Gays fight for identity at religious colleges

[Sleeper Cell]

You are making a generalized assumption about motives in order to cast those who disagree with you in a poor light.

On this board, that is a common tactic. You are certainly welcome to use such a tactic. But it clashes with your pretense of sympathy and concern for gay Christians.

Sort of like you making a generalized assumption about my motives to cast me in a bad light?

The NYT article was largely devoted to telling the story of these students from their prospective. They were given every chance to explain their motives. Several did so. Since the New York Times is not particularly noted for pro-evangelical Christian or anti-gay bias, I have no reason to doubt that they fairly reported these interviews.

I made a reasonable observation based on the article.

I regret that the NYT reporter failed to challenge the students on a rather obvious point. It is quite possible that one of them could have given an explanation sufficiently compelling to cause me to rethink my conclusions. Unfortunately, the reporter didn’t, and I have to rely on the story, as written.

[Sleeper Cell]

You are mistaken. I will now clearly explain why you are mistaken.

The assumptions Sleeper makes which you do not address are that (1) they broke the rules, and (2) did so because to them, the rules were too hard to follow.

The unfounded assumptions that the rules were to hard to follow is an insult to these students

Assumption 1: “they broke the rules.”

I did not “assume” that they broke the rules. I concluded that they broke the rules, based on information contained in the news story. Considering that some were suspended or expelled for breaking the rules, while others were reprimanded for breaking the rules, this does not appear to be an unreasonable conclusion.

Assumption 2: Did so because, to them, the rules were too hard to follow.

Actually, I “assume” that they broke the rules because they rethought their previous commitment to follow the rules. The question remains: “why did they rethink their previous voluntary commitment to follow the rules?” My conclusion is that they did so only after they decided that the rules were too difficult to follow.

Many … long fought their homosexuality. They arrive at school, as one of the Harding Web authors put it, “hoping that college would turn us straight, and then once we realized that this wasn’t happening, there was nothing you could do about it.”

The students who do come out on campus say that it is a relief,

[some] …developed a sense of their sexual identities only after starting college, and after years of inner torment

Amanda Lee Genaro said she was ejected in 2009 from … a Pentecostal Bible college …as she became more assertive about her gay identity. She had struggled with her feelings for years In 2009, after she quit “reparative therapy,” came out on MySpace and admitted to having a romantic, if unconsummated, relationship with a woman, the university suspended her, saying she could reapply in a year if she had rejected homosexuality.

As to your assertion that:

The implication, of course is that their objections to the rules are not based in reasons, thought, or principle but driven by their uncontrollable deviant sexual urges.

Please see my answer to "Assumption 2."

[Jaybear]

Assumption 1: “they broke the rules.”

I did not “assume” that they broke the rules. I concluded that they broke the rules, based on information contained in the news story. Considering that some were suspended or expelled for breaking the rules, while others were reprimanded for breaking the rules, this does not appear to be an unreasonable conclusion.

Your term "they" refers to "those students mentioned in the article". Your words.

Here are the students mentioned in the articles:

Despite the rebuff, more than 50 students continue to hold weekly gatherings of their Sexual Identity Forum, and will keep seeking the moral validation that would come with formal status, said Samantha A. Jones, a senior and president of the group.

You know that these 50 students broke the rules?

At Harding University in Arkansas, which like Abilene Christian is affiliated with the Churches of Christ, half a dozen current and former students posted an online magazine in early March featuring personal accounts of the travails of gay students.

Did these students all break the rules?

Adam R. Short, a freshman engineering student at Baylor University who is openly gay and has fought, without success, for campus recognition of a club to discuss sexuality and fight homophobia.

Did Mr. Short break the rules?

Assumption 2: Did so because, to them, the rules were too hard to follow.

... My conclusion is that they did so only after they decided that the rules were too difficult to follow.

"Conclusion" based on what evidence? If I get a ticket for speeding, do you naturally "conclude" that the speed limit was too difficult to follow.

Please show me where any of them said that they the rules were too difficult to follow.

Frankly, it interesting that you are insulting the integrity of the gay students mentioned in the article, and you don't even realize what your doing. I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that they are openly gay, and your underying assumptions about gay people.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Despite the rebuff, more than 50 students continue to hold weekly gatherings of their Sexual Identity Forum, and will keep seeking the moral validation that would come with formal status, said Samantha A. Jones, a senior and president of the group.

You know that these 50 students broke the rules?

You know they didn't? It is indicative that they did, otherwise no punishment would have been forthcoming.

Frankly I find it interesting that you would justify any action by gay students and overlook the obvious demanding a higher level of proof than that already presented. If the rules were not "suddenly" hard, then there would be notification of "travails" and there would have been no punishments for broken rules.

[Jaybear]

You know they didn't? It is indicative that they did, otherwise no punishment would have been forthcoming.

Huh? What punishment did Baylor impose on these 50 student for meeting contrary the the "expectation" of Baylor? You making up fact here, Jeff. There is no indication that they were punished, let alone that they broke any rules.

Here is the closest statement you have to assume they have broken a rule.

“Baylor expects students not to participate in advocacy groups promoting an understanding of sexuality that is contrary to biblical teaching,” said Lori Fogleman, a university spokeswoman.

There are no facts that support your assertion that they were punished, from which non existence fact, you assume they broke a rule.

Frankly I find it interesting that you would justify any action by gay students and overlook the obvious demanding a higher level of proof than that already presented.

I whole heartily encourage the free exchange of ideas by college students.

I have no evidence or reason to infer that they were doing anything else.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I will repost this as Darin and Jaybear haven't thus felt inclined to answer the question...

My question is why they feel the need to force their lifestyles on schools associated with Conservative denominations. There are plenty of "gay-friendly" churches out there with schools where they would be welcome. Why not just attend there?

let me ask an additional question...

How can we believe the gay forces wouldn't try to force Conservative churches to marry them, if they are right now trying to force private religious schools to honor their lifestyle?

[Jaybear]

I will repost this as Darin and Jaybear haven't thus felt inclined to answer the question...

My question is why they feel the need to force their lifestyles on schools associated with Conservative denominations. There are plenty of "gay-friendly" churches out there with schools where they would be welcome. Why not just attend there?

I assumed your question was rhetorical.

But, if not:

1. They are not forcing anything on anyone. They are communicating their thoughts and ideas with others.

2. What do you mean by "lifestyle".

3. They were born and raised to be conservative Christians. Other than the fact that they are gay, they probably like where they are at.

How can we believe the gay forces wouldn't try to force Conservative churches to marry them, if they are right now trying to force private religious schools to honor their lifestyle?

God would never let that happen. He is more powerful than gay activist.

[Sleeper Cell]

"Conclusion" based on what evidence? If I get a ticket for speeding, do you naturally "conclude" that the speed limit was too difficult to follow.

I might draw that conclusion if your response to your speeding ticket was to advocate the elimination of speed limits or if you discuss your tendency to violate the speed limit in terms of your “years of inner torment” or if you say things like:

long fought [my] … [temptation to speed] … and …finally realized that this wasn’t happening, there was nothing … could do about it.

Frankly, it interesting that you are insulting the integrity of the gay students mentioned in the article, and you don't even realize what your doing. I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that they are openly gay, and your underying assumptions about gay people.

One would think that being open to the possibility that I might be compelled to change my mind after talking to one of the students would suggest that I do not automatically assume that openly gay people lack integrity.

I regret that the NYT reporter failed to challenge the students on a rather obvious point. It is quite possible that one of them could have given an explanation sufficiently compelling to cause me to rethink my conclusions. Unfortunately, the reporter didn’t, and I have to rely on the story, as written.

Of course, I probably just said this to conceal my motives and hide my bigotry.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I assumed your question was rhetorical.

But, if not:

1. They are not forcing anything on anyone. They are communicating their thoughts and ideas with others.

2. What do you mean by "lifestyle".

3. They were born and raised to be conservative Christians. Other than the fact that they are gay, they probably like where they are at.

They are attempting to change school policy at a private Conservative religious school. To deny that is just plain silly.

God would never let that happen. He is more powerful than gay activist.

This softball is almost too juicy to pass up- but against my natural instincts, I shall refrain.

[Jaybear]

I might draw that conclusion if your response to your speeding ticket was to advocate the elimination of speed limits or if you discuss your tendency to violate the speed limit in terms of your “years of inner torment” or if you say things like:

Your comment was directed to the motives of all of the gay students speaking out, not just the one you quoted here.

They are attempting to change school policy at a private Conservative religious school. To deny that is just plain silly.

I have not denied that fact. I agree that is what they are trying to accomplish. What I denied was your assertion they were attempting to "force" the changes on the schools.

You use of the term "force" let me to think that your question was rhetorical.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Your comment was directed to the motives of all of the gay students speaking out, not just the one you quoted here.

I have not denied that fact. I agree that is what they are trying to accomplish. What I denied was your assertion they were attempting to "force" the changes on the schools.

You use of the term "force" let me to think that your question was rhetorical.

By attemtping to change a private religious schools' policy they are, in deed, attempting to force their lifestyle upon the staff and students.

So it goes back to the intent of my original question...

Why do they feel the need to change the policy at a conservative school rather then just going to a school where they are already accepted?

And how do we trust they won't just go to gay-friendly churches if given the "right" to marry?

How do we know that, just like with thse schools, having the Liberal churches serve them won't be good enough, and they won't seek to have the Conservative churches bless their unions?

[Jaybear]

By attemtping to change a private religious schools' policy they are, in deed, attempting to force their lifestyle upon the staff and students.

I don't agree with your premise that asking for acceptance equates to attempting to force lifestyle upon others.

Your use of such hyperbolic language as the premise to the question, is what led me to believe that your question was rhetorical.

Your present unwillingness to admit to the use of hyperbolic language confirms that you were intending to make a point with your question.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I don't agree with your premise that asking for acceptance equates to attempting to force lifestyle upon others.

Your use of such hyperbolic language as the premise to the question, is what led me to believe that your question was rhetorical.

Your present unwillingness to admit to the use of hyperbolic language confirms that you were intending to make a point with your question.

I appreciate the fact that you are unwilling to answer my questions- it says a lot about the viewpoint you have decided to adopt.

[Jaybear]

I appreciate the fact that you are unwilling to answer my questions- it says a lot about the viewpoint you have decided to adopt.

I answered your "question," after you asked it a second time. I was simply explaining why I didn't the first time.

I will repeat the answer to your question: "3. They were born and raised to be conservative Christians. Other than the fact that they are gay, they probably like where they are at."

As to my viewpoint, would that be the fact that I encourage the free exchange of thoughts and ideas by college students. Your position seems to be, if you don't like all of the rules where you are, you should either keep your mouth shut or transfer.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I answered your "question," after you asked it a second time. I was simply explaining why I didn't the first time.

I will repeat the answer to your question: "3. They were born and raised to be conservative Christians. Other than the fact that they are gay, they probably like where they are at."

Obviously, they don't like it that much or they wouldn't be trying to get the rules changed to accomodate their paticular perversion.

As to my viewpoint, would that be the fact that I encourage the free exchange of thoughts and ideas by college students.

So you would support student groups set up to extol the virtues of pedophilia or beastiality then.

Your position seems to be, if you don't like all of the rules where you are, you should either keep your mouth shut or transfer.

When you knowingly decide to go to a private school that you know is consersative religiously, then follow the rules or leave really are your two options. Getting pissed off at the school because you don't like the rules that you knew were in place when you decided to go there is rather absurd.

[BCSpace]

When I was enrolled at BYU from 91 to 98, the homosexuals on campus were much less visible, though just as active, as they apparently are, now (I was propositioned many times by gay students in the Smith Field House and the HBLL).

It's one thing to suffer temptation, but I believe self-identifying as homosexual means one has succumbed to the temptation (not necessarily that one has committed fornication or adultery yet). So, at least in a private setting, such as BYU or the Church, "gay identity" should be discouraged and thwarted at every opportunity.

Perhaps if "gay indentity" meant something like Alcoholics Anonymous, a group of people striving to overcome their temptations and change their ways, it could work, but we all know that "gay indentity" is not like that at all.

[frankenstein]

Perhaps if "gay indentity" meant something like Alcoholics Anonymous, a group of people striving to overcome their temptations and change their ways, it could work, but we all know that "gay indentity" is not like that at all.

CFR "we all know" that "gay identity" is not like that. Guess all those years of BYU sponsored electroshock therapy never happened to people who were trying to overcome temptation.

[Mars]

Can't speak for BCSpace, but I can venture a guess...

The gay identity, as seen outside of BYU and the Church, is certainly not looked upon as something that is a problem which needs fixing. AA's first step is to admit you have a problem then get about the business of fixing that problem.

[Jaybear]

It's one thing to suffer temptation, but I believe self-identifying as homosexual means one has succumbed to the temptation (not necessarily that one has committed fornication or adultery yet).

You would know this .... how?

[Calm]

Guess all those years of BYU sponsored electroshock therapy never happened to people who were trying to overcome temptation.

Just to be precise, electroshock therapy, also known as electroconvulsive therapy which is a currently approved form of therapy for depression and other forms of mental illness that haven't responded to other treatments (see http://www.mayoclini...therapy/MY00129 ), involves something quite different than what took place at BYU which was aversion therapy using electrical shocks from wires attached to the thigh or arm, something that was approved by the APA at the time of the study for treatment for ego-dystonic homosexuality but is not so now. Other forms of aversion therapy using vomiting and other negative stimuli are still in use for things like smoking, alcohol or drugs. Using the term "electroshock" may be a result of ignorance in many, but when there are those who continue to use it after correction it would seem they are doing so to sensationalize what happened.

And all those years it was going on...only one study testing the effectiveness of using pictures of clothed vs. nude in aversion therapy using electrical stimuli has been documented involving IIRC less than 20 individuals to have occurred though claims have been made for more occasions. See here for a report on some of these claims: http://www.evergreen...ion_therapy.htm

see here for a work in progress article on the actual study along with general information: http://fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Aversion_therapy

If you have knowledge of other occasions that such aversion therapy took place at BYU, please write FAIR with the relevant names and dates involved so that we can make the article as accurate as possible.

[Pahoran]

Suggested alternative title for this thread:

"Religious Colleges fight for identity in the face of 'Gay' onslaught."

I believe it would be more accurate.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

Suggested alternative title for this thread:

"Religious Colleges fight for identity in the face of 'Gay' onslaught."

I believe it would be more accurate.

Regards,

Pahoran

Somehow I doubt that the schools tie their identity to their practice of openly discriminating agaisnt gay students, but you do have a point.

Gay rights group seems to have adopted a effective strategy of painting those who would deny them rights as bigots. Nobody likes to think of themselves as a bigot.

Just today the firm, King & Spalding chose to withdraw from representing the congress, rather than become known as the public face of anti-gay bigotry as the DOMA cases proceeded. I wondered when they took the engagement what the were thinking. Apparently, they weren't thinking and came to their senses.

[Pahoran]

Somehow I doubt that the schools tie their identity to their practice of openly discriminating agaisnt gay students, but you do have a point.

No, they tie their identity to their principle-based moral standards.

Something hedonistic reprobates cannot begin to understand.

Gay rights group seems to have adopted a effective strategy of painting those who would deny them rights as bigots. Nobody likes to think of themselves as a bigot.

Yes, it does seem to be an effective strategy. Grossly dishonest, of course, but still effective.

Just today the firm, King & Spalding chose to withdraw from representing the congress, rather than become known as the public face of anti-gay bigotry as the DOMA cases proceeded. I wondered when they took the engagement what the were thinking. Apparently, they weren't thinking and came to their senses.

"Came to their senses" = reprobate-speak for "were bullied into silence."

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

Just today the firm, King & Spalding chose to withdraw from representing the congress, rather than become known as the public face of anti-gay bigotry as the DOMA cases proceeded. I wondered when they took the engagement what the were thinking. Apparently, they weren't thinking and came to their senses.

the firms PSA about the withdraw was something along the lines of "did not properly vet the case", they probably stood to loose lots of money in the defence of DOMA.

To defend DOMA, it wouldn't take much. The Supreme Court in Citizens United allowed for undisclosed amounts of money to the be laundered threw certain non-profit orgs, all that needs be done is set up a law firm, set up a non-profit org, then funnel all the money into the firm via the non-profit....because of Citizens United, no one has to worry about the source of the money making it to the public.

[Jaybear]

No, they tie their identity to their prinicple-based moral standards.

Something hedonistic reprobates cannot begin to understand.

These major denominations have married same gender couples:

The Episcopal Church

United Church of Christ

Metropolitan Community Church

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Unitarian Universalist Church

Reform Judaism

I take you think that by doing so they have either abandoned

or have never held principle based moral standards.

Yes, it does seem to be an effective strategy. Grossly dishonest, of course, but still effective.

Its not dishonest if they sincerely believe it to be true.

"Came to their senses" = reprobate-speak for "were bullied into silence."

Since those are the words I chose, I take it then, you are calling me a "hedonistic reprobate." As I don't know what that means, I will assume its a compliment. So thanks. Its always a pleasure to converse with you.

the firms PSA about the withdraw was something along the lines of "did not properly vet the case", they probably stood to loose lots of money in the defence of DOMA.

I was shocked to see that a large national law firm with offices in NY and SF would take the case. To say that the firm did not properly vet the case was a gross understatement. The firm screwed up. Taking the case was a huge PR disaster. Withdrawing one week into the case was a minor PR disaster.

Not only did they stand to lose lots of money, but lots of young talent as they would have become a pariah firm at the top law schools.