Judge Allows Expulsion For Religious Beliefs

[Woodruff]

He doesn't physically have the ability to sensibly answer you points, because all he can do is regurgitate things that FOX tells him. Unless they run a feature on 'why we disagree with Woodruff'

That would rock. I'd totally kick Bill O'Reilly's argumentative ass.

[Empress Wu]

That would rock. I'd totally kick Bill O'Reilly's argumentative ass.

Well... you wanted it - you've got it...

[b.k. barunt]

After i was disabled in a bike wreck in 93 i went to the local university and got a degree in social work. I graduated 2nd in my class, Summa Cum Laude, Presidential Honors Scholarship, etc., and yet i was not allowed to do my internship with the school sponsored program. Why? Because i wrote an editorial that was published in the school paper on gay propaganda and indoctrination in the school curriculum.

This shit is getting stoopit.


Honibaz

[Incandenza]

I started a new job today, so I was gone for most of it.

Before getting into it, congrats and good luck with the new job.

Okay, on with the show. To recap, you said this about homosexuality:

Actually, I'm convinced it's a choice, not an illness.

To which I responded

Just out of idle curiosity, are you basing this on years of study of genetics and human development in the pursuit of a doctorate, or perhaps on misinterpreted passages in a glorified bunch of stapled-together pamphlets written two thousand years ago?

So yes, it was your comments about homosexuality that are unsupportable.

I'm not going to waste time debating about homosexuality because I know that since most of the people on this forum are not Christians, they'll completely dismiss those views as false.

Here's the thing, clearly you object to homosexuality on religious grounds. And you know what? You are 100% within your right to do so. You can think it's immoral, that it's damaging to the social fabric of the country, that it's just plain icky. You probably think that way because you read it in a very old book, and because people older than you told you so. And you're entitled to said opinion, just as I'm entitled to think that said opinion represents a truly medieval mindset, that the Bible's (debatable) stance on homosexuality has about as much relevance in the modern world as its stance on poly-cotton blends or owning slaves or eating shrimp. But like you, I have no interest in debating the morals.

However, having an unformed opinion about what's essentially a scientific question is indefensible. In order to be able to have an informed opinion on the roots of homosexuality, you'd need to actually have some familiarity with genetics, psychology, human development, and a host of other disciplines that I suspect you haven't explored the intricacies of. And even worse, you're "convinced", which means you would probably hold to this opinion even in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. The sad thing is that the roots of homosexuality have no real bearing on your opinion of its morale stature, but of course it's a lot easier (and morally safer) to condemn behavior than intrinsic wiring, 'cause morally disapproving of someone based on a difference in inborn makeup is not the done thing in polite society.

[ViperOverLord]

However, if she was simply reprimanded for private views... then it is wrong.

Plus the fact that the school tried to force her to change her religious views to match theirs through a remediation course. That's indoctrination, which is also not allowed.

They weren't forcing her to changer her religious views. She was discriminating against homosexuals and the school gave her the option to take a class that would help her overcome her distain for them or she could leave the program. She decided that she would not take the classes, so the school had no other option than to remove her because she broke school rules and because of her inability to be a useful counselor should she ever graduate from a counseling program.

None of this would have happened if she did not discriminate homosexuals publicly by refusing to provide her services to them and just kept her unneeded hate of them deep down inside herself.

You make yourself look foolish when you twist an argument to fit your purposes.

1. She was not discriminating against homosexuals. She was not denying rights based on homosexuality.
2. She did not have distain (disdain) for homosexuals. She has a belief that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. That should not to be confused with disdain. A person can have that belief and otherwise get along with a homosexual perfectly well.
3."Her inability to be a useful counselor" is a highly subjective and dim minded view.
4. You assume that she has "hate" and then claim that she should keep it within herself. She has not made hateful remarks. It is you that is hating on her. Also you're telling her that she is at fault for excercising her supposed first ammendment rights. It's funny how libs celebrate the 1st ammendment til the cows come home but when someone with a different view exercises that right you pretend that the right does not exist.

[ViperOverLord]

It doesn't matter what club she's from when she's kicked out of a public school for her religious beliefs. Freedom of religion is a right guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, and this decision flies in the face of that fundamental protection.

Ha ha!

Another hilarious example of Nightstrike not being able to respond to the point that is put to him bla bla bla...

Maybe when you take yourself seriously, other people will take you seriously. I'm sure half the forum posters have foed you already.

[ViperOverLord]

When a counselor comes across a situation they can't/won't discuss/treat, then they should be allowed to refer that person to another counselor. A person getting a degree does not have to conform to the beliefs of the school giving the degree because that is their personal beliefs. I'm sure there are many other areas where this woman could be an effective counselor, but because the school disagrees with her religious beliefs on homosexuality, she is kicked out. That is persecution based on religion, which is unconstitutional. There's no other way around it.

Well, that's great, once you're a counselor you can choose to tell your patients whatever you please, however repugnant it might be (I assume, I don't know much about the field, but I could see certain actions resulting in your license being revoked). She isn't a counselor, though, she is a counselor in training. A university should not be required to tailor their courses to any and all religious objections. The program that she was taking and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics both require her to deal with homosexuals regardless of personal feelings. If she is incapable of putting her religious beliefs aside, then she is in the wrong field. Jehovah's Witnesses oppose blood transfusions, so a Jehovah's Witness will not become a doctor through any reputable university. This is not a violation of religious freedom, it is common sense.

Actually, just to get a better feel of your objection, would you feel the same way if the objection was not religious, and homosexuals just grossed her out?

So basically you're saying that homosexuality should be morally validated across the board and that nobody with the view that homosexuality is immoral should be allowed to practice counseling. Brilliant! - Putz

[Baron Von PWN]

When a counselor comes across a situation they can't/won't discuss/treat, then they should be allowed to refer that person to another counselor. A person getting a degree does not have to conform to the beliefs of the school giving the degree because that is their personal beliefs. I'm sure there are many other areas where this woman could be an effective counselor, but because the school disagrees with her religious beliefs on homosexuality, she is kicked out. That is persecution based on religion, which is unconstitutional. There's no other way around it.

Well, that's great, once you're a counselor you can choose to tell your patients whatever you please, however repugnant it might be (I assume, I don't know much about the field, but I could see certain actions resulting in your license being revoked). She isn't a counselor, though, she is a counselor in training. A university should not be required to tailor their courses to any and all religious objections. The program that she was taking and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics both require her to deal with homosexuals regardless of personal feelings. If she is incapable of putting her religious beliefs aside, then she is in the wrong field. Jehovah's Witnesses oppose blood transfusions, so a Jehovah's Witness will not become a doctor through any reputable university. This is not a violation of religious freedom, it is common sense.

Actually, just to get a better feel of your objection, would you feel the same way if the objection was not religious, and homosexuals just grossed her out?

So basically you're saying that homosexuality should be morally validated across the board and that nobody with the view that homosexuality is immoral should be allowed to practice counseling. Brilliant! - Putz

Yes. What can possibly be immoral about two consenting adults having sex?

[PLAYER57832]

However, if she was simply reprimanded for private views... then it is wrong.

Plus the fact that the school tried to force her to change her religious views to match theirs through a remediation course. That's indoctrination, which is also not allowed.

They weren't forcing her to changer her religious views. She was discriminating against homosexuals and the school gave her the option to take a class that would help her overcome her distain for them or she could leave the program. She decided that she would not take the classes, so the school had no other option than to remove her because she broke school rules and because of her inability to be a useful counselor should she ever graduate from a counseling program.

None of this would have happened if she did not discriminate homosexuals publicly by refusing to provide her services to them and just kept her unneeded hate of them deep down inside herself.

You make yourself look foolish when you twist an argument to fit your purposes.

1. She was not discriminating against homosexuals. She was not denying rights based on homosexuality.
2. She did not have distain (disdain) for homosexuals. She has a belief that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. That should not to be confused with disdain. A person can have that belief and otherwise get along with a homosexual perfectly well.
3."Her inability to be a useful counselor" is a highly subjective and dim minded view.
4. You assume that she has "hate" and then claim that she should keep it within herself. She has not made hateful remarks. It is you that is hating on her. Also you're telling her that she is at fault for excercising her supposed first ammendment rights. It's funny how libs celebrate the 1st ammendment til the cows come home but when someone with a different view exercises that right you pretend that the right does not exist.

#1 You just have wrong. She specifically stated that she felt it was her mission to change homosexuals, convert them to Christianity. This was not in the OP, but it was in articles I found that went into more detail on this.

#2 is the most critical point you have wrong. Sure, she might be able to live next a homosexual family without approving of the actions, but she cannot effectively counsel that person.

As I, and other people have said before, leave out "homosexual" and replace it with another strongly held (legal) worldview, such as religion. A counselor who has trouble dealing with Jews or Muslims or Fundamentalist Christians would face the same choices.

3 & 4. - you are twisting. Most people would say that someone who considers their basic way of being to be wrong, who considers it their "mission" to change that person to be disdain. Many would call counseling someone in a way that would split up a family to be hateful. Someone in a homosexual relationship that goes to her for counseling should not have to face their counselor telling them to just leave and reform.
AND, no, she was NOT willing to just keep these thoughts to herself, as you claim. That is the whole point. She was given many opportunities to reconcile this issue, but flat out refused to consider anything that would point toward homosexuals being people who simply made a choice she did not like.

[PLAYER57832]

So basically you're saying that homosexuality should be morally validated across the board and that nobody with the view that homosexuality is immoral should be allowed to practice counseling. Brilliant! - Putz

No, we are saying that it is not a psycologists role to decide morals. That is the purvue of religion. It is a psycologist and psychiatrists job to treat and deal with mental illness. Homosexual is not an illness. It is not something that needs to be corrected under psycological standards. Any psycologist or psychiatrist who things their job is to convert homosexuals is just as wrong as counselors who feel it is their duty to convert fundamental Christians from their views.

People DO have a right to express those views and counselors, even trained Dr's. have the right to create programs to convert folks. They just don't have the right to do that under the auspices of a public university.

That is what it means when the psychiatric field determines that something is not illness.

AND, before you get all "high and mighty", think back in history to the many, many things that have been considered "illnesses"... women who were not "compliant" enough to their husbands (often women who objected to extra-marital affairs or who simply wanted to make very basic choices), slaves who did not want to submit to masters, adherants to just about any religion not popular in that community, and, yes, homosexuality.

There is a reason these programs are nuetral on those points. It is to protect everyone.

[b.k. barunt]

So basically you're saying that homosexuality should be morally validated across the board and that nobody with the view that homosexuality is immoral should be allowed to practice counseling. Brilliant! - Putz

No, we are saying that it is not a psycologists role to decide morals. That is the purvue of religion. It is a psycologist and psychiatrists job to treat and deal with mental illness. Homosexual is not an illness. It is not something that needs to be corrected under psycological standards. Any psycologist or psychiatrist who things their job is to convert homosexuals is just as wrong as counselors who feel it is their duty to convert fundamental Christians from their views.

People DO have a right to express those views and counselors, even trained Dr's. have the right to create programs to convert folks. They just don't have the right to do that under the auspices of a public university.

That is what it means when the psychiatric field determines that something is not illness.

AND, before you get all "high and mighty", think back in history to the many, many things that have been considered "illnesses"... women who were not "compliant" enough to their husbands (often women who objected to extra-marital affairs or who simply wanted to make very basic choices), slaves who did not want to submit to masters, adherants to just about any religion not popular in that community, and, yes, homosexuality.

There is a reason these programs are nuetral on those points. It is to protect everyone.

I'm sure you are aware of the everyday fact of "Christian" counselors. These are counselors who (supposedly) base their counseling on the Bible. The girl who was expelled was planning to be one. Counselors who practice within their religion also need to be licensed by the state, so they get a degree from a university. Now the mos and the bos are going to say that religious counselors can no longer be educated or licensed if their religion does not accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle. Waddacuntry!

A counselor whose clientelle consists of those who want scriptural advice does not refuse to counsel homosexuals. Most will not go to such a counselor because they will be told what the Bible says about homosexuality, which is not flattering or in any way warm and fuzzy. The girl in question did not refuse to counsel homosexuals - she believed it to be immoral, which is her right, and she refused to counsel any homosexuals with reassurances that it was perfectly normal for a man to lust after the hairy ass of another man. A psychologist, psychiatrist, or counselor cannot be legally forced to accept the dictums of the APA, so she was within her rights.

Up until 1973 the American Psychiatric Association counted homosexuality as a neurosis. This diagnosis was due to a plethora of experiments which were not disproved or repudiated in order to effect a change of said diagnosis. The change in 73 was virtually overnight and was a result of heavy lobbying by the gay Political Action Committee. A complete turnaround of medical diagnosis by fiat as it were - so much for your "neutral programs".

The gay and lesbian PAC was 7th in power when i did the study in 1999. That says a lot right there. I'm not a practicing Christian and have plenty of "sins" of my own, so i don't pass religious judgement on the mos, but i get a serious case of the redass when someone tries to tell me how to think. Two men sweating and grunting together in throes of hotgaybumsex sickens me. That's my personal opinion and it aint gonna change. If you guys want to engage in such that's your right - just keep it to yourselves and leave me out of it. Quit persecuting the heteros who disagree with you.


Honibaz

[daddy1gringo]

Just out of idle curiosity, are you basing this on years of study of genetics and human development in the pursuit of a doctorate,...
...In order to be able to have an informed opinion on the roots of homosexuality, you'd need to actually have some familiarity with genetics, psychology, human development, and a host of other disciplines that I suspect you haven't explored the intricacies of.

Out of equally idle curiosity, is your opinion about it based on all of those things?

There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is normal or is an inherent part of who a person is. What one is sexually aroused by is largely conditioned. I don't have "scientific proof" either, but I do have strong anecdotal evidence.

1. The phenomenon of pornography addiction or "pornographic creep". A guy makes a habit of masturbating while looking at pornography. Later when he gets married, or in a relationship "with benefits", he can't perform without thinking of, or sometimes actually looking at the kind of stuff he used to masturbate to. He is conditioned to respond sexually to whatever was his sensory input at the time of the pleasure rush. The condition can be overcome, but only by re-conditioning to respond to his wife/partner.

2. Stud bulls whose semen is "harvested" sold and distributed, after a while, when they are approaching the facility, they start getting, um, visibly aroused. (Does the name Pavlov ring any bells? Sorry)

3. I personally know several people, and know OF thousands more, who used to be homosexual and are not anymore. For some it just happens when they invite Jesus to live inside them, others have to work through re-conditioning, just as happens with other desires based on what the body has become accustomed to, like smoking, alcoholism, or other drug addictions.

The debate gets shoved into this box where the only alternatives are either that homosexuality is an inherent part of who a person is, so objecting to it is bigotry, or that it is a choice, which, as has been pointed out, is unlikely since who would choose something that will get them mocked. It is neither.

For one reason or another, a person tries homosexual sex, and so becomes conditioned to be aroused by people of the same sex. So a choice is involved, but they didn't choose to "be gay". The conventional wisdom is that the person "was gay" all along, and just discovered it.

An inordinate number of homosexuals have a good reason for their perception of male female relationships to turn them off, typically sexual abuse, causing them to try same-sex relations.

Another scenario is this: a boy is shy and non aggressive, or is sensitive and prefers poetry to sports, so he gets mocked and bullied by the macho kids. Unfortunately, often the only place where sensitive, artistic boys find acceptance is among homosexuals. He develops his relationships there and one thing leads to another. This scenario accounts for the disproportionate number of homosexuals among creative, artistic people much better than the "genetically determined" idea does.

All of this does not contradict the idea that we are designed (whether by God, or by evolution or both) to have our relations with the opposite sex, and participating in homosexual relations is unhealthy. This is kind of a silly analogy, but makes the point. A pair of pliers is designed for use as pliers, not as a hammer. That does not prevent a person from being in the habit of using their pliers as a hammer, probably resulting in both damage to the pliers and not doing the job right.

I think I'll stop here. I'll probably get counter arguments that will call for any further explanation or arguments I was thinking of adding.

[Juan_Bottom]

Up until 1973 the American Psychiatric Association counted homosexuality as a neurosis. This diagnosis was due to a plethora of experiments which were not disproved or repudiated in order to effect a change of said diagnosis. The change in 73 was virtually overnight and was a result of heavy lobbying by the gay Political Action Committee. A complete turnaround of medical diagnosis by fiat as it were - so much for your "neutral programs".

Oral Sex altogether was once considered abnormal and requiring of medical intervention. But I don't think that someone who gets a blow job is suffering from neurosis.
I am going somewhere with this right?

3. I personally know several people, and know OF thousands more, who used to be homosexual and are not anymore. For some it just happens when they invite Jesus to live inside them, others have to work through re-conditioning, just as happens with other desires based on what the body has become accustomed to, like smoking, alcoholism, or other drug addictions.

The debate gets shoved into this box where the only alternatives are either that homosexuality is an inherent part of who a person is, so objecting to it is bigotry, or that it is a choice, which, as has been pointed out, is unlikely since who would choose something that will get them mocked. It is neither.

Lot's of people choose to be something that will get them mocked. Emo comes to mind.

All of this does not contradict the idea that we are designed (whether by God, or by evolution or both) to have our relations with the opposite sex, and participating in homosexual relations is unhealthy. This is kind of a silly analogy, but makes the point. A pair of pliers is designed for use as pliers, not as a hammer. That does not prevent a person from being in the habit of using their pliers as a hammer, probably resulting in both damage to the pliers and not doing the job right.

Why is it "unhealthy" if no harm comes from it other than you calling it unhealthy?

3."Her inability to be a useful counselor" is a highly subjective and dim minded view.

Except that all the other counselors in the world agree with that view. That's why they already have the standard that got her in trouble. Those dumbasses.

[Snorri1234]

What one is sexually aroused by is largely conditioned.

Well good thing that it's not actually about sexual arousal then.

[Woodruff]

or that it is a choice, which, as has been pointed out, is unlikely since who would choose something that will get them mocked.

How does it being something that would be mockable mean it's not a choice? People choose to do things that either may or definitely WILL get them mocked all the time.

[Snorri1234]

3."Her inability to be a useful counselor" is a highly subjective and dim minded view.

It is neither of those things. A doctor who doesn't believe in germ theory is simply a bad doctor.

When thousands of educated people sit down and write a guideline for their proffesion, it is not a "highly subjective and dim minded view".

[PLAYER57832]

Just out of idle curiosity, are you basing this on years of study of genetics and human development in the pursuit of a doctorate,...
...In order to be able to have an informed opinion on the roots of homosexuality, you'd need to actually have some familiarity with genetics, psychology, human development, and a host of other disciplines that I suspect you haven't explored the intricacies of.

Out of equally idle curiosity, is your opinion about it based on all of those things?

There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is normal or is an inherent part of who a person is. What one is sexually aroused by is largely conditioned. I don't have "scientific proof" either, but I do have strong anecdotal evidence.

Actually, there IS evidence. Not 100% proof, but much more than mere "anecdotal" evidence. For example if one twin is homosexual it is extremely likely the other will be, too. Also, "biological" includes much, much more than just genetics. I won't go into that though, because, and this is important, None of that matters.

It doesn't matter for Christianity if homosexuality is genetically or otherwise biologically based and it doesn't matter for this debate if it is or is not. For Christianity, all that matters is what the Bible says. For society, though, what matters is whether it is harmful. For something to be "wrong" psycologically, it has to be directly harmful to the person -- not just "wrong" in the sense of violating your or my religious code, but harmful in the sense of leading that person to direct physical harm. OR, it has to cause harm to others. Those are the standards by which whether something is OK or not OK is judged.

It is not OK to say "this behavior is immoral per my religion and therefore I have the right to counsel people against it outside of my religious practice (I mean "religious practice" very broadly to include any counselor in a religious setting. This may include a psychiatrist/psychologist as long as they identify themselves as "Christian".. or Hindu or whatever). If it were OK for you to do that for homosexuality, then it would be OK for a Moslem to counsel that your daughter must wear a Burkha, or that you should not eat pork, etc. That kind of counseling IS acceptable within religion, but just not in a purely secular environment.

1. The phenomenon of pornography addiction or "pornographic creep". A guy makes a habit of masturbating while looking at pornography. Later when he gets married, or in a relationship "with benefits", he can't perform without thinking of, or sometimes actually looking at the kind of stuff he used to masturbate to. He is conditioned to respond sexually to whatever was his sensory input at the time of the pleasure rush. The condition can be overcome, but only by re-conditioning to respond to his wife/partner.

2. Stud bulls whose semen is "harvested" sold and distributed, after a while, when they are approaching the facility, they start getting, um, visibly aroused. (Does the name Pavlov ring any bells? Sorry)

Again, whether this is true or not just does not matter. People are free to be who they want to be in our society and to do what they wish as long as it doesn't harm others. Homosexuality used to be thought like a "disease" that is "catching", but this is just not so. And.. THAT is why it was removed from the list of psycological illnesses and why it is no longer to be treated as if it were, unless one is operating from a religious stance only.

3. I personally know several people, and know OF thousands more, who used to be homosexual and are not anymore. For some it just happens when they invite Jesus to live inside them, others have to work through re-conditioning, just as happens with other desires based on what the body has become accustomed to, like smoking, alcoholism, or other drug addictions.

I am going to address this because it is an idea you hear conservatives bring up a lot. The truth? When these are followed, the real truth is that very, very few of these converts stay that way. In many cases, it was not someone who was truly homosexual, but was someone who perhaps considered homosexuality as an option (and rejected it), etc. Many other times the person seems to "reform", but is not really... even if it is not for decades that they admit it. Many others may "reform" in behavior, but live with turmoil inside that leads to increases in depression, suicide, etc.

The debate gets shoved into this box where the only alternatives are either that homosexuality is an inherent part of who a person is, so objecting to it is bigotry, or that it is a choice, which, as has been pointed out, is unlikely since who would choose something that will get them mocked. It is neither.

That is the box that too many conservative Christians like to paint. The truth is far, far more complex. In this case, whether it is genetic or not is utterly irrelevant. One is not "born" Moslem. I certainly would take issue with a child of mine converting to Islam, likely would take them to a Christian counselor. However, I would not expect an average psychiatrist or psychologist to "treat" him like I would if I thought he had a true psychosis

For one reason or another, a person tries homosexual sex, and so becomes conditioned to be aroused by people of the same sex. So a choice is involved, but they didn't choose to "be gay". The conventional wisdom is that the person "was gay" all along, and just discovered it.

An inordinate number of homosexuals have a good reason for their perception of male female relationships to turn them off, typically sexual abuse, causing them to try same-sex relations.

Another scenario is this: a boy is shy and non aggressive, or is sensitive and prefers poetry to sports, so he gets mocked and bullied by the macho kids. Unfortunately, often the only place where sensitive, artistic boys find acceptance is among homosexuals. He develops his relationships there and one thing leads to another. This scenario accounts for the disproportionate number of homosexuals among creative, artistic people much better than the "genetically determined" idea does.

All of this does not contradict the idea that we are designed (whether by God, or by evolution or both) to have our relations with the opposite sex, and participating in homosexual relations is unhealthy. This is kind of a silly analogy, but makes the point. A pair of pliers is designed for use as pliers, not as a hammer. That does not prevent a person from being in the habit of using their pliers as a hammer, probably resulting in both damage to the pliers and not doing the job right.

I think I'll stop here. I'll probably get counter arguments that will call for any further explanation or arguments I was thinking of adding.

Again, all of that is utterly irrelevant except that if it is "just a choice", then it is... and in a free country we don't send people for making choices we don't like. That is only appropriate when the choice is truly and directly harmful in a non-spiritual way. That is, in a way that would be considered "harm" regardless of someone's religion.

[Snorri1234]

No but seriously you guys, sexual identity and sexual arousal are not the same thing. You can get arousal out of conditioning, but you can't condition love. Sure, that sounds mushy but there's a lot of psychological research indicating that. Gay people have conditioned themselves to like the opposite sex for years, long before there were camps where you can pray the gay out. In the time where they could die for being gay they forced themselves to live straight but stories and research show that it didnt work.

[ViperOverLord]

3."Her inability to be a useful counselor" is a highly subjective and dim minded view.

It is neither of those things. A doctor who doesn't believe in germ theory is simply a bad doctor.

When thousands of educated people sit down and write a guideline for their proffesion, it is not a "highly subjective and dim minded view".

1. Germ theory is science. Morality is not a science nor is psychiatry (not counting the fact that is as a social science.

2. You're view is a fallacy of thought. Rather than name the fallacy, I'll simply say how exactly off you are. At one point this same association of 'thousands' once listed homosexuality as a mental disease.

Once again you have shown yourself to be ignorant.

[ViperOverLord]

When a counselor comes across a situation they can't/won't discuss/treat, then they should be allowed to refer that person to another counselor. A person getting a degree does not have to conform to the beliefs of the school giving the degree because that is their personal beliefs. I'm sure there are many other areas where this woman could be an effective counselor, but because the school disagrees with her religious beliefs on homosexuality, she is kicked out. That is persecution based on religion, which is unconstitutional. There's no other way around it.

Well, that's great, once you're a counselor you can choose to tell your patients whatever you please, however repugnant it might be (I assume, I don't know much about the field, but I could see certain actions resulting in your license being revoked). She isn't a counselor, though, she is a counselor in training. A university should not be required to tailor their courses to any and all religious objections. The program that she was taking and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics both require her to deal with homosexuals regardless of personal feelings. If she is incapable of putting her religious beliefs aside, then she is in the wrong field. Jehovah's Witnesses oppose blood transfusions, so a Jehovah's Witness will not become a doctor through any reputable university. This is not a violation of religious freedom, it is common sense.

Actually, just to get a better feel of your objection, would you feel the same way if the objection was not religious, and homosexuals just grossed her out?

So basically you're saying that homosexuality should be morally validated across the board and that nobody with the view that homosexuality is immoral should be allowed to practice counseling. Brilliant! - Putz

Yes. What can possibly be immoral about two consenting adults having sex?

If you consent to let me cut off your head does that make it right if I do it?

[Baron Von PWN]

When a counselor comes across a situation they can't/won't discuss/treat, then they should be allowed to refer that person to another counselor. A person getting a degree does not have to conform to the beliefs of the school giving the degree because that is their personal beliefs. I'm sure there are many other areas where this woman could be an effective counselor, but because the school disagrees with her religious beliefs on homosexuality, she is kicked out. That is persecution based on religion, which is unconstitutional. There's no other way around it.

Well, that's great, once you're a counselor you can choose to tell your patients whatever you please, however repugnant it might be (I assume, I don't know much about the field, but I could see certain actions resulting in your license being revoked). She isn't a counselor, though, she is a counselor in training. A university should not be required to tailor their courses to any and all religious objections. The program that she was taking and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics both require her to deal with homosexuals regardless of personal feelings. If she is incapable of putting her religious beliefs aside, then she is in the wrong field. Jehovah's Witnesses oppose blood transfusions, so a Jehovah's Witness will not become a doctor through any reputable university. This is not a violation of religious freedom, it is common sense.

Actually, just to get a better feel of your objection, would you feel the same way if the objection was not religious, and homosexuals just grossed her out?

So basically you're saying that homosexuality should be morally validated across the board and that nobody with the view that homosexuality is immoral should be allowed to practice counseling. Brilliant! - Putz

Yes. What can possibly be immoral about two consenting adults having sex?

If you consent to let me cut off your head does that make it right if I do it?

Because the two acts are completely similar!

[AAFitz]

When a counselor comes across a situation they can't/won't discuss/treat, then they should be allowed to refer that person to another counselor. A person getting a degree does not have to conform to the beliefs of the school giving the degree because that is their personal beliefs. I'm sure there are many other areas where this woman could be an effective counselor, but because the school disagrees with her religious beliefs on homosexuality, she is kicked out. That is persecution based on religion, which is unconstitutional. There's no other way around it.

Well, that's great, once you're a counselor you can choose to tell your patients whatever you please, however repugnant it might be (I assume, I don't know much about the field, but I could see certain actions resulting in your license being revoked). She isn't a counselor, though, she is a counselor in training. A university should not be required to tailor their courses to any and all religious objections. The program that she was taking and the American Counseling Association's code of ethics both require her to deal with homosexuals regardless of personal feelings. If she is incapable of putting her religious beliefs aside, then she is in the wrong field. Jehovah's Witnesses oppose blood transfusions, so a Jehovah's Witness will not become a doctor through any reputable university. This is not a violation of religious freedom, it is common sense.

Actually, just to get a better feel of your objection, would you feel the same way if the objection was not religious, and homosexuals just grossed her out?

So basically you're saying that homosexuality should be morally validated across the board and that nobody with the view that homosexuality is immoral should be allowed to practice counseling. Brilliant! - Putz

Yes. What can possibly be immoral about two consenting adults having sex?

If you consent to let me cut off your head does that make it right if I do it?

So heterosexual sex is fine, but homosexual sex is comparative to beheading or murder/suicide?

Seriously, do you honestly think an actual God could possilbly care that much. I mean seriously, think about it. They guy went through the trouble to design and create an infinitely complex universe, and earth with a complex life, and what you think is going to bother him most, is when two people who are genetically inclined to be attracted to the same sex, act on that in the same exact way as heterosexuals do, that genetically are inclined to do so? Honestly, I give the guy more credit than that. He cant be that simple or pathetic.

[PLAYER57832]

3."Her inability to be a useful counselor" is a highly subjective and dim minded view.

It is neither of those things. A doctor who doesn't believe in germ theory is simply a bad doctor.

When thousands of educated people sit down and write a guideline for their proffesion, it is not a "highly subjective and dim minded view".

1. Germ theory is science. Morality is not a science nor is psychiatry (not counting the fact that is as a social science.

Morality is not science, but biological impacts on the way one percieves their world, etc are. Psychiatry absolutely IS science. It may not always be as firm or "concrete" a science as physics or chemistry, but it is based on testing and evidence.

I realize that many Christian conservatives find the idea that homosexuality might be based, all or in part on biology, to be offensive. However, evidence is mounting that it is, at least in part, and in some cases, based on biology.

Many Christians don't like that idea because it does put us in the uncomfortable position of judging people essentially for being how God made them. But the truth is that whether homosexuality is or is not biologically based is irrelevant. All that matters is what the Bible says.

Similarly, whether homosexuality is or is not acceptable to Christianity or worship of the all might frog prince is utterly irrelevant. What matters is if this is harmful to society or to the person, aside from strictly religious harm.

ALL of those arguments --that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles, that homosexuals are just generally not able to follow societies other rules, that homosexuals are simply sick/insane individuals -- ALL of them have long since been discounted as invalid. So, all that is left is to say that homosexuality is what some people are or how some people choose to live. You don't have to like that, but you do have to work with people of that persuasion in peace, live next to them. If you live next to a doctor of medicine, you need to treat them. If you become a psycologist in standard practice, then you need to also agree to treat anyone.

Ironically, your own argument is precisely why treating homosexuality , dealing with it in anything other than a nuetral fashion is wrong, unless one is operating in a religious framework and format. It is NOT the job of psychiatrists to judge everyone's morals. The exception is when the moral issue also impinges upon societies' safety, as if often does.

Homosexuality was once considered harmful to society at large and therefore considered a disease. It is no longer. Anyone entering a standard program in college will be taught the same thing.

Exactly like any student of geology is taught plate techtonics and other landform processes, not that the Earth was created by God in 6 revolutions of Earth and that geysers are the result of "fountains of the deep" mentioned with Noah's flood. Biologists are taught paleontology, not that everything died with Noah's flood and that lack of radiation and a "greenhouse" effect allowed creatures to live far longer than now. Those things are not taught because the evidence shows those ideas are completely false.

2. You're view is a fallacy of thought. Rather than name the fallacy, I'll simply say how exactly off you are. At one point this same association of 'thousands' once listed homosexuality as a mental disease.

Once again you have shown yourself to be ignorant.

YOu cannot possibly be serious! So, because homosexuality was once a disease it must always be one?

Homosexuality was once listed as a disease. Slaves who wanted to escape slavery were also considered "ill", as were women who wanted to do anything except stay home and care for thier children in exactly the way their husbands wished them to do. It is no secret that more than a few women were locked up in insane asylums for being so "insane" as to object to their husband's extra-marital affairs.

If you want to go back to the days when witches were burned at the stake based on the "testimony" of a few misguided and angry individuals, then go to Saudi Arabia or another oppressive country. Here we have decided to celebrate freedom and choice.

[b.k. barunt]

Up until 1973 the American Psychiatric Association counted homosexuality as a neurosis. This diagnosis was due to a plethora of experiments which were not disproved or repudiated in order to effect a change of said diagnosis. The change in 73 was virtually overnight and was a result of heavy lobbying by the gay Political Action Committee. A complete turnaround of medical diagnosis by fiat as it were - so much for your "neutral programs".

Oral Sex altogether was once considered abnormal and requiring of medical intervention. But I don't think that someone who gets a blow job is suffering from neurosis.
I am going somewhere with this right?

Oral sex was never deemed to be a neurosis by the APA. There is also nothing in the Bible against oral sex, so any Religious Right assholes have no ground to stand on. So where were you going with this . . .?

All of this does not contradict the idea that we are designed (whether by God, or by evolution or both) to have our relations with the opposite sex, and participating in homosexual relations is unhealthy. This is kind of a silly analogy, but makes the point. A pair of pliers is designed for use as pliers, not as a hammer. That does not prevent a person from being in the habit of using their pliers as a hammer, probably resulting in both damage to the pliers and not doing the job right.

Why is it "unhealthy" if no harm comes from it other than you calling it unhealthy?

Umm, did you forget something? <cough> AIDS <cough>

3."Her inability to be a useful counselor" is a highly subjective and dim minded view.

Except that all the other counselors in the world agree with that view. That's why they already have the standard that got her in trouble. Those dumbasses.

"All the other counselors in the world"? Getting a bit carried away with your opinions there aren't you? And what "standard" was it praytell that got her in trouble? There are no "standards" that prohibit religious counselors from counseling within the parameters of their religions, so what "standards" are you referring to?


Honibaz

[b.k. barunt]

Just out of idle curiosity, are you basing this on years of study of genetics and human development in the pursuit of a doctorate,...
...In order to be able to have an informed opinion on the roots of homosexuality, you'd need to actually have some familiarity with genetics, psychology, human development, and a host of other disciplines that I suspect you haven't explored the intricacies of.

Out of equally idle curiosity, is your opinion about it based on all of those things?

There is no scientific evidence that homosexuality is normal or is an inherent part of who a person is. What one is sexually aroused by is largely conditioned. I don't have "scientific proof" either, but I do have strong anecdotal evidence.

Actually, there IS evidence. Not 100% proof, but much more than mere "anecdotal" evidence. For example if one twin is homosexual it is extremely likely the other will be, too. Also, "biological" includes much, much more than just genetics. I won't go into that though, because, and this is important, .

Ofergawdsakes Player don't tell me you're actually going to cite the "Homosexual Twins" experiment???

In 1999 i was a freshman at Southeastern Louisiana University. My social work 101 teacher explained to the class that they had "proven" that homosexuality was biologically based, and cited the "Homosexual Twins" experiment as his "proof". I, being the shit stirrer that i am, went to the library and searched for replications of said experiment - there were none . . . wtf?

Evidently you're not familiar with basic scientific methodology, or like my gay professor you simply shove it aside for the moment. Basic scientific methodology says that before a hypothesis can be seriously considered as theory, the experiment "proving" such has to be replicated at least twice. There have been many attempts to replicate the "Homosexual Twins" experiment and none worked. Imagine that.


Honibaz