. Dixon and rehire her immediately with back pay.

My questions are:

Why is your university's "diversity" policy antagonistic only toward those who hold traditional values and views?

Would you have fired Ms. Dixon if she had written a piece praising homosexuals?

How can you claim to embrace diversity when you intentionally stifle a diverse opinion?

Why do fire a university employee for the exercise of free speech?

Do Ms. Dixon's performance evaluations up to the time of her exercise of free speech document that she was an efficient and effective employee?

How has Ms. Dixon's exercise of free speech diminished her ability to do her job (unless her job was to stifle others' free speech)?

President Jacobs, you should hesitate to answering questions. A response to Dr. Mike Adams would be an excellent start. Your silence and denials will remind folks of the Clinton/Lewinski and Edwards/Rielle incidents. You don't want anyone to make that comparison, do you?

Sincerely,

SS
Morehead City, NC

Read the Constitution first
So, it's not all right to choose to hire or fire employees based on their religious/personal beliefs... so you are now calling on the current Attorney General to resign, since he has supported that very same behavior in his office? Hmmm...do I smell some hypocrisy here?

The Constitution guarantees the 'right' to speech, but it does guarantee that everyone has to listen. As yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is wrong, hate speech of any kind in an public venue is also wrong. Witness the kind of pejorative language so many protested re the blogs of Tony Snow's obituaries. And the same language now being directed the other way in the death of the Democratic Party Chairman in Arkansas. Wrong is wrong, no matter which side professes it.

Dear Rat, My Friend, and Brother RBABT!
1 of 2


"If you can keep your head when all about you, are losing theirs and blaming it on you . . ."

The double-talk from these single-issue trolls is indeed frustrating. "We're not trying to force our lifestyle on you; we just want to be left alone, etc."

Nonsense, bosh, and balderdash! The gay activists on these threads do great harm to their cause by refusing to show the very respect they claim will satisfy their demands.

I'm all for equal rights, and am opposed to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation--like the kind that got Crystal Dixon fired.

Funny that they don't see THAT side of coin!

I have had very productive conversations with homosexuals who simply wanted to be able to live in peace, while respecting the majority hetero-population around them. My step-sister is a lesbian, as was my undergraduate advisor, to whom I dedicated my first book. The list goes on, and none of them ever asked for more than was expected of them--genuine toleration and mutual respect. I don't think most people have any problem with that.

Such people certainly have my respect for them personally, so long as they don't expect me to approve of their lifestyle any more than they approve of my voting record or lifetime NRA membership. Mutual respect is an American value, but the trolls mouthing off on this thread despise you, me, and all that we stand for. They are without courtesy, without decency, and devoid of the capacity for genuine empathy required for true tolerance.

Let us pity and pray for them, while making it clear that THEY are true bigots.


CONT.


sorry...
Pres Jacobs ....should NOT hesitate....

Dear Rat, My Friend, and Brother RBABT!
2 OF 2

CONT.

What does not have my backing is the attempt to define a statistically marginal phenomenon as somehow "normal," when by definition it is not and can never be. But then, who needs to be normal? Why the obsession with acceptance? I don't give a rat's patootie (present company excepted,of course) what anyone thinks of me. Why their obsession with being seen as "normal." If anyone called me "normal," I'd probably hit him. What an insult!

If it's just an issue of wanting mutual respect, why do they refuse to respect our right to refuse to embrace their lifestyle choices, even as we naturally extend respect to their persons, to which they (and we) are fully entitled?

Just some food for thought from a friend of the Rat.


Cheerios with Soju!

Norman the Tolerant


FIN

SkorpioG
No - you weren't "right after all".

That is, unless you also believe 9/11 was a "government conspiracy" to rile up the base.

From Day 1 on Mike Adams' subject - this has been about helping someone to protect her rights - and has been consistent through this column.

As I wrote to you on Tuesday - people who believe in conspiracies will ALWAYS find something to "prove" their existence.

You are suffering from a bad case of "RDS" (Rove Derangement Syndrome), which is a minor subset of "BDS".

FROG
You make an excellent point about the definition of Domestic Partner. I expect that any people living together have the right(equality under the law) to call themselves "Domestic Partners". Does one have to prove there is sex involved to have a Domestic Partner? Not all married couples have sex, and since gays want the same treatment as married couples, then any people living together with or without sex should be defined as Domestic Partners.

I agree completely. Let's make it understood that from now on, anyone living with another person or persons should expect their employers to entirely foot the bill for the other's medical care and any other benefits routinely granted "Domestic Partners."

Maybe when business gets wind of what they will REALLY be paying for, they will stop pandering to this black mail.

Dear fellow Ohio TH'ers
Please use the contact functions provided by Townhall to contact our Ohio governor and state representatives and urge them to do something about this fascism at the University of Toledo. I use the word "fascism" because it fits precisely.

Tedmug

M Sederoff and FROG

Naturally, such domestic partner benefits MUST accrue to polygamists, polyandrists, and polyamorists, as well as those who simply happen to be sharing a roof.

Plus, the men from the FLDS (Fundamental Latter Day Saints) in Texas need to have all charges for bigamy dropped, with the apologies of the court.


Cheers!

Norman the Slippery Sloper

Orwell would be all over this
Modern liberals are amazing, with a mastery of linguistic gymnastics that would make the pigs on Orwell's farm turn green with envy. Here is their position, in a nutshell: "All speech is equal, but liberal speech is more equal. Thus, if we do not like your speech, for whatever reason "du jour" we invent, then your speech will be suppressed and you will be fired." Long live the State!


tedmug
Count me in.

Why don't you send me your draft via email - primus54@gmail.com.

Thanks!

Primus
I cannot retrieve the text of the short letter. The gist was this.

There is governmental suppression of free speech at the University of Toledo; what are you going to do about it?

The key here is governmental repression of free speech. Private universities have much more leeway here. This is constitutionally unacceptable at a government university.

Th other letter to the editor
What you folks have not heard is that Ms. Dixon was about to issue another letter to the editor. In her second letter she was going to take issue with the Catholic Church and their claim to be the one true church. She was going to claim that Catholics should be saved from the unholy influence of the Pope. And, that people are converting in huge numbers to Protestant religions every day.

Ability to do their jobs
How can "their statements or writing interfere with their ability to do their jobs” any more than how they do sex can interfere with their ability to do their jobs? Can't you park your opinions at the school's entrance?

THRadio sayz:
"All speech is equal, but liberal speech is more equal.

Seems to be the new wave of the lib. And I for one am not buying it.
Someone needs to play their favorite game of start filing discrimination or other types of lawsuits.
I see bryce1 trying to play the lib game above by calling the writer names, maybe he should look deeper into himself.

LMAO (not used with seatbuffers permission)

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.htm l
Free Ramos and Compean

Democrats are against the 1st amendment.

Obama, Liberals and Democrats claim they are heavily invested in defending 'Freedom of Speech'.

Unless you want to bring relief to 'High Gas Prices' to struggling Americans. Speaker Pelosi will turn off the lights, air-conditioning and microphones.

Unless you criticize Michelle Obama or Prophet Obama - that is 'unacceptable'.

Unless you do NOT use 'Politically Correct' speech - that is 'bigoted'.

Unless you are a conservative talk show host - that is NOT 'fair'.

Unless you say Obama-Messiah is naive - that is 'racist'.

Unless you say Obamunism would destroy the American Economy - that is 'antipathy'.

Unless you critizize Michelle Obama on her vow to support the black community "first and foremost" that is 'unacceptable'.

Unless you say that Islamic schools should not be on Government property - that is 'xenophobic'.

Unless you think sexual deviates are NOT normal - that is 'homophobic'.

Unless you say women are beautiful and delightful creatures - that is 'misogyny'.

Unless you teach your children to fear God - that is 'child abuse'.

Unless you use a satirical cartoon depicting the Obamas in all of their glory - that is all of the above.

Liberal Rule #1
Subject: bryce 1 and fellow travelers

As usual the liberal loonies reverted to their back up mode of operation and employed Liberal Rules one and two on cue.

I don't see anything about Bush in the article. Do you?

LR #1 If you have no facts to support your view change the subject.

LR #2 If you cannot refute the facts attack the messenger.

Will
" Universities have always been
thought of as a "safe place" for education, a "bigotry-free" zone, if you will, so students can study and learn, unmolested by evangelizers."

Will, having read a bunch of your posts and disagreeing with most, I have never felt the need to be one of those who needs to make personal responses. But, in this case, are you out of your freaking mind?

The massive slant left on college campuses goes back beyond my college days some 20 years ago. I actually had a professor tell the class he wished Reagan "would just die already" and "...if only Hinckley had been a little better shot." Nice.

I currently have a niece and nephew in college, and have discussed their educations and professors with them. They are bombarded by evangelizers daily, except the message is "Republicans are the Devil, and Democrats (sorry, "Progressives") poop sunshine and flowers and candy." Students are encouraged to learn, provided they learn to toe the party line. My niece had a math professor stumping for Obama this summer. What does Obama have to do with math, or the teaching of a class for that matter?

I don't care that you post your opinions here, who you love or who you sleep with, but this one I could not let pass.

tedmug/Primus54
count me in. I will get it done today!

Swampfox

Th other letter to the editor
What you folks have not heard is that Ms. Dixon was about to issue another letter to the editor. In her second letter she was going to take issue with the Catholic Church and their claim to be the one true church. She was going to claim that Catholics should be saved from the unholy influence of the Pope. And, that people are converting in huge numbers to Protestant religions every day.

This post is the pathetic mental flailing of a person who finds himself without an argument. "Let's try this and see if it works!" Admit it, you have nothing here. Surrender.
Show the white flag. Do not shame yourself further.

There ain't no neutral ground.
Here's the thing.
THese guys, Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Salem, pretend to be neutral.
If they think they actually are neutral then they are too foolish to be College Professors.
There is no such thing as neutral therefore all opinions should be allowed on campus.
Mrs. Dixon is no more or less effective at her work because she chose to be heard in the public sector rather than kept silent. There are many that agree with her on campus and choose to be silent. How does silencing opinion make an individual more effective at their work?
These employees of University of Toledo are stepping way, way, way out of line and because of their silliness I agree should be terminated.

Re: TedMug, #81
So? I am Catholic and although I obviously think she is wrong, she has a right to her opinion. As long as she did not stop me from getting a job because I am Catholic or try to convert me while at work, it is not my problem.

The only time something like this is an issue is if the person in question is in the media. The stories that are chosen and how they are written does tend to reflect the bias of the person, there is no way around it. This can be mitigated if the newsroom has members with diverse options. The article in question can get edited so it is unbias. Sadly, most newsrooms are not diverse and it shows.....

Will
"Subject: Universities have always been
thought of as a "safe place" for education, a "bigotry-free" zone, if you will, so students can study and learn, unmolested by evangelizers."

!st of all you should have said used to be a safe place.

Now its safe, if you tow the pc line of thought.


To Primus
I don't have RDS or BDS. As I explained to you earlier I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, however, its not a conspiracy if there is an open organized effort for all to see. TH is a Republican blog site like the Huffington Post is a Democrat blog site.

Mike Adams et al, is writing about several issues. These issues happen to be near and dear to the hearts of Far Right people, and are perennial topics of discussion: Left Wing bias on campus, PC movements, anti-Christian bias in the country, the silencing of Christian views/beliefs, the banning from public view all things Christian, etc.

If you don't believe me, please read the posts from the public. They are full of conspiracy beliefs. The biggest conspiracy theory is the belief in the existence of the Gay Agenda (ominous music sounds...duh duh duh duuuuhhhhh).

To Primus
I don't have RDS or BDS. As I explained to you earlier I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, however, its not a conspiracy if there is an open organized effort for all to see. TH is a Republican blog site like the Huffington Post is a Democrat blog site.

Mike Adams et al, is writing about several issues. These issues happen to be near and dear to the hearts of Far Right people, and are perennial topics of discussion: Left Wing bias on campus, PC movements, anti-Christian bias in the country, the silencing of Christian views/beliefs, the banning from public view all things Christian, etc.

If you don't believe me, please read the posts from the public. They are full of conspiracy beliefs. The biggest conspiracy theory is the belief in the existence of the Gay Agenda (ominous music sounds...duh duh duh duuuuhhhhh).

republics=debt
"mike adams
is such a closet case gay man. "

As i have said before, according to gays there are 2 types of guys. Gay men and those who havent come out yet.

the HR ghetto
Why does it seem that so many HR offices are headed by minorities anyway?
Ms. Dixon came out, so to speak, as prejudiced against gay individuals. If she hoisted a red flag to HER employers that she is a liability to their equal opportunity policies, didn't she realize that?

Here's what I'd like for someone to answer: One's religious belief IS protected as far as you're allowed to freely exercise it. But an already liberal government protection of THAT lifestyle cannot extend to damaging another citizen's ability to function fully as such.

Being homosexual doesn't keep a Christian person FROM functioning as such (nor at their jobs), and homosexuality doesn't keep a gay person from functioning at whatever skill and interest requires (even being Christian as well). And gay folks are trying to get along more than the other way around.

So the question is: why MUST a gay person be sacrificed for ANY reason?
Since there isn't and wouldn't be ANY financial, social or cultural damage for the ability to get along with gay people.
It's a choice to let gay folks GET to you to this extent.
And THAT isn't necessary. But if a Christian or whoever can't get along with gay folks, perhaps it is THEY who should step off and find something else to do.
Plenty of people of faith can get along with gay people with no negative consequences for doing so.
Sacrificing gay people on whatever socio/political altar altar, ISN'T a Constitutional right.





For SkorpioG
Of course TH is conservative. The differences between TH and most college campuses are:

1. TH doesn't pretend to be "neutral" like Salem, Jacobs, 98% of the rest of the college campus PC crowd, and the so-called 'mainstream' media which is partisan left, not mainstream.

2. Conservatives are allowed to speak (write) freely here.

3. Opposing opinons are tolerated, if only so conservatives can pick them apart and ridicule them. Liberals won't be banned for expressing their liberalism.

What kind of postings do you expect from a site that advertises itself as conservative? Especially when so many of the formerly conventional media oultets have been denied to conservatives because of flaminf leftist editors, publishers, and deans who arrogantly identify themselves as "neutral" while tolerating only the flaming leftist political line of thought.

The concept of ruining a man's/woman's professional career over a political disagreement is fascist and ust a step short of tyranny. It is the last refuge of intellectual cowards.

SkorpioG --aka "Dances with Fallacies"
How poorly do you argue? Let us count the ways . . .

Fallacy #1--Petitio Principii: "There IS a conspiracy. Come on, it's obvious!" (If it's obvious, why don't you try presenting some, you know, EVIDENCE?)

Fallacy #2--Appeal to the People: "If you don't believe me, read some unspecified posts somewhere about which I refuse to provide any further information--how dare you expect me to defend my position!" (Ah, another version of "You're too stupid to argue with; check this irrelevant link/unspecified source that I'm using to shut you up because I got nothin'.")

Fallacy #3--Non-Sequitur: "There really is a conspiracy--the existence of Mike Adams and like-minded conservatives proves it!" (Huh?)

Fallacy #4--Red Herring: "Right Wingers complain about the left's agenda." (Yes, we do. We also hate crabgrass, lead-based paint, "All Things Considered" and other annoying/harmful things. What's you're point???)

Fallacy #5--Appeal to Mockery/Ad Hominen (Abusive): "Stoopid fear-mongrin' right-wingers think that there's a concerted effort to 'normalize' homosexuality." (Gee, boss, wonder what would make us ignoorent hayseeds think THAT???)


THE BOTTOM LINE: Your post contained 152 words. You committed no fewer than five easily-identifiable logical fallacies. That's one fallacy for every 30.4 words.

Unfortunately, since the average for left-wingers is one fallacy for every 26.8 words, you are sadly behind the curve and a sub-par liberal.

Keep trying, though, and don't lose heart. Pretty soon 2+2 WILL equal 5, and you will beg Comrade O'Brien to put the rat cage on Julia's head, instead of your own . . .

As the late great RINO Gerald Ford said of The Great(?) Emancipator, "If George Orwell were alive today, he'd roll over in his grave."


Cheerios with Victory Gin!

Norman the Logical
(friend of rats, wabbits, and ladies of the evening)

Retired Greek
You are spot on as usual.

SkorpioG
You can repeat to me all you wish about not identifying yourself as either Democrat or Republican. Those are simply labels of Party membership.

But it is clear by your words that you are politically left of center - as your frequent use of the label "Far Right" indicates.

There is most definitely a battle between the "Gay Agenda" and those who favor "equal", not "special" rights - as well as a battle against leftist hypocrisy camouflaged as "diversity" and "Political Correctness".

My argument with you is on your specious claim that there is some force "on high" orchestrating what is written and appears within these columns.

If you have been a regular reader of Mike Adams - as I have been for upward of 8 years - then you would know that columns such as these are representative of Dr. Adams battles against hypocrisy and helping the victims of same.

Gay Agenda Normalized??
Nobody cares if a gay person is a gay person. The problem most people have with Gays is that they have this need of voyeurism. Adult heterosexuals do not make a display of their sexual activities and affections at every public opportunity, or make sit coms and movies that are expressly being used as a statement of their heterosexuality.

That idiot, Ellen Degeneras, had a short lived TV sitcom and the only Plot of The Show Was A litany of Gay Activity. No plot, no scheme, just a promotion of their sexuality and sex life. This show flopped for obvious reasons. It was rediculous and had no entertainment value.

If all these so-called normal gays who do their jobs admirably, etc. then why don't they just do their jobs and not feel that they have a need to flaunt their sexuality and make it a public display.

As for this lady who got fired because of her opposition to her employer on this issue, then this sets a precedent for many firings. Since when can you not have an opinion?

The Liberal Left in this Country is not going to be happy until they Control Every Word, Every Speech, in every venue in the Country. Well, I got news for you Communists who feel that you have a right to impose your views on everybody else. I have no intention of being silenced by intimidation with your Political Correctness Agenda and the Legislation to go along with it. Enough is Enough. If this University President wants to practice his politics, so be it, but do not use your office and tax payer money to promote your own Political causes. The Hatch Act comes to mind. I work for the federal government and the Hatch Act forbids any sort of political activity at work. But, the truth is, that the only time it is ever enforced, is if you are conservative.

Dixon as an indiviual
Has the right to free speech. Conversely, the University has the right to fire for cause. Publicly expressing bias against the gay employees for whom she was a paid advocate certainly qualifies as cause.

Typical liberalism.
Liberals believe in showing respect for everyone's opinions - as long as said opinions don't conflict with their own.

Bryce1--Are You a Hypocrite?
Take this quick and easy test, and you'll find out.

Situation: A department chairman at a Christian college is fired for publicly stating that he does not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. The college administration issues the following statement:

"Professor Wilson as an individual has the right to free speech. However, the University has the right to fire for cause. Publicly expressing bias against the Christian faith which is the foundation of this institution certainly qualifies as a cause."

You will note that I used your own statement nearly verbatim, substituting only the terms.

So, agree or disagree?

Pearls Before Swine

Comment board after comment board I see the same thing. Logical, right thinking conservatives pursuing the utterly fruitless task of trying to reason with or convince looney leftists of the errors of their ways.

Stop casting your Pearls (of conservative wisdom) before liberal swine. They cannot understand it, and it is a massive waste of your time.

Instead, pay attention to your own "circle of influence", first (90% of your effort) your own family, then your friends/neighbors, and finally your co-workers; i.e. to paraphrase, "What profitith a (conservative) man or woman who tries to convert the whole world while his only family turns into looney leftists?"

Your only chance with the looney leftists would be if you could somehow give them a cranial enema and then refill it with 10W(isdom)-Conservative Thought and Principles. Since that is not possible, give up on it and tend to your home fires.

SkorpioG
You don't believe in conspiracy theories or gay agenda? Are you kidding me?

First off come to San Francisco and I will show you the Gay Agenda up close and personal that began with demeaning Christianity because it is Christianity that will not affirm their lifestyle.

Secondly for someone who says he doesn't believe in conspiracy theories your 'whip up the conservative base' post is one giant conspiracy theory. So now your a hypocrite to boot.

Third, just be honest and admit that you are a committed leftist. If you don't that makes you a liar in addition to a hypocrite.

You have some serious character flaws.

GitYerHandOuttaMyPocket:

I read your response, and, though I too may not agree with everything you have to say, I do appreciate your civility of tone (and the benefit of your experience, honestly told).

To tell you the truth, I have never even thought of sitting in a university classroom from the perspective of a social con (despite the economic overtones in your moniker, I am guessing you hold the social perspectives of the majority on this thread).

What I do know is: the "progressive agenda" and the "social conservative agenda" had better learn to get along and compromise or we will have an increasing escalation of cultural wars in the country. Both sides are extremely well armed. The social cons have a network of mega-churches and a growing "alternative" media on their side; the progressives (which includes here, the gay issues) have the ever-growing sympathy of state and federal judges, and, of course, our old standby, mainstream media (along with the majority of the younger generation, which will result in changing legislation soon....it's actually happening now....)


But as I said, these seemingly polarized sides need to compromise. The problems arise when you have evangelicals that will not compromise "God's Word", and folks on the other side that feel they are on their own mission to forcibly remake society for the better (I, admittedly, sometimes fall into this category).

Anyway, nice points.

W

Christians Give Up Your "Rabbit Status"
Christians founded this nation. All of the rights and freedoms we enjoy, are Christian ideas/ideals. Christians have done the fighting, dying and building of this nation for centuries. They did it because, they demanded that "the Christian way" be the lay of our society. Our armies have marched to the lyrics of "Onward Christian Soilders." Over the past 50 years, organized liberalism has turned our political system, our public schools, our entertainment industry,and the mindset of our youth into gutless, spineless, hothouse milktoast. Liberalism breeds cowardice! Cowards don't want to go to war, so they organize to end the draft. Cowards don't have the fortitude to protect principles, valor, honor, character, nor patriotism; so they organize on a high level(the universities and the courts) to make our children like them. Their numbers are in the minority, so they create multiculturalism and they manipulate immigration so they can import foreigners to help make America a nation where cowards are comfortable and in control. Wake up Christians! When they call you "cowboys" or "John Waynes", they are trying to chide you out of our traditional "kickass" mentality. When the Christians give up their "rabbit" status, and "put on the whole armor of God" and go to war with these treasonous traitors(that includes all individuals, organizations and churches that undermine our sovereignty),they will stop hunting Christian rabbits. Even cowards don't hunt rabbits that shoot back.


Financial benefits to domestic partners
Aside from the debate on whether or not one views on sexual lifestyle is superior over the other, how about following the money trail? Why should I have to spend public education funds to treat your partner as a married spouse? Obviously, the two individuals disagreed over this and since the President appealede to the State legislature to legalize his position, there was a matter of legality at issue. When your sexual orientation choice results in one side funding it to make it respectable and normal, it becomes a public matter.

gityourhandouttamypocket
politics in colleges go way further than your college days. when my mom went to university of texas in the mid '40s, she wrote her term paper on the republican party. her professor did not even read the paper. she watched him mark it as soon as she turned it in. she got an F. she protested to the dean and he did not read her paper, he just stated "the F stands". both the professor and the dean were democrats.
there has never been freedom of speech in the universities and colleges. you toe the line or you fail or get fired.

Norman
A better test.

Situation: A department chairman at a Christian college is fired for publicly stating that he believes homosexuals are born that way and have the right to marriage. The college administration issues the following statement:

"Professor Wilson as an individual has the right to free speech. However, the University has the right to fire for cause. Publicly expressing views that go against the Christian faith which is the foundation of this institution certainly qualifies as a cause."

You will note that I used your own statement nearly verbatim, substituting only the terms.

So, should he be fired?

Will
quit trying to be nice. It is so uncharacteristic as to be quite disorienting. You do make a point. But you do not go far enough. Conservatives are live and let live people. It is a concoction of the most obscene mythology to say otherwise. However, they are energized by those who seek to marginalize their roles as parents; those who seek to change the values of their children in the government schools. Conservatives are upset about this and will only get more upset as the libs push and push. Keep this up and the libs will be looking back and wishing for the good old days.

Why spousal and family benefits?
The reasons for family benefits:
1. To encourage employment loyalty.
2. To provide a cost savings to employees via group programs.
3. To avoid getting benefit costs into the compensation that is subject to payroll taxes.
4. To avoid percentage escalation to compensation impact if benefits are paid by staff with after tax dollars.

In a secular society prone to PC thinking, we may have to change this to the more expensive way and devise benefit packages of choice:
Let each employee pay for a) single medical plan A, B or C; b) each married buy plan to cover some number of children of some age group, plus some number of adults with rates to reflect actuarial exposure to medical risks.

Result to be is unknown except total cost will reflect more taxes for government, and less net income for most employees. Those with multiple wives or spouses of any sex will pay their fair share.

Ted
"So, should he be fired?"

Yes. A Christian college is a private institution. The power of the government should not be used to quash their freedom of speech. They may fire at will. Sorry, Will.

typical gibberish
from will the fayree. The idea that you agenda needs special treatment is tiresome. In your pitiful and deluded world your and your fellows always whine you are discriminated against.

You absolutely believe people are working to deprive you of something you can't earn but think should be given to you because of your lifestyle.

But in your world you and your fellows must always be given the rights that in an instant you would deny to others. That someone dare oppose your lifestyle automatically makes them a hater shows your intolerance for opposing points of view. We must accept your lifestyle as some the equal of what societies have held as the standard.

No one is advocating discrimination but likewise you demand what you can't earn. If the laws are wrong convince the legislatures to overturn them instead of relying on persons abusing their positions of power to make society to adjust to the demands of a minority

www.crystaldixon.com
Does the president of the university have to put up with member of his staff that clearly doesn't support his views on critical issues and makes a very public display by writing a letter to the local newspaper?

Would the President of the United States have to put up a cabinet member who wrote a letter to the Washington Post saying that he/she disagreed with the President on religious grounds? But he/she would still serve.

swampfox
Using poor analogies related to logical fallacies, i.e., the straw man and the red herring do no service to this debate.

Intentionally debasing and

demeaning oneself by engaging in sodomy serves only to provide society with debased and demeaned humans who by their own actions have chosen to lessen their positive contributions to society.

I can think of no good reason why any society would seek to reward debasing and demeaning human activities.

To Tedmug
Leave out the second part about a member of the president's cabinet. We all know what the answer is there. The idiot would be gone in a heartbeat. However, isn't the president of a university allowed to have on his staff people that do not work at cross purposes with the direction that he is taking the university? UT and the Medical University merged. The Medical University had been giving medical benefits to gays/lesbians and their partners. The big debate going on at the time was whether or not because of the merger, should the University of Toledo should extend the same benefits to gays/lesbians working for UT.

We all know
We all know that the courts are going to decide on this one.

huh
Is the point of this column to make defenders of Dixon look like idiots? I don't see what is gained by publishing a patently bad argument in defense of a position that presumably one believes there are good arguments in favor of.


University of Toledo
This is a University on the complete decline, it is ranked 564 out of 570 Universities in the just released Forbes rankings. The faculty is represented by an incompetent union and has been without a contract for more than a year. Quality faculty are fleeing like rats off a ship. Any student who applies is admitted and hundreds of students take courses like trigonmetry and remedial English every semester.

http://rightwingprofessor.blogspot.com/

Aren't they amusing?
Firing someone because they expressed their respectful disagreement with a policy granting "free stuff" to admitted perverts: good.

I wonder what will and his band of America-hating fascists would say if one of his beloved professors was fired because they spent every class day repeating "BUSH LIED KIDS DIED" over and over again.

I would bet anyone here dollars to donuts that were such a thing to happen (to any of the thousands of professors who actually ARE doing that every single day), will would be here not congratulating the firing like he is about Dixon, but would be screaming about "First Amendment, blah, blah, blah..."

The FACT (NOT opinion) of the matter is that Dixon was fired because Jacobs cannot stand the fact that there is a right to free speech.

To beowulfe
Beowulfe writes, "The FACT (NOT opinion) of the matter is that Dixon was fired because Jacobs cannot stand the fact that there is a right to free speech." Sure she has the right to free speech and her employer, the president of the university, has the right to terminate her employment. The Dixie Chicks whined when some radio stations stopped playing their songs when the trashed Bush. The right of free speech doesn't carry with it the right to a job or income. All that said I am sure Ms. Dixon will become a martyr for the anti-gay Christian Fundamentalists.

Footnote: Gays and Lesbians are still summarily dismissed from all four of our service academies.

Any U of Toledo alumni...
... at TownHall who can write a few "don't even THINK about getting any contributions from me until this clown is fired" letters?

GEN
Those are not liberal rules -- they're used by those of any persuasion who're losing an argument.

To RW
You can contribute to her defense fund. Go to her website at http://www.crystaldixon.com

Interesting Associated Press item:

McCain: Abortion rights vice president possible
GOP candidate cites former Pa. Governor Tom Ridge as a possibility


updated 6:09 a.m. PT, Thurs., Aug. 14, 2008
WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain says he has not ruled out choosing Pennsylvania's popular former Gov. Tom Ridge as a running mate despite his support for abortion rights, a hot-button issue that could inflame some voters among the party's conservative base.

McCain appeared to be testing the issue — weighing the benefits against the costs of picking Ridge, who could help the Arizona senator win Pennsylvania.

Donate to her church
End Time Christian Fellowship
2902 Auburn Ave.
Toledo, OH 43606-4040 USA

To Josh
I hope it will be Palin of Alaska. She is a young, bright and refused to have an abortion when she knew her child would be born with Down's Syndrome.

Calling good evil and evil good
So now we've finally sunk to the depths where we kick around homosexual perversion, pornography and the murder of children as political footballs (or political issues of lifestyle choice, free speech, expression, privacy) instead of the horrid immorality they are. I believe De Toqueville said something to the effect that America will be great as long as her people are good. It seems we are seeing a rapid departure from "good". The media, our Universities, our public schools and even many "churches" have embraced a "new" morality which is not new at all. After all Satan told Eve she and Adam could be "gods"...and now it appears he was right. We have supplanted the only God and placed ourselves on the throne.

North Carolina University System
Footnote: I just checked and found out that the university system in North Carolina does NOT provide partners of gays and lesbians benefits.

beowulfe
"The FACT (NOT opinion) of the matter is that Dixon was fired because Jacobs cannot stand the fact that there is a right to free speech."

As Ronald Reagan said, liberals will defend to the death your right to agree with them.

swampfox
"Sure she has the right to free speech and her employer, the president of the university, has the right to terminate her employment."

If a leftist professor or staff member had been fired for expressing his/her views, liberals all over the country would be screaming bloody murder about "academic freedom."

As Ronald Reagan said, liberals will defend to the death your right to agree with them.

Solving the Problem
Here's a simple solution for this mess. Conservatives should simply stipulate that they (a) loathe and despise gays. Period. (b)would, if they could manage it, pass and enforce legislation to criminalize homosexuality and all homosexual activity, wherever it might occur.; (c) pass legislation that would allow employers to refuse to employee homosexuals; (d) pass legislation to criminalize all publications or public utterances in any medium that are determined to be advocacy of tolerance of homosexuals.

I could go on, but you must get the idea. Now, I ask you, red-blooded and militantly straight conservatives, isn't something like this what you really want? Wouldn't you just love, love, love to have a candidate to vote for who promised to do all of this?

josh, if McCain picks Ridge,
He can just about forget winning. He should have this one in the bag, considering Obama's stance and experience on every issue, but Ridge won't help win PA or anywhere else. McCain needs to pick a true conservative like Duncan Hunter to help ease conservatives qualms over the stabs in the back McCain has delivered for the past several years or they may simply vote for Bob Barr or no one for Pres. Picking another liberal Repugnican may force conservatives to send a message to the RNC that if the Repugnicans take our vote for granted, they may be unpleasantly surprised at the result. We are not as lock step with the Repugnicans as the black vote is for the Dems.

gestell
Wouldn't you liberals just love, love, love to have a candidate who will silence all opposition to the gay agenda? I think you've found one in Barack Obama.

To Ken
The woman was part of his administration, not a tenured professor. And, by the way, I am voting for McCain. The "debate" we are having will never go away. The only agenda that I am promoting is to live my life peacefully.

Gestell, Solving the problem...
Here's an even simpler solution. Gays should simply stipulate they are abnormal, that they find enjoyment in abnormal behaviour and learn to live with the rest of the world laughing about their abnormality.

Spoofs :-)
Primus54 : Are you running for president? You would have my VOTE !




Mad marx : Constipation? We don't need no 'stinkin' constipation. We don't need no 'First 10 Attendants' either.


Mick (Or now 'm' Your foul mouth got you in trouble again? I agree with most of what you say, but try to tone it down. A friend.)

( Sorry Mick. I am an ex-Navy Guy, and I have heard about every thing. You top most of them. Please go back to school and learn how to converse. I did, and I converse much better now.)




willy : I am just SOO angry with Mike Adams. I have asked him for dates many times and he says he is not interested. He makes me so angry. I want to give him a big WET KISS, and hi don anser.


Brace : Yes, willy, me too. I think the Adams guy is just 2 snooty.


Swampdog : I agree. You guys are just 2 kool.


Brace : Dang! You guys are rite. I sent email to the adams, and asked him for a big wet kiss. That jerk never respond.


Hul Donkyhoo : McAdams, i luv yu. kin yu reply at mi at scrantun PA? I can gibb yu gude dranks, an yu wil lak mi ufter thet.


Botcher : All uv yu R stupoid an I wil whin sumday.


Roberte : Mike, I hate hul Donkyhoo now. Would you be my luver?


Rw : Mick Addams, I luv yer unckle festur. He iss to kool.


jm0 5 1/2 : I hate everything that is on this site, and thet's why i show up here to hate yu peeple.


sofa : I hate this, i hate. i hate. i hate. Due yu git it naow? i hate.


letsall-exlax : yu R dumm, an i r smard. n' sed. Well, not kwite. I am.


wus : i hate all yu conserbatids.


Ratas : i r cunfuze. why u hear?

Gestell
Actually - I long for the days when respectable "gays" came out of the closet with little fanfare in the hopes they could simply live their lives without it having to be a secret.

These days, "coming out" is more like the opening ceremony at the Olympics - or a heavy metal, in-your-face rock concert.

Over-reaching gays are causing their own problems - much like the reaction people now have for the Jesse Jacksons & Al Sharptons of the civil rights movement.

Maybe you should think about it...

Rat

You're re-posting the same "spoof" AGAIN?

It wasn't all that funny the first time around... I guess you are seeking approval.

Primus54
"These days, "coming out" is more like the opening ceremony at the Olympics - or a heavy metal, in-your-face rock concert."

Evidence?

@GitYerHand - 9:26 AM
Will, apparently, only allows the title 'evangelizer' to be applied to those with whom he disagrees. For some reason, he sees the word (loose translation: one who spreads good news) as an epithet.

I happen to agree - from what I've seen of Will's statements, only those who he opposes have a chance to qualify. The news coming from those he agrees with is, to my eyes, uniformly bad.

I would like to offer this for consideration, however. He claims, as you have quoted, that universities have -always- been a "safe place", where students are "unmolested by evangelizers". Even disregarding the biased wordchoice, intended to serve as a slur against the evangelizers (by imputing unto them the guilt of molestation), Will's statement is, quite simply, wrong.

Look up the original reason for most major universities. You'll see what I mean in short order.

Solving the problem
"I could go on, but you must get the idea. Now, I ask you, red-blooded and militantly straight conservatives, isn't something like this what you really want? Wouldn't you just love, love, love to have a candidate to vote for who promised to do all of this?"

Nope. Completely wrong. What conservatives want is for all Americans to play by the same set of rules. No special laws for one group, no endangered-species status for another group. It's actually very simple, and it has nothing to do with hate...

Really, Joe?
"What conservatives want is for all Americans to play by the same set of rules. No special laws for one group, no endangered-species status for another group. It's actually very simple, and it has nothing to do with hate..."

Then that puts you at odds with many people here who wish, for example, not to extend the benefits of marriage to gay people.

Or to serve openly in the military. Or think that putting a photo on one's desk of one's partner is "flaunting." Or that books in school might include both Mom and Mom as well as Mom and Dad. You get the picture.

To Joe....
A true conservative would want to protect the rights of the individual. Barry Goldwater was called Mr. Conservative. He was for gay rights.

liberal scum
This is the same mind set that would prosecute the Haditha Marines but only give Bin Laden's driver 5 years.Oh and he will be out in 5 months on good behavior. And the judge wishing him allahspeed to get back to his family ( whom I'm sure he cares so much about ).

Wake up America and realize who the real enemy is.

kt

Are you certain you're on the correct thread? You seem to be aggressively responding to some other column or poster....?

You write, "Wake up America and realize who the real enemy is."

And you are referring to - ? Islamo-fascists? The gays? Trans fats? I'm quite lost.

josh
everybody on this thread knows what kt's point is. But you.

josh
I think kt thought s/he was on the Future Shockwave thread. AudiR10 has some sensible things to say, but ('natch) there are those who would like to pick up (and drop) a nuke at the first opportunity.

MellorSJ2
All the evidence I need is to read the comments of you and "will" - who haven't met an opposing viewpoint either of you won't rail against.

And you two are probably "quiet" compared to real gay activists.

Ted
Ted--Nice way of avoiding the question. Is that really the best you can do? "I know you are but what am I" aka "I am rubber, you are glue . . ." That's just sad.

Thanks for admitting that you're wrong and can't do anything except change the subject. I wasn't talking to you anyway.


Swampfox

Of course Goldwater supported individual rights; he was a conservative after all, and that's what we do.

Very few self-identified conservatives could care less what people do in private. They do, however, rightly object to having what should be private thrown in their face. It's not a matter of having to "stay in the closet." You're just not that interesting, and sensible people recognize a zone of privacy into which they have no desire to peer. I'd be glad to have you move in next door, as Goldwater would have been, but I don't want to know about the sex lives of ANY of my neighbors.

You have a name for "straights" who are ostentatiously heterosexual--"closet gays."

We have a name for gays who are ostentatiously homosexual--"activists." ("Annoying" also fits.)

Live your life and let us live ours. If you try to change institutions that are fundamental to our culture, like marriage, we will fight you. If you rightly insist on being treated equally, you may be surprised to find Goldwater conservatives like me to be your allies.

Gay activists are the worst enemies the gay community has. Conservatives are all about "live and let live," and it is gays activists' attempts to reshape our society and culture in their own image that has turned a group that couldn't care less what people do in private into determined opponents.

Goldwater opposed anti-gay discrimination, as does any true conservative. Goldwater would also have opposed the transformation of American culture to suit the needs of 2-3% of the population.

That's Goldwater in context. You guys are your own worst enemies.

Logic-challenged Primus
"All the evidence I need is to read the comments of you and "will" - who haven't met an opposing viewpoint either of you won't rail against."

Now how can you know that? How can you know which opposing viewpoints I simply let slide? Go on. Name one.

"And you two are probably "quiet" compared to real gay activists."

No evidence for this either.

Listen up, bozo: If it's going "too far" to stand up to nasty people (and the gay threads do bring 'em out), then you can count me in.

Constitutional Republic

The framers of the US Constitution feared that the American form of government might turn into a Democracy ruled by mobs instead of by law.

The simple analogy of the difference is a lynch mob - the one being lynched has a vote but the mob has more votes.

America was founded on the rule of law to insure the individual citizen rights and protections under law.

Pure Democracy can create rights and take them away based on who is in power.

The long ardous journey towards the ideal of a Constitutional Republic is now being turned around by Democrats by adding rights to selected 'collective groups' with policies like 'Affirmative Action'.

Selected groups are given 'rights' by 'Affirmative Action' that deny 'rights' to other individual citizens - this is 'racism' in its purest form.

This 'racist' approach is deemed necessary for the 'common good' of society the hallmark cry of 'collectivism' and the various strains of Marxism.

Not gonna happen
"If you try to change institutions that are fundamental to our culture, like marriage, we will fight you. If you rightly insist on being treated equally you may be surprised to find Goldwater conservatives like me to be your allies."

In other words, just so long as we sit in the back of the bus, you'll be happy.

Not gonna happen.

Can't you see the contradiction between your two sentences?

MellorSJ2

In re your response to Joe at 6:23 p.m.

Gay people have the same right to marry as straight people do. They just choose not to exercise it, due to their sexual preference. What you are asking for is equal access to the same right, but a brand new one.

If this statement confuses you, please consider the following:

Do you support the right of people to enter voluntarily in polyandrous, polygamous, and polyamorous "marriages:?

If so, then you have discovered why conservatives oppose gay "marriage." It is the first step on the way to stretching the institution of marriage beyond the breaking point. QED.

If not, why would you deny to others the rights that you so loudly claim for yourself?


Norman the Inquisitive

Correction

"What you are asking for is NOT equal access to the same right, but a brand new one."

MMC

American Citizen Smallest Minority

Freedom is an intellectual achievement which requires disavowal of collectivism and embraces individualism.

The individual American citizen is the smallest minority in America therefore, individual rights must be protected at all costs.

Freedom and its pursuit requires that each individual American Citizen be afforded the 'exact' same rights and protections under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights no more and no less.

Gender, race, religion and ethnic background should not and does not matter when every individual citizen has the same rights.

Citizen rights is a zero sum endeavor as when a 'collective group' receives extra rights it automatically reduces the rights of all other citizens outside that 'collective group'.

MellorSJ2 et al

Exactly what rights do you NOT have that I have?

Exactly what protections do you NOT have that I have?

Please be specific.

It doesn't confuse me, Norman
It amazes me.

Let's change the terms a bit, eh?

"Black people have the same right to marry as white people do. They just choose not to exercise it, due to their sexual preference for white people. What you are asking for is equal access to the same right, but a brand new one."

And the same tired arguments were pulled out to protect miscegenation laws.

MellorSJ2

Wow!

Usually you guys take a while to perform both parts of your famous "two step":

1. Change the subject.
2. Call your opponent a bigot.

I'm impressed at how efficiently you did both in such a short span!


Retired Geek
"Exactly what rights do you NOT have that I have?"

I cannot enter a certain type of partnership the person I love. By that failure, he cannot inherit my social security benefits, and he will be taxed on my estate.

You can (assuming you are straight and she agrees) enter a certain type of partnership with the person you love. She will inherit you social security benefits should you die, and inherit your estate-tax free.

Sen Henry Hyde asked this question. There are about 1100 such benefits.

But just one unequal benefit is enough.

Mellor

Don't you ever get tired of rehashing the same arguments to these narrow-minded schmucks? They are too full of the Book of Leviticus (conveniently cherry-picked through, of course! Mixed fabrics and cutting beards and eating pork are "abominations", too, but they decide to forget about those "abominations" and focus on sex) and too busy bathing in the BLood of the Lamb to honestly listen to sense.


But at least you're attempting to reason with the moral absolutists. These schmucks giving their lives over to an ILLUSION (eternal life with Jesus in heaven) only goes to show you how easy it is to manipulate people if you get them when they're young enough.


I believe christianity should be taught in public schools. Right there alongside all the OTHER Greek and Roman and pagan mythologies. It must be taught in the context of a history of man's attempt to explain the world (almost like philosophy). Jesus must be presented as a radical cult leader who lived 2000 years ago, and it must be concretely explained to the children that virgin births and bodily ascensions and "Raptures" are fictions that yearning people added into the tale many years ago.


In other words, scrape away the falsehoods and superstitions and tell it like it is. Explain to the children how the mythologies of the 12 Gods of the Greeks were appropriated for the christian mythologies. The Garden of Eden, the Great Flood. Then, the kids can decide for themselves if they want to believe in Mother Earth Goddess Cults or Zeus or a resurrected Jesus or L. Ron Hubbard.


Sorry Norman, but
I neither changed the subject, nor called you a bigot.

I merely pointed out that your argument applies equally to miscegenation laws.

If it makes you a bigot to support such miscegenation laws (which I never said you did), then it would make you bigot to prevent gay folk from marrying, wouldn't it?

SJ2

Your self-pity and melodrama (e.g. your "back of the bus" comment) are really funny.

It's been fun watching you twist in the wing, but let's see if you can think past square one.

Since your position will fall apart if you do it, I doubt it, but it's hilarious watching you pull-out that tired disanalogy between racism and traditional marriage, etc. When you can make an argument:

1. Change the subject.
2. Attack the character of your opponent.

That's ALL you've got. I intend to prove it, even to your fellow travelers.

I suggest an interrogatory. I ask a question, and then you ask a question.

Since you responded to my last question with a red herring, ad homimen (abusive) non-sequitur (THREE fallacies all at once--IMPRESSIVE!), I will repeat the question:


Do you support the right of people to enter voluntarily in polyandrous, polygamous, and polyamorous "marriages:?

A yes or no will suffice, but please feel free to answer at greater length.

On the other hand, your anticipated refusal to engage in rational debate will only prove my point, so please feel free just to call me a bigot again while steadfastly refusing to THINK or argue rationally. Intellectual vacuity is always an easy target.

(Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have . . .)


Norman the Logical

I really need an editor . . .

Corrections:

"twist in the WIND"

"when you CAN'T make an argument"



Norman the Contrite

SJ2
You wrote: I cannot enter a certain type of partnership the person I love. By that failure, he cannot inherit my social security benefits, and he will be taxed on my estate.


The same is true of the members of the FLDS.


So, do you or do you not support the right of people to enter into polyandrous, polygamous, and polyamorous "marriages"?


It's a simple question, and since you're on record as saying that you intend neither to change the subject nor to attack the character of your interlocutors, I'm sure you'll now choose to answer it. Nicht wahr?

josh
One word: Mithra.

His 'life story' was ripped off by the Jesus-freaks. http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen048.html

I like your proposal, and I can hear it now "Mommy? Why don't we believe in Zeus?" That'd be good for a chuckle.

Richard Dawkins (he of God Delusion fame) says we should be repulsed at the idea of a xian child, or a muslim child, since children have no way of evaluating the claims that are being made. That is, keep them away from religion just as we keep them away from alcohol, say. Stunts the mind :)

I agree, Josh, reason is imperative!

Perhaps you'll choose to enter into a rational debate, then.

I gather that you support gay marriage. If you'll be kind enough to answer the question that I have posed, alas fruitlessly, to SJ2, I believe that we shall be able to enter into a productive discussion:

"Do you support the right of people to enter voluntarily into polyandrous, polygamous, and polyamorous 'marriages'?"

I look forward to a civil and rational discussion.


Sincerely,

Norman

MellorSJ2 and Marriage

Why did the government become involved in marriage?

Marriage started in 1753 in England and Wales and it was named the Marriage Act of 1753 or Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act and it called for the couple to be at least 21 years old and if they weren't then they needed the consent of the parent.

Before this law the couple could be as young as seven years old and get married.
They also had to get married in a church or the marriage wouldn't be legal.

The original Marriage Act was the result of the many orphans being abandoned and becoming a burden on society.

The Marriage contract made men responsible for their children relieving society from the financial burden of raising those children and placing it where it belonged.

'Collectivists' always want to take the 'Bad Decisions' and actions of individuals and place the results of those bad actions and decisions on othe American Citizens in the name of 'Sacrifice For The Common Good'.

The Marriage act NEVER had anything to do with sexual preferences but rather the protection of children - which Homosexuals cannot have by definition.

Homosexuals want the rights and benefits extended to those who conceive and bear children even though they are incapable of procreation.

Society by law, decided to extend benefits to the blind.

Analogous to what Homosexuals want by 'Homosexual Marriage' is for a sighted citizen to receive the same rights as someone who is blind.

Homosexuals immediately respond by citing instances where a man and woman are married that are incapable of procreation, because of medical issues.

Present laws do NOT require a medical exam to prove the ability of a couple to procreate before marriage which of course be a violation of privacy rights.

Petition your elected officials to require a medical exam to prove the ability of procreation before marriage.

Marriage is all about procreation NOT benefits.

Norman
Let's be clear about a few things:

First, you don't set the framework and decide which questions I shall answer.

Second, if I had my choice, the state would have no interest in the marriage business at all.

Third, nor would it construct Ponzi schemes or tax estates.

But I will answer your question. Twice. Just because it amuses me.

From the point of view of a church, Yes. If the FLDSers want to marry forty-seven people a piece, well, it's their crazy religion.

From the point of view of the state, also Yes. However, any such benefits would be shared amongst the wives to prevent an unlimited liability on the part of the state.

To Norman
Norman writes, "They (Conservatives) do, however, rightly object to having what should be private thrown in their face. It's not a matter of having to "stay in the closet." You're just not that interesting, and sensible people recognize a zone of privacy into which they have no desire to peer. I'd be glad to have you move in next door, as Goldwater would have been, but I don't want to know about the sex lives of ANY of my neighbors."

Of course, you just want us to be silent about what we can both recognize as governmental prejudice? I think that any gay person can tell you that harassment starts long before we come out of the closet. Gay teenagers are estimated to be five times more likely to commit suicide.

Obama and the Liberal Mind

"The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.”

To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship.

Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions.

With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama.

He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force."

Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD

Retired Geek opines
"Marriage is all about procreation NOT benefits."

False. Marriage does attract certain benefits, conferred by the state.

swampfox
"Gay teenagers are estimated to be five times more likely to commit suicide."

Than who? Another factoid from the gay agendists. Thank you so much for injecting some objectivity into this discussion.

SJ2

A bit touchy, aren't we? I was only making a suggestion. You were free to make a counter proposal.

That aside, I sincerely thank you for providing what is (seriously) the only intellectually and morally honest answer to the question posed.

Support for expanding the franchise of marriage to same-sex couples does indeed entail support for further expansions of the franchise of marriage. You see that clearly and deserve credit for being consistent and logical.

I'll confess to being a bit surprised. I expected evasion but you answered straightforwardly and honestly. I commend you. No kidding.

I hope that you can see, however, why your answer makes you the natural enemy of 90%+ of people both in this country and abroad.

In effect, you want to make Old Testament-style polygamy (as well as various other forms) legal, or at least you want to set a precedent that will make such claims impossible to oppose.

There is a great irony here. You are opposed by Christians in your efforts to set a precedent that will make Old Testament polygamy possible again.

All the while you and Josh are banging on about how our bigotry is rooted in the Old Testament.

I doubt you see the irony, though. If you do, you'll find some way to brush it off, I expect.

Anyway, fair is fair. You answered my question, and I stand ready to answer one of yours, should you choose to pose it.


Sincerely,

Norman the Xian (aka "The Old Testament Bigot")

Josh
"But at least you're attempting to reason with the moral absolutists."

Sadly, you can't. They are immune. No Talent, Anderson659, Truetolife, and FabCun'c are excellent examples. But I do love it when they lose their cookies. Exposes them for the sick puppies they are. Even on TownHall they've been called to account.

I'm willing to try to reason with Norman (say), or Retired Geek (sometimes), but they have skewed views about how to construct an argument. First, define your terms, then agree on the point of contention, then state your case and listen to the counter-argument. They prefer to claim a monopoly on the terms ("marriage means what I want it to mean"), they never bother to figure out what the points of agreement are (I agree with Retired Geek's post about affirmative action and I abhor "hate crime" legislation, for example, and their idea of stating a case is to claim their god said so. Well, my god says otherwise.

And then there are the absurd generalizations. Because I support gay rights, I must be a "liberal," when in fact I agree with many of their economic positions. Or because I find their religion absurd, I hate xians. (Nope. I pity them. At least the ones who use their religion to get their own way.)

Once in a while we do get through, though. Even this debate is less absurd than some we had a year ago. Now you'll see people claiming it's OK to be gay "in private." A year ago it was hate all the way.

josh
For the sake of argument - assume I am a believer of a creative designer - or "Higher Power" - that is not beholding to any particular faith or doctrine. To keep it simple, let's call this power "God".

I have a truly serious question to ask:

Who are you to say there is no God?

Yet another
reason to oppose the gay agenda. Freedom of speech or even thoughts are at risk here. Gay posters don't care about that though. It's about what THEY can get - similar to just about every other liberal constituent, the poor take what they can get, the civil rights movement takes what it can get, the feminist movement is about what they can get and the list goes on.

Swampfox

Maybe liberals are harassing you. I don't know. I do know that true conservatives want to be left alone and not have their culture overhauled for the benefit of a marginal percentage of the population.

There is a very meaningful difference between being gay and flaunting it. The only reason to get in someone's face is if the person is violating your rights. What conservative ever violated your rights (except perhaps the phantasmagorical and logically indefensible "right" to gay "marriage")?

The vast majority of the "harassment" you experience is in fact merely the expression of disapproval by people like me when you go beyond wanting to equal rights (which we conservatives support) to creating new ones (which turn your natural friends into your natural enemies).

Your entire position is a fraud. You want NEW rights, not equal rights, and you want US to sit quietly in the back of the bus while you try to change our culture for the benefit of a statistical anomaly.

You may win, or you may lose. But our opposition is the natural expression of our First Amendment rights, as is your advocacy.

To fire you, not to hire you, not to rent to you, not to sell to you, based on your sexual orientation is indeed bigotry.

To oppose your attempt to normalize your way of life and spread it through our media and educational system is not harassment.

It is our First Amendment right, as, again, advocacy is yours.


MellorSJ2
Just for the record and your information - I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to same sex partners entering into a legal & binding contract that allows such partners all the benefits of marriage - as long as it exists between just two human beings.

You can call this a "Civil Union" or "Domestic Partnership" or any other name you can come up with.

You just don't get to call it "Marriage".

No it doesn't Norman the Slippery Slope
"Support for expanding the franchise of marriage to same-sex couples does indeed entail support for further expansions of the franchise of marriage."

You asked whether I could support poly-whatever and I answered the question, but there is no necessary connection between the two types of marriage. It is this sort of sophistry that inhibits straightforward answering of questions such as the one you posed. You're playing Gotcha!

I *do* support poly-whatever on the grounds of equal rights, but I also have concerns about it, particularly the rights of women and the mistreatment of young men who are competing for wives. The state has a legitimate duty to protect those citizens.

So one does not inevitably lead to the other.

To Retired Geek
I am not voting for Obama. He is an empty suit, devoid of any accomplishment in elected office.

SJ2--I'm Your Huckleberry . . .

No skewed argumentation here. I have taught logic for most of my adult life. I have also written a book on rhetoric. I'm not generally one to give my resume, but telling another poster that I don't know how to argue would be like me assuming, for instance, that you know how to accessorize or plan an Oscar party.

Arguments are simple things, really.

1. Thesis.
2. Evidentiary support relevant to the thesis.


Debates are bit trickier, but only logistically. All that's required is for both sides to agree on a thesis or definition (depending on the kind of debate), and then the debate structure.

I am a Christian. I object at least as much to your silly "xian" comments as you do to my opposition to your "right" to marry a man, or several men, or several men and women.

I would consider it a privilege to be able to how you, and everyone else, just how poor a debater I am, and how feebly I can defend my political beliefs or (since you're on that "xian" kick) the God of grace who saved me.

I've got a blog. This wouldn't be the first time we've held a debate there.

Any time you like . . .

To Chris
Chris writes, "reason to oppose the gay agenda. Freedom of speech or even thoughts are at risk here. Gay posters don't care about that though. It's about what THEY can get - similar to just about every other liberal constituent, the poor take what they can get, the civil rights movement takes what it can get, the feminist movement is about what they can get and the list goes on." Personally, speaking as only one gay man, I don't want squat from the government. I don't want a dime.

Swampfox,
But you sure do ask for their "protection" don't you?

Primus54

I'd take a different tack. Get government out of the marriage business entirely. No joint tax returns, no dependent deductions, etc.

Then if the Anglicans want to "marry" gay people, or the FLDS wants to "marry" one man and twenty women, I couldn't care less.

Absent legal recognition by the state, such "marriages" would clearly be shames. Since no legal benefits would accrue to ANY marriage, it would simply be a matter of two (or perhaps 56, 99, or-a la King Solomon-a few thousand) people entering into a voluntary compact.

The State should not the arbiter of what is and what is not a marriage. The State did not create marriage, and removing all legal sanction to all marriages would end the debate and relieve us of a great deal of tiresome whining.


Cheers!

Norman the Quasi-Libertarian

Norman the Avoider
I see you've given up the discussion, Norman.

They so often do.

SJ2

Okay, apparently I misunderstood.

So do you support the FLDS' "right" to polygamous marriages or not?

Your position is unclear to me. Thank you in advance for your anticipated clarification.

Actually Swampfox,
I think you're ok. However, you may want to convince fellow gays that depriving us of our freedom of speech and thought is not the way to gain acceptance.

solution
The solution to this problem is to have all individuals qualify for any Government benefits that are offered, whether you are married or not. It is time for the Government to stop discriminating against people because of their martial status.

Primus54
I don't care what we call it. So we can agree.

So long as the "civil union"/"domestic partnership"/whatever has _exactly_ the same rights, privileges, responsibilities and benefits as a marriage.

But then why have two words?

SJ2
Avoiding debate? I'm trying to debate with you. What on earth are you talking about?

Please see my previous post, in which I requested a clarification of your position.

You're also entitled to ask me a question at this point, per the terms I suggested previously.

I'm here (though not qu*er) and I'm not going anywhere.

If this is too public, my blog or yours, any time.

MellorSJ2 writes to Norman:
"I see you've given up the discussion, Norman."
-----

Wow. I really must get these bifocals checked.

I could swear I saw Norman invite MellorSJ2 at 9:48 to a good, old-fashioned debate on his blog.

Hmmmm.... who is "avoiding"?

Well-said, Chris

I know very, very few conservatives who give a hang what people do in private, OR who believe that it's okay to discriminate against people for being gay. I certainly don't.

On the other hand I know NO conservatives who are okay with being told that dissent is a form of intolerance.


Cheers!

Norman

MellorSJ2 asks:
"But then why have two words?"
-----

Because three is one too many?

To Norman
No Norman, in my youth I went into denial about my sexuality. There is long story there, but I am not going to get into it. What I have had to endure is the stupid jokes and remarks of people around me that don't know that I am gay. By the way I consider myself o be a follower of the teachings of Jesus.

Thanks, Primus54

I thought that I needed to get MY bifocals checked!

Still waiting for MellorSJ2.

I'll be here for another 15 minutes, and if he responds I can stick around for at least another 45 minutes.

The blog-debate offer stands, of course, either at my blog or his.


Cheers!

Norman the Argumentative

Norman: A clarification
"So do you support the FLDS' "right" to polygamous marriages or not? "

I support the FLDS's right (as a church) to do anything it pleases.

I support state-sanctioning of such marriages (to the extent that the state is involved at all) on the basis of equal rights of citizens to marry who they want.

That part is the same as for same-sex marriages.

But polygamy is different in that in oppresses both women and young men. The state has an interest in protecting those citizens. That's different from same-sex marriages.

There is no necessary connection then between same-sex marriages and polygamy and no slippery slope.

Myself, I'm undecided how to balance the equal-rights argument with the protect-women-and-young-men argument. But I don't have to, because there's no connection between the two types of marriage.

I bow to the wisdom of Norman and Merle
As long as the federal, state or local governments base any rights, privileges or taxation discrimination on the legal definition of marriage, then I'm in favor of same-sex partners being granted such rights.

If we could get government out of the business - that would be fine with me as well - so long as we don't have human beings "marrying" the pet goat or the pet rock.

OK, Norman, I'll play (for a while)
(I have other things to do in the afternoon.)

Why do you oppose same-sex marriage?

In this context, "marriage" means the set of rights, responsibilities and benefits conferred by the state by virtue of "being married" as that phrase is commonly understood.

Norman
Please see my question posed to "josh" at 9:36.

You know - I've asked variations of this same question to a number of atheists who post here at Townhall - and I have yet to have a single one of them answer it.

And I don't mean they reply with a non-answer or deflection. They just never reply at all.

I wonder why that is...

To Chis
Personally, I don't want to deprive anyone of the right of free speech. Everyone should have the right to prove that they are mentally challenged. The fact is that I deprived myself of free speech on this subject for far too long.

Primus54
*Two* words are too many if the meaning of the words is exactly the same.


SJ2

Well, you've decided not to answer the question, on the evasive pretense that there is no connection between gay marriage and multiple marriage.

Let's see about that, shall we?


It is 2015 (or tomorrow, whatever you like).

Gay Marriage is legal, and there is NO legal distinction made between a marriage between a man and a woman, and one between two people having the same gender. Those are, however, the only types of legally sanctioned and recognized marriages.

A male gay married couple wants to include a third man in their marriage, making all three men equal partners in the legal compact.

Would you approve or disapprove?


(You are also entitled to ask me a question, if you like.)


Norman the Interrogative

MellorSJ2 et al
MellorSJ@ wrote: "False. Marriage does attract certain benefits, conferred by the state."

I presented my case for the original reason for marriage. A more than substantial part of marriage today still revolves around the results of procreation - children.

Property rights and the division of same is still based on the custody and care of children.

All property that is held jointly by a homosexual partnership can be decided by contracts, wills and codicils instead of marriage.

Life insurance can be settled by beneficiaries.

Employee health insurance can be resolved by petioning employers. NOTE: many employers do not cover anyone but the employee.

Government benefits i.e. Social Security and Medicare could be handled by 'Domestic Contracts' or something similar.

The only reason I can see for 'Homosexual Marriage' is to bring an emotional feeling of 'Normalcy' to the homosexual and punish heretosexuals for NOT agreeing with a lifestyle choice.

Attacking long held traditions of the majority of the American Citizenry is NOT in the best interests of homsexuals.

That being said, I have no issue with every American Citizen benefitting from rights and protections guaranteed for all - homosexualls are free to marry but only the opposite sex.

Domestic contracts ensuring government benefits like Social Security and Medicare are all right with me.

Hostility towards hereotosexuals and insisting sexual deviance should be taught in schools as normal, will NEVER bring anything but resistance and bad feelings, just as Affirmative Action has increased the racial divide.

Your sexual preferences are between you and God just like Edwards peccadillos are.

Just don't insist on me blessing your preferences or helping you destroy long held traditions like marriage.

Marriage is about procreation your declarations and protests not withstanding.

Have a good evening.

Another question from Primus54
who asked josh (who is quite capable of answering for himself): "Who are you to say there is no God?"

Josh, that's who.

If he's like me, he looked around saw no evidence for anything other than nature. Certainly no evidence for a personal god, and even less for the god of the xians.

Do you always ask (insert adjective her) questions like this, Primus?

Swampfox

Congratulations on seeing the 'Real and Present Danger' of Obama-Messiah.

Have a good evening.