i can see this turning ugly

[ConHog]

They are requiring she work specifically with homosexuals because she has stated that she is a Christian who believes homosexuality is a choice.

That's it.

Well, I can understand her not wanting to get near homosexuals...it's catching, I hear.

I doubt she believes that , but it is irrelevant.

Let's look at this way. What if it was a gay person who completed all the requirements to be in in the military but a coworker outed that person for being gay and the military tossed that person out despite the fact t hat ALL requirements have been met. Is that wrong in your mind? Madeline?

 

[ConHog]

That is completely inaccurate Madeline. She never said any such thing.

Immie

Immie, we all have read the same damned article. It says what it says.

And she stated that she would keep her religious beliefs out of her profession.

Why do you think she is lying? Is it because she is a Christian or that you think of her as a "homophobe"?

Immie

DING DING DING, we have a winner. And Madeline denies it at EVERY turn. She claims there is no discrimination against Christians in this country even though she herself is a bigot. Laughable.

 

[AllieBaba]

She never said she didn't want to treat homosexuals. There was a case in Michigan (I think) where a student asked to not treat a homosexual based on her religious beliefs.

But in the Georgia case, she never said she wouldn't treat them or even that she didn't want to. She discussed conversion therapy (I guess certain topics are off limits at this school) with classmates and was open about her Christianity.

Whe was never accused of saying anything inappropriate or hateful. She wasn't accused of refusing to treat students. She never did anything that made anyone think she would regale her homosexual clients with her opinions.

This is all based solely on her faith, and her refusal to participate in a specific "program" for her alone, the culminating purpose of which is to obtain a recantation from her.

Read the material. They expected her to make a statement that she doesn't believe, and which nobody else is expected to make.

It's discrimination.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, part of mastering the material is learning how to properly counsel homosexual students. The student herself claims she cannot do so in conformity with the profession's standard of care.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that you are wrong in regards to this. How many times are you going to try to use that?

Immie

She's either lying, or stupid.

I think perhaps both.

I don't believe she is either.

Obstinate? Absolutely, but there are worse things that one can be... hell, I've been accused of being obstinate myself. I wonder if she is a Taurus?

I think she believes in what she has said. I simply think she is flat out wrong as I think this school is... of course, I am taking Ms. Keeton at her word, which could come back and bite me in the ass later, but right now, I am willing to take that risk.

I think ASU is mis-treating Ms. Keeton because she is strong-willed and unwilling to conform. I don't think she is the only student to have ever had this happen to her. In fact, in 7th grade my brother had something similar happen to him when he wrote a report on the pros and cons of prostitution. His teacher didn't think it was appropriate for a 7th grader to write about such things. She flunked him on the project and shared his report with the other teachers... then she met my mom!

Immie

 

[Madeline]

You are right, Immie. Each of us is invested in our POVs because of our biases. As always, your kindness is appreciated.

And, no, I'm a Leo. My birthday is now two days away. I wanna My Little Pony, of course.

*Winks*

 

[Immanuel]

You are right, Immie. Each of us is invested in our POVs because of our biases. As always, your kindness is appreciated.

And, no, I'm a Leo. My birthday is now two days away. I wanna My Little Pony, of course.

*Winks*

My brother discussed above as the 7th grader who wrote about prostitution is a Leo. Strong willed and obstinate too. There's your problem

Happy birthday. I hope you get your "My Little Pony". I didn't know they even made them anymore.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

In Madeline, we have the quintessential picture of a complete bigot. We're lucky to have her so. She's a text book example of how bigotry presents.

She blames door-knocking Christians for the fact that the people in a particular neighborhood are getting robbed, and says they make her "afraid".

She says they reduce wariness and make people more vulnerable because they think whomever is knocking on the door is a JH.

It is a perfect picture of bigotry.

In this thread, she maintains that because a person is a Christian, they are also a homophobe. And she further states that in order to work in human services, one cannot be a Christian because Christianity is anathema to human services.

Another example of perfect bigotry.

 

[Madeline]

 

[ConHog]

It has been repeatedly pointed out that you are wrong in regards to this. How many times are you going to try to use that?

Immie

She's either lying, or stupid.

I think perhaps both.

I don't believe she is either.

Obstinate? Absolutely, but there are worse things that one can be... hell, I've been accused of being obstinate myself. I wonder if she is a Taurus?

I think she believes in what she has said. I simply think she is flat out wrong as I think this school is... of course, I am taking Ms. Keeton at her word, which could come back and bite me in the ass later, but right now, I am willing to take that risk.

I think ASU is mis-treating Ms. Keeton because she is strong-willed and unwilling to conform. I don't think she is the only student to have ever had this happen to her. In fact, in 7th grade my brother had something similar happen to him when he wrote a report on the pros and cons of prostitution. His teacher didn't think it was appropriate for a 7th grader to write about such things. She flunked him on the project and shared his report with the other teachers... then she met my mom!

Immie

I don't believe Madeline is stupid, I do however believe is discriminatory towards Christians and a liar. I base all three opinions on her posts in a variety of threads. No one who posts on any message board can claim to be not hard headed, but willfully ignoring and refuting facts that are presented goes beyond being hard headed and heads straight into the realm of liar. This case is ENTIRELY about the woman's religious beliefs, Madeline's refusal to admit even that simple fact make her a liar.

 

[AllieBaba]

Further, she hides the ugly facet of her nature with MLP stickers and trite musings, while at the same time she avoids providing any facts whatsoever to support her bigoted lies.

 

[AllieBaba]

The give-away is she actually lies about what was in the OP article.

It's a progressive stunt. Pretend the study/material/clip says something it absolutely doesn't say, and just trust that people don't care enough or won't read carefully enough to realize they just made it up out of whole cloth.

I absolutely can do it as well, and have done it (I was a journalist, remember?) So I recognize it when I see it.

I see it a lot. It's my primary beef with journalism, and is why I'm not a reporter now.

 

[Madeline]

Allie, I have enjoyed some of our discussions, but I think mebbe it is time for us to take a break. I am finding it harder and harder not to take the insults you write about me personally, and the posts you make don't seem to be adding a thing to my store of knowledge or opinion.

I wish you well. Hopefully, whatever is bothering you will pass and we can convo once more. Till then, I have used "ignore".

 

[AllieBaba]

You go ahead and part, Madeline. You should take them personally, they're meant personally. I despise liars, and I loathe progressive fascists. They are of course one and the same, and I behave towards them all the same. With disdain and revulsion.

 

[ConHog]

Madeline, don't lie and don't discriminate if you don't want to be called out for such. That seems pretty simple.

Although I notice you aren't answering me in this thread at all anyway, which is odd, but whatever.

 

[AllieBaba]

She comes, she spreads her crap, then leaves when it gets uncomfortable.

Welcome to Maddie's m.o.

 

[geauxtohell]

Actually, there seems to be some debate on the matter.

Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems

Yeah, if you want to take "NARTH"'s word for it.

Did you read the "NARTH" mission statement?

We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance.

NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals.

I used them as but ONE example of the fact that there IS debate. I didn't say they were right, or wrong. This is no more my field than it is yours , Madeline's, nor Allie's . But the FACT that they dissent PROVES that Madeline's assertion that an entire field agrees on something was incorrect. No?

The "entire" medical field doesn't agree that HIV causes AIDs. There are still some goofs out there who just can't but the +1 correlation with HIV and AIDs and they refuse to accept the known virological facts that HIV destroys CD4+ T-cells (the diagnosis of AIDS is purely related to the number of CD4+ cells in the body). Ron Paul is one of them.

However, the vast majority of the field accepts it and dismisses those who don't buy it as "out there".

So you can't say the "entire field" agrees on anything. The overwhelming consensus is that Homosexuality is not something a person can change about themselves.

I wonder how much bank NARTH is making from Focus on the Family donations?

 

[ConHog]

Yeah, if you want to take "NARTH"'s word for it.

Did you read the "NARTH" mission statement?

I used them as but ONE example of the fact that there IS debate. I didn't say they were right, or wrong. This is no more my field than it is yours , Madeline's, nor Allie's . But the FACT that they dissent PROVES that Madeline's assertion that an entire field agrees on something was incorrect. No?

The "entire" medical field doesn't agree that HIV causes AIDs. There are still some goofs out there who just can't but the +1 correlation with HIV and AIDs and they refuse to accept the known virological facts that HIV destroys CD4+ T-cells (the diagnosis of AIDS is purely related to the number of CD4+ cells in the body). Ron Paul is one of them.

However, the vast majority of the field accepts it and dismisses those who don't buy it as "out there".

So you can't say the "entire field" agrees on anything. The overwhelming consensus is that Homosexuality is not something a person can change about themselves.

I wonder how much bank NARTH is making from Focus on the Family donations?

We weren't discussing choice, we were discussing whether it was a mental illness, by the way I don't agree that it i s, I think it is a choice though.

I don't believe the overwhelming consensus is that it isn't either. Think you're wrong on that one.

 

[geauxtohell]

Blu, how can you seriously argue that? You know without doubt that her beliefs are based on her religious beliefs. Is that always the case? No, of course you are correct, plenty of people object to homosexuality for reasons other than religion, but a court won't take what other people might object to it for, they would ONLY consider whether THIS woman was denied something based on her religious beliefs.

Analogy. Let's say a black man goes into a restaurant and is refused service. He sues and the man who refused service to him claims that race had nothing to do with why he didn't serve him, he just didn't like the guy. Do you find him guilty of racism? I probably do, and I don't even agree with that part of the Civil Right Bill, but the law is the law.

blu can say that because, as a fascist, he lies about things to make them appear other than what they actually are. In that way he is able to oppress and take a stand against freedom and civil, and human, rights without actually coming out and saying that's what he's doing.

PS, I know what fascism is, dear.

blah blah blah ad hominem all do

Seriously?

"Facist"?

Some people need to get a grip.

 

[blu]

blu can say that because, as a fascist, he lies about things to make them appear other than what they actually are. In that way he is able to oppress and take a stand against freedom and civil, and human, rights without actually coming out and saying that's what he's doing.

PS, I know what fascism is, dear.

blah blah blah ad hominem all do

Seriously?

"Facist"?

Some people need to get a grip.

me? I was pointing out that she just spews out ad hominem and nonsense and I meant to say 'all day' and not 'all do'

 

[geauxtohell]

The larger point is, your religious beliefs don't get to trump the standards of a profession you want to enter.

If you can't buy the Christian Scientist scenario, then how about this:

"You are a Jehovah's Witness in medical school who believes blood is sacred and refuses to do a transfusion on a patient."

Or:

"You are a Rastafarian in medical school that believes it's your religious right to walk around and see patients with a doobie hanging out of your mouth."

Jehovah's Witnesses actually have some sound medical studies backing them up about the transfusions, not that any of them will ever enroll in medical school.

There are sound medical studies backing up the notion that blood shouldn't be transfused because it makes God angry?

I don't think so.

There are plenty of studies about the dangers of blood transfusion (I should know, I am a co-author on a paper that we are trying to publish about blood transfusion), but it has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs.

Frankly, I find it annoying that a patient would rather die of shock then three units of blood. However, I recognize that it's their decision and not mine and that my personal opinion on the matter is not germane to the issue.

See how simple that is? I don't get to foist my personal opinions on people in a professional setting.