Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Touro LGBT students recognized for bravery
Started by bth7
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Yes, well said.
I appreciate the points you made, heech. You're right and you stated them well.
But, yet...
(The following points I'm sure will turn off anyone who isn't already convinced of the inherent dignity and goodness of a gay orientation. But if you're willing to accept that point hypothetically for the sake of discussion, then here are my thoughts.)
I reserve a space for moral absolutes, despite all the dangers - horrors even - that often flow from being convinced you have a corner on a moral absolute. Maybe it's not even a language I should be trying to use - maybe there's something about the language of moral absolutes which always serve to close in and divide. But I'm still trying at this point. I could talk a lot - write a book probably - about how I came to own this as a moral absolute, but that's not interesting now. Gandhi and King owned the moral aboslute-ness of their stances. The discriminations that they fought were systems of thought that were so implicit and deeply-rooted in the cultures around them that those who perpetuated the systems usually had no idea what they were doing, and certainly didn't have a personal sense of wrong-doing in their day-to-day lives about their choices that kept the cycles alive. It was only by challenging these systems at the very core and refusing to compromise, refusing to say "if you take your space over there and we take our space over here and we all agree to disagree, we'll be fine" that such leaders actually made progress - and they did it by drawing these cycles of violence and oppression out into the open and revealing them for what they truly were. It was only when those who had lived their whole lives taking the oppression for granted and never thinking of it as wrong suddenly ran into someone who refused to go along with it, who wasn't saying "we can just all live our separate ways and everyone will be fine" that the kind of creative crisis was reached that suddenly began opening people's eyes to the oppression that was all around them. Only when the oppressed stop accepting the idea that others have the right to oppress them can these cycles actually start to unwind - obviously with a great deal of strife for everyone involved.
And here's what it ALWAYS looks like to people - not bad people, just people - who have grown up in a world where a cycle of violence (like racism, or like homophobia) was always taken for granted. It looks like there are certain agitators, it looks like certain members (the nasty ones, not the nice quiet ones) of oppressed groups are being "uppity," are trying to make it difficult for everyone, are trying to break up the nice orderly system that has always worked so nicely for everyone. What gives them the right to march in and ruin it all for everyone else?
Because is HAS to take a lot of uncomfortableness, a lot of anger, even a lot of shame, to shake up people and institutions - even religions - into realizing that what has always just seemed the way things are is actually an implicit violence and oppression that they have been unknowingly perpetuating. It's not a nice process where everyone can go on feeling good about themselves and the things that they've always believed.
For Gandhi and King, this was also the ultimate act of compassion for the other people involved on the oppressor side - because oppression hurts both the victims and the perpetuators of it. To give up on them and say, "well, this is what they believe, so they'll always just be that way" it to give up on the moral agency of others. This is true of religions too: for those who believe that religions are good and should live on, then it's impossible to just excuse the religion from whatever cycles of violence it might be caught up in based on tradition and belief. To challenge it is to call it to its higher ideals.
Accommodation of others' morality is indeed a high ideal, because no one's morality is dismissible or simplistic. But no one's morality is static or stagnant, and neither is the moral fabric of our nation and culture. Moral progress - both in individuals and in our institutions - only happens through those, like bth7, who step out and allow themselves to become the focus of a lot of anger and bitterness and misunderstanding.
So that's my argument against the idea that no moral aboslute can ever be claimed. Now, theory aside, my personal feelings on the matter: I truly believe that this country is making making progress away from oppression of its GLBT members. I think bth7 has actually done Touro a large favor in the long-run, because in the future - 20 or 50 or 100 years - to have disallowed a gay student group would be a matter of - yes - shame, just as many religious institutions now were forced to work through the shame of previous racial discimination, oppression of women, and support of slavery.
We celebrate our leaders of the past who were willing to claim their moral absolute and not allow others to go along perpetuating the systems of violence in the culture. But will we learn anything from their lives and stories that can teach us of the present?
Wayyyy too long for an internet forum.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Touro didn't disallow anything. They withheld funding. And did you just compare what's going on at Touro and bth7's attempts to rectify it to the Civil Rights' Movement?
I've tried to make that same point several times, but it doesn't sink in. In the minds of some, apparently not funding something is the same as disallowing it.
Kinda like how a lot of democratic political ads claim that Bush and all Republicans are opposed to Stem Cell Research. They're not opposed to it, they just decided not to pump billions of federal dollars into a research effort that has failed to produce promising results despite already receiving tons of federal monies.
Summary:
Touro decided not to fund the GLBT club, they didn't disallow it.
Bush and other Republicans decided not to fund stem cell research, they didn't disallow it.
I chose not to fund my local Girl Scout troop by not buying their cookies, I didn't disallow Girl Scouts.
I always buy their cookies-- especially the peanut butter patties. Yummy! But the best part is that all Girl Scout cookies are kosher (a true fact) so not only are you showing support for the Girl Scouts, but you are inadvertantly practicing Jewish customs at the same time.
You know what I find funny when people don't like hearing things and like to complain about them. Then when they voice there opinion others jump on there **** for having the opinion. Then morals are questioned then political stances are questioned, then religion. You know what who the heck cares? you may have what ever opinions you want as long as you are willing to admit that the world is messed up and we constantly need to work at it to make it better hence why we are becoming doctors(doing are part). Personally if you don't like to hear somthing either move to a different country, or don't put yourself in the position where you will be listening to it. that being said congrads LGBT on enlightening those that wish to be enlightened on the subject. For those that didn't want to hear it (you have a remote control at home) change the channel
Every openly gay student whose in TUGSA came to the rally held, so unless I'm missing someone, I don't see how you can say that people stayed far away.
"bth7's" campaign? Every member of TUGSA, the Vallejo City Council, the faculty, countless allied straight students, the president of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, the Touro SGA, and an AMSA representative all attended and or spoke at the rally. I don't think these people showed up to support me.
There are many issues that members of TUGSA and the openly gay students of Touro disagree on, but on this issue everyone was in unison. Joel Gingsberg, president of GLMA, myself, and the president of TUGSA worked quite hard to build the consensus point of view within TUGSA. The fact that everyone came to the rally and stood together was a real show of unity. I think that we all felt that unity when the provost called and told us, at the rally, that TUGSA had been reinstated. I wish you'd been there, to see how excited we all were.
That's next week. I can only tackle on issue at a time. But in all seriousness, let's be genuine here. Throughout this whole process, this has been about Touro University, a medical school. Not the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Jewish Community. If the University has a problem with gays, that's fine, but they need to tell me that before I apply here. I only came to the school because the school had an open, accepted Gay-Straight alliance. I asked about it at my interview, and everyone was enthusiastic and supportive, saying there was no problem, that it was just like any other student group. So yeah, when they suddenly change something that was a primary reason I attended the school, I was pretty appalled.
No attempt to be inflammatory here Heech, do you see where I'm coming from on this point?
Unfortunately, students have been harassed. It has happened. It makes me sad, and frustrated and angry. But I'm doing what I can to change it, and I think we've come along way at Touro in a very short time. The message has been sent, which I think is a message that everyone can agree with, that harassment of LGBT students on campus (or any student) is not okay, no matter what your beliefs are.
#2 - I strongly disagree that Touro took the "high road." The Vallejo City council, in their letter to Touro, called the admin's failure to give TUGSA proper recognition "transparently discriminatory and based on a tired cliche." Denying recognition is not live and let live, it's discrimination.
There is another possibility here, the outcome that actually became a reality.
Touro University recognized their mistake, and apologized. Discrimination, racism, sexism and homophobia are unacceptable to Touro. And like racism or sexism, homophobia can't just be re-framed as a religious belief and accepted. It is what it is. Apparently, when their non-discrimination value came up against their other values, they had to make a choice. And I think they made the right one. It's the right choice for *everyone.*
Wow, every member of the club whose funding was cut was there? Incredible.
Of course there couldn't possibly be a single openly gay person who is not in the club, just like there aren't any Women who aren't in your school's chapter of the WMA (Women's Medical Alliance).If those people weren't there to support you and people like you, were they just there to show their dislike of Jewish beliefs?
"Every member of TUGSA, the city council, faculty..." Every member of the city council and faculty were there?
I bet that given the opportunity, the number of straight students would be very countable. In fact, I just times myself and counted to 300 in under 2 minutes!
I would love for Touro to hold a vote and see just how much of a consensus there is at your school on this issue.
Everyone? Again, I find it hard to believe that everyone from the entire school was there. If the provost did call, then he was likely not there; therefore it must be accepted that everyone was not there if for no other reason than the absence of the provost.
So where do you draw the line between a school associated with a religion and the religion themselves? Should the Catholic Hospital I was at yesterday be forced to do abortions since they're not really the Catholic Church?
If I'm back up there today, I'll do a rosary count and see just how "Catholis" this so-called "Catholic Hospital" is and I'll get back to you so you can let them know.
If you had such a big problem with Touro stopping funding for your club, stand by your beliefs and withdraw or transfer. Nothing talks louder to a school than the sounds of tuition dollars walking away.
That is sad. Despite what you might think from my rhetoric on this site, I am opposed to harassing anyone on any basis. (...and No, posts on SDN saying I disagree with you doesn't count as harassment in my book.
The University provided an opportunity for this issue to be handled quietly without feeling a need to publicly shame the members of the club for their beliefs that weren't consistent with the Jewish faith. The club could have at least given the school the same option instead of jumping on every news and media outlet available to attempt to shame the Jewish school for merely making choices that were consistent with their religious beliefs.
The opinions of 1 city council agreed with you? Congrats. There is a city council in Idaho who wants the National Guard called in because their county is being invaded by Mexico.
I highly doubt the administration at Touro believes they made a mistake. It was probably more of a realization of a vocal outcry by a small group with lots of negative media coverage about the school taht made them change their mind. I'm sure the media coverage was as fair and balanced as the posts you have made on SDN.🙄
Yep the right choice for everyone is to ignore and set aside their religious beliefs for "progress."
Just curious NavyDoc... how did you do on the verbal portion of the MCAT? Based on your comments, you honestly don't seem to understand a single point that bth7 made. I think there are some valid arguments on both sides of this issue, but pardon my personal attack on you... you just honestly don't seem to get it. At least not the post you were quoting and responding to.
Had to comment on the religious belief one though... you really don't want to open up that can of worms do you? There's not enough paper in the city I live in (and it's a big city) to write down all the points in history (up through and including today) where religious beliefs and structures stood in the way of, impeded, and reversed what the typical, college-educated American would (rightfully) consider to be "progress."
Not that it really matters or is any of your business, but 12 and I understand exactly what bth is saying.
I would pardon your personal attack if it had merit, however like many of your posts, it lacks merit and purpose.
Yes, since there are scattered examples throughout history where religion has impeded "progress," let's just get rid of all religion. Thank God medicine and doctors have never caused any deaths or we'd have to get rid of them too! 🙄
Just because Christian Scientists don't believe in Vaccinations and typical college-educated Americans consider vaccinations to be progress, would you like to impinge on their religious freedoms as well? Or would you like to reserve that ability to situations where you find it convenient?
bth7,
I think a willingness by the TUGSA to "stand together" at the rally doesn't indicate unity of purpose. It just shows an understanding of the importance of unity. If I may draw a rough analogy, it's like the United States Congress' willingness to unite behind an unpopular foreign policy decision.
You've said something that does strike a chord with me. I truly do sympathize with your frustration if you asked specifically about the official status of the Gay-Straight Alliance. If you genuinely would've made a different choice in terms of medical school if TUGSA didn't exist, then you were misled, and I think the administration owes you a personal apology. (Of course, on the same note, TUCOM has missed on a number of promises that were made to students.)
I'm not you, and I'm weary about lecturing to you how to carry out your "campaign". But it also seems to me that if your intention is to really spread LGBT awareness, then only attending schools that have official and recognized GSA clubs seems like a very poor way of doing it. It seems to me you're painting a very stark picture of gay-straight relations: you either accept me fully, or I reject you entirely. Is there really no intermediate state of mutual tolerance?
I think a willingness by the TUGSA to "stand together" at the rally doesn't indicate unity of purpose. It just shows an understanding of the importance of unity. If I may draw a rough analogy, it's like the United States Congress' willingness to unite behind an unpopular foreign policy decision.
You've said something that does strike a chord with me. I truly do sympathize with your frustration if you asked specifically about the official status of the Gay-Straight Alliance. If you genuinely would've made a different choice in terms of medical school if TUGSA didn't exist, then you were misled, and I think the administration owes you a personal apology. (Of course, on the same note, TUCOM has missed on a number of promises that were made to students.)
I'm not you, and I'm weary about lecturing to you how to carry out your "campaign". But it also seems to me that if your intention is to really spread LGBT awareness, then only attending schools that have official and recognized GSA clubs seems like a very poor way of doing it. It seems to me you're painting a very stark picture of gay-straight relations: you either accept me fully, or I reject you entirely. Is there really no intermediate state of mutual tolerance?
"SCATTERED examples?!?" OMG, LMAO.
The fact that you could say that, whether as a known lie by yourself (the word "exaggeration" just doesn't cut it here), or to any degree of actual seriousness indicates that you are either not truthful enough or coherent enough for me to argue the matter with. It's a digression anyway, and this thread has been kicked more than any dead horse deserves.
Thank you head kicker.
Yes scattered examples, kind of like scattered showers on a weather forecast. There are many examples of times when religion has impreded progress, however there are many more situations where religion encouraged progress. Ever wonder where most written duplications of texts came before Gurrenberg? Many were hand-copied by monks.
Thank you. I did ask specifically. I'm not a stranger to religous objections to LGBT issues. I live in the US, so I grew up in that climate. That's why I ask, specifically, before I join an organization. I ask for a written copy of the non-discrimination policy, to be sure that sexual orientation has the same protection as race and gender. Then I ask individuals, to see what their personal experience is. In my case, one of the faculty in my interview for TUCOM was openly gay, so this investigation was easy. I asked if the school had a gay-straight alliance and if it had the support of the SGA, etc. I was told repeatedly that, there was no problem, that the school was totally okay with. Then I came to Touro, and there was no problem, the climate for LGBT was great, and I felt safe.
My point is, this whole thing really blindsided me, it was so shocking and out-of-the-blue. I'm not shocked that there are people who object to us Mo's - I watch TV for heaven's sake, I know about it alrady. Rather, I was completely apoplectic that they had the power to do this at Touro, without any review or due process. It was just done, period (and the day before exams at that.) That was too much.
Well, it turns out that there is a due process, and they don't have the power to just eliminate TUGSA without discussion, or any club for that matter. It turns out that the non-discrimination policy does have some relevance to this situation (as do other factors, some of which are in conflict.)
Heech, it is frustrating that throughout this process, understanding and respect has been extended to the religious side of this, but many view the reaction of the LGBT (and me in particular) as totally crazed and disproportionate. Yeah, I was totally freake-out and frustrated and frightened and furious. I do not want to go to a school where the admin is going to discuss my "sins" in the local newspaper and I don't want to hear about my "sins" at my med school, I can do that at church. I went to school at Touro b/c they had a GSA and they told me that sexual orientation was a totally protected status, in writing. I don't want to go to school here if they don't have a GSA. If you don't care about the Touro Universtiy Gay-Straight Alliance, I actually totally get that, but please understand that I do care - and that's why I asked about it, and that's why I freaked out when they just crushed it overnight without any process.
Thanks for your time.
bh
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Actually interestingly enough there was a ruling in NY about something very similar to this, basically saying that a Catholic based organization must provide insurance coverage for services such as birth control, etc to it's employees even if they don't believe in them, it's not quite the same thing but I could certainly see this being used as a precedent in the future for something like this.
Yes, there are many, many examples of this same type of thing in the law, politics and medicine. A couple of them off the top of my head: 1) The CO (Republican, of course) Governor refusing to sign a bill that would force Catholic Hospitals to inform rape victims of emergency (morning after) contraception.
2) Target Store Pharmacists allowed by their employer to refuse to sell birth control pills if it is against their religion.
The second one is really scary because of its implications in the health care field...back to the point someone made earlier in the thread of situations where people have been refused care because they were homosexual - albeit quite a bit subtler (yet cormporate-condoned) than an actual refusal of care example.
Regardless of what has been said in previous posts, and for the record, I support the efforts and achievements of you, the Touro LGBT students.
Obviously your past challenges dwarf trite opposition in an anonymous internet forum and I applaud your continued energy in fighting for the recognition and rights that you deserve as American citizens, if not simply human beings.
Your uphill battles reflect the same discriminations that once faced (and in some cases still face) many other cultural, racial, and gender minorities in this country.
There was a time when people didn't want to hear about women voting or desegregating public arenas.
Keep it up, the conservatives😴 will evenually have to accept the fact that the United States Constitution protects your G-d-given rights too.
Obviously your past challenges dwarf trite opposition in an anonymous internet forum and I applaud your continued energy in fighting for the recognition and rights that you deserve as American citizens, if not simply human beings.
Your uphill battles reflect the same discriminations that once faced (and in some cases still face) many other cultural, racial, and gender minorities in this country.
There was a time when people didn't want to hear about women voting or desegregating public arenas.
Keep it up, the conservatives😴 will evenually have to accept the fact that the United States Constitution protects your G-d-given rights too.
1. Considering a majority of Catholics are Democrats but the church teaches that abortion is wrong, I wouldn't be surprised if the Governor was a Dem or a Republican. Why should CATHOLIC hospitals be forced to inform a patient of an option that is against their beliefs? Planned Parenthood isn't forced to tell all potential aborters that their is the option to give their baby up for adoption to a loving couple who are unable to have children on their own.
2. Yes, very scary because Target's are so frequently located in very isolated areas where there are no other pharmacies around and of course Target's are usually small places where there is never more than 1 pharmacist working at the same time🙄
1. a. Because not all patients are Catholic.
1. b.
-Excerpt from Planned Parenthood Mission Statement
2.
-DSN Retailing Today
Ah so, religious belief trumps your actual duty as a physician then. Cool, maybe you can just pray for any rape victims you see during your EM rotations and throw them a kleenex. Make sure you don't help them get through what they are experiencing . Keep them stupid and keep them breeding... make more Catholics. Sounds like a plan.
Legal precedent was my point of course, which you missed, as always.
Well, I have to say that between your twisted sense of logic and your "sense" of compassion, I'm happy you're at least not likely to be working on any of my buddies still in the Army. Good chance in the Navy you'll be a GP on a ship somewhere because you'll be deployed rather than getting residency, at least right away. Keep you out of harm's way... somebody needs to.
But it never says that Planned Parenthood has to talk about a specific option like the Catholic Hospitals would have been forced to.
Regarding the Target quote:
What does anything you posted have to do with the fact that there are not likely any Target stores in locations where there are no other options for Pharmacies nearby?
What does it have to do with the fact that there is not likely going to be only 1 pharmacist on duty at a time?
I never said that, however my duty as a physician is never to prevent life but in fact to save and preserve it.
I'm not going to get into a Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life debate with you, thats for an entirely different thread.
I've volunteered in a rape-counseling center and I've talked to several women who were raped and became pregnant. They chose to keep the baby and it allowed them to take the worst day in their life and turn it into a positive. And no, before you jump to conclusions like you seem to love to do, it was NOT a catholic counseling center.
Owww, an insult on missing points from a person who regularly posts defending OMM despite not even starting med school yet. Pot, meet black kettle.
If you think as a Navy doc that I'll never have Army, Air Force, or especially Marine Corps patients, you obviously got out long before the era or Joint operations began in earnest.
Actually, I'll more than likely be with a Marine Corps unit for at least part of my service time since the Marines use only Navy docs because they don't have their own Medical Corps.
Oooh Keep me out of harm's way. If you think you can judge someone's skills as a physician from reading a handful of posts on this website, you are even more ignorant than I had first thought.
But keep on posting claiming to know all about that which you do not, it seems to entertain you.
I'm actually glad that you explained yourself because this makes understanding easier. First you state that it's just not okay to say that a particular behavior makes you nauseous. However, what you really mean is "it's not ok for anyone else to object to a behavior *I* deem acceptable." Case in point: You and I would both agree (I hope) that beating a woman is reprehensible. However, there are cultures where this is an expected practice. You and I would both agree (again, I hope) that child abuse is reprehensible. Where you and I disagree is in our views of homosexuality. You approve of it, I (and the vast majority of Americans, religious or not) disapprove of it.
This is where the problem begins. Instead of saying "live and let live" - a responsible response to diversity in a free country - you then go on an offensive to label as unacceptable points of view that diverge from yours.
Who then becomes the thought police? This is what I mean by homonausea. What you see as homophobia, I see as homonausea...that is, two sides of the same coin.
Think about this in a logical - not an emotional way. Understand that in a free world, the sort of unity of thought that would make one's life easier simply cannot exist.
The real question is do you want the freedom to be gay, or do you have a complusion to try and bring society to a point where everyone agrees with you? If it is the former you seek, you already have it. If it is the latter, that is ultimately a fool's errand.
Peace.
I hear what you are saying, and I appreciate you trying to talk in a reasonable way.
But I disagree. I really don't think its cool to say "Christians make me nauseous." Or I have "Afro-nausea." I think that's just offensive. It's rude. I don't think it's okay to say "gays make me nauseous."
What I mean is . . . There is a difference between saying you disagree with a point of view, and saying you don't like a group of people. There's a big difference.
I do respect your right to say "Gay people make me nauseous." I do understand that speech, even offensive speech, needs to be protected. But, I also feel my right to tell you "I think you're wrong" is protected.
But just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean you should. And one has to consider that.
For example, I could say "You are a jerk" or "You're an idiot." But I WOULDN'T SAY THAT, because it's totally NON-constructive. Its just inflammatory, annoying, and insulting to everyone's intelligence. So instead, I might say "This is offensive" or "Your words are offensive"
So what I'm asking is, can you have a conversation about your "homo-nausea" in less offensive terminology? Can we have a dialogue instead of a name calling session?
Obviously, you're are not into homosexuality. But instead of just saying you're homo nauseous, can you tell us what is about me, or other gays, that you find so odious? What is your objection? How do you account for the research showing that human sexual orientation is not a choice, but a biologically determined trait? Or perhaps you have other research to the contrary that you'd like to present? Or perhaps that's not what its about for you, maybe you just really don't like gay people, and you don't know why.
I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm actually curious.
I'm asking you to be a little more thoughtful. Because not being thoughtful, being careless and reflexively discriminatory, is degrading to us all.
Homophobia is the most inaccurate word in the world, and my "nausea" comes from how flippantly it is thrown in the face of anyone who doesn't agree with you on the issue. I personally don't agree with the lifestyle, but that does not equal "fear". I think it is used to discredit anyone who doesn't just bend to the popular pressure to say sure, I think it's great. There are a lot of lifestyle choices I don't agree with besides homosexuality. My morals also dictate how I feel about adultery. I guess I'm just a bigoted "cheateraphobe" too. What if you think sex should wait until marriage, then what kind of phobe are you? This labeling system is easy, I think I got it down. I think people that hold onto their morals shouldn't be labeled as closed minded for being true to how they really feel. Those at the conference were applauded for bravery for being true to what they feel. Those who don't agree with those at the conference and stay true to how they feel aren't applauded, but called homophobes. That screams hypocrisy to me. The Gay community demands others be tolerant of their beliefs. Thats fine, live your life way you chose, but tolerance is a two way street. It seems the GLBM community is demanding tolerance. Well, so am I. I'm demanding that my beliefs not be labeled as being based on fear, ignorance, or hate; (which I think is what people who use it think) Labeling people as homophobes is as demeaning and unfair as any demeaning words that hateful people have used against gays. You misrepresent people's beliefs and character with those terms. It is possible, and common, to be a friend, co-worker, family member, and a doctor to gays dispite ones personal beliefs about their Personal lifestyle, but you wouldn't know that based on that term alone.
How do you think everyone would react if I wanted to start a heterosexual club on campus? Do you think that I could get funding for that?
Do you think the city would give us a permit to have a straight pride parade? I would love to see how understanding everyone would be at that. I'm sure that there would be zero protests to that idea.
You would all join me right? If not... you're a bunch of heterophobes.
Beware of hypocrisy my friends.
Do you think the city would give us a permit to have a straight pride parade? I would love to see how understanding everyone would be at that. I'm sure that there would be zero protests to that idea.
You would all join me right? If not... you're a bunch of heterophobes.
Beware of hypocrisy my friends.
Oh yeah... bth7... Was that you the other day in the pediatrics thread?
That was some understanding stuff you were dropping. Talking about It'sElectric's Registered Cocksman…
I really hope that it wasn't you, but I haven't heard you deny it yet.
So... was it you?
That was some understanding stuff you were dropping. Talking about It'sElectric's Registered Cocksman…
I really hope that it wasn't you, but I haven't heard you deny it yet.
So... was it you?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The flaw in your argument is that you assume that all things are equal between the two groups. This couldn't be further from the truth, evidenced by pervasive and blantant discrimination of homosexuals in this country. Your argument of hypocrisy is utterly ridiculous.
And ridiculous is how you would look by associating yourself with a Straight Club or Straight Pride Parade. Do you really have that many uphill battles to climb?
And beware of irresponsibly labeling people as heterophobes.
I really hope this part is a joke.
With that comment, I was trying to illustrate how silly it is to call everyone who differs in opinion a homophobe. Having a different opinion doesn't make someone a bigot. It also doesn't equal persecution.
Yes there has been some discrimination of the homosexual community in the past. However, this Touro incident is not discrimination. They are a private school with personal opinions. If it were a government school then maybe you could drop the discrimination card. Although... that would mean that other sexual orientation groups should be able to have a club too. Think about where that could take us…
My point was... If I wanted to start a straight club anywhere the idea would be shot down, and I would be the bigoted jerk. I would be the homophobe.
There would be no talk of me having my rights infringed upon.
Does this not appear to be a double standard to anyone else????
LOL Gotta love the Daily Show.
I just tried to find that clip, but The Daily Show doesn't have it on their website anymore. It was super funny. So funny, in fact, because it never occurred to me that people might actually use that term. When Old_Mil referred to homonausea I thought he was referring to the Daily Show clip. As I continued to read the thread, it seems as though Old_Mil was serious. Weird. I don't understand why people would use a term just to hurt someone's feelings. It just seems mean and pointless.
It still exists, maybe not as in the past but it is still there
I agree
Nope, BklynWill clearly explained it is a matter of one group being historically discriminated upon. A heterosexual club has no hsitory of discrimination.
Why does that matter? It is a sexual orientation club... period.
Ask bth7 if that's all it is, I doubt it
Think of why would a non-traditional sexual oriented group need such a group?, I would venture to say that the fact the gay community fights against discrimination is part of the rationale for its existence. Now what discrimination based on their sexual orientation have heterosexual individuals historically experienced? there is in my opinion a clear difference...
Howdy,
I think there's a few issues that might orient and put this conversation in perspective:
1. For people with a religious objection - your right to hold to your beliefs is fully protected in this country, as it should be. All speech, including racist, sexist and homophobic speech, is and should be protected.
2. What has changed is that you now have to reconcile the consequences of your speech and attitude. Its now impossible to hold on to your homophobic attitude without acknowledging that your attitude is hurting someone. MLK and the civil rights movement did not eliminate racism or make it illegal. What that movement did do was awaken the world to the fact that racism hurts people, and it hurt society, and hurting people without a very good reason is morally unacceptable. Still, its legally protected for a person to be a racist.
Realizing that hurting people was wrong, institutions had to come to terms with their racist policies. Churches admitted blacks to their leadership where they were once forbidden and laws changed, slowly society changed. People realized that hurting people is wrong, so racism is wrong . . . even if you felt really strongly that black people were some how less than, you had to confront the fact that this attitude hurt people. The two values are in conflict.
Hurting gays and lesbians is wrong too, and when you tell us that we are immoral . . . it hurts. The laws passed against gay and lesbians hurt. Refusing to acknowledge the evidence that homosexuality is not a choice hurts.
3. All the scientific studies point towards one's sexual orientation being non-mutable beyond a very young age. If there's no choice in your sexual orientation, then there can be no moral component to it. Morality includes the concept that you are choosing between something good and evil. Gay people never make such a choice - just like you never did either. We all just know who we are attracted to; one simply knows. People are just are that way, so you can't evaluate this aspect of a person in a moral context.
When the Bible was written, they didn't know this. They thought homosexuality was just a behavior, a choice. They didn't know it was actually a type of person - like a left-handed person. Different, but a normal variation.
Homosexuals are a very small minority, 5% at the very most, and always will be. When something is that unusual, it means that its easy to ignore and easy to condemn. But you just can't ignore it anymore. It's not possible.
You can continue to condemn this for the rest of your life. But what you can't do is condemn us without having to know that you are hurting someone. That time is now passed, because every medical body from the AMA to the American Pediatrics Academy says that homophobia hurts patients.
You decide what's more important.
I think there's a few issues that might orient and put this conversation in perspective:
1. For people with a religious objection - your right to hold to your beliefs is fully protected in this country, as it should be. All speech, including racist, sexist and homophobic speech, is and should be protected.
2. What has changed is that you now have to reconcile the consequences of your speech and attitude. Its now impossible to hold on to your homophobic attitude without acknowledging that your attitude is hurting someone. MLK and the civil rights movement did not eliminate racism or make it illegal. What that movement did do was awaken the world to the fact that racism hurts people, and it hurt society, and hurting people without a very good reason is morally unacceptable. Still, its legally protected for a person to be a racist.
Realizing that hurting people was wrong, institutions had to come to terms with their racist policies. Churches admitted blacks to their leadership where they were once forbidden and laws changed, slowly society changed. People realized that hurting people is wrong, so racism is wrong . . . even if you felt really strongly that black people were some how less than, you had to confront the fact that this attitude hurt people. The two values are in conflict.
Hurting gays and lesbians is wrong too, and when you tell us that we are immoral . . . it hurts. The laws passed against gay and lesbians hurt. Refusing to acknowledge the evidence that homosexuality is not a choice hurts.
3. All the scientific studies point towards one's sexual orientation being non-mutable beyond a very young age. If there's no choice in your sexual orientation, then there can be no moral component to it. Morality includes the concept that you are choosing between something good and evil. Gay people never make such a choice - just like you never did either. We all just know who we are attracted to; one simply knows. People are just are that way, so you can't evaluate this aspect of a person in a moral context.
When the Bible was written, they didn't know this. They thought homosexuality was just a behavior, a choice. They didn't know it was actually a type of person - like a left-handed person. Different, but a normal variation.
Homosexuals are a very small minority, 5% at the very most, and always will be. When something is that unusual, it means that its easy to ignore and easy to condemn. But you just can't ignore it anymore. It's not possible.
You can continue to condemn this for the rest of your life. But what you can't do is condemn us without having to know that you are hurting someone. That time is now passed, because every medical body from the AMA to the American Pediatrics Academy says that homophobia hurts patients.
You decide what's more important.
How is it going bth7?
Could you help a brother and point me to the scientific studies you talked about? thanks.
Sure!
Here's some for starters:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/international/humanrights.pdf
i American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Adolescence. Sexual Orientation and Adolescents. – Pediatrics. 2005;113(6)1828
ii Rowlett JD, Patel D, Greydanus DE. Homosexuality. Behavioral Pediatrics. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1992:37-54 York, NY:Springer-Verlag; 1992
iii Savin-Williams RC. Theoretical Perspectives accounting for adolescent homosexuality. J Adolesc Health Care. 1988;9:95-104
iv LeVay, Simon, Hamer, Dean H. Evidence for a biological influence in male homosexuality. Sci Am. New York: May 1994; 270(5) 44-54
v Bailey, JM, RC Pillard, MC Neale and Y Agyei. Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry 50:217-23.
vi Pillard, RC and JD Weinrich. Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality. Archives of General Psychiatriy
vii A Family History Study of Male Sexual Orientation Using Three Independent Samples J. Michael Bailey, Richard C. Pillard, Khytam Dawood, Michael B. Miller, et al. Behavior Genetics. New York: Mar 1999;29:2: 79
viii Ryan C, Futterman D. Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 1998
ix Perrin EC. Sexual Orientation in Child and Adolescent Health Care. New York, NY. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers; 2002
x Friedman RC, Downey JI. Homosexuality. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:923-930
xi Stronski Huwiler SM, Remafedi G. Adolescent homosexuality. Adv Pediatics. 1998;45:107-144
xii Behrman: Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, 17th ed., Copyright © 2004 Saunders, Sexual Behavior and Its Variations.
xiii Outside the margins: youth who are different and their special health care needs. Alexander B - Prim Care - 01-JUN-2006; 33(2): 285-303
xiv For related information of from specific medical associations see these websites:
American Psychiatric Association - http://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm
American Psychological Association - http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/homepage.html The APA also has an informative webpage for educators regarding GLBT students. The page is co-endorsed by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, National Education Association. It is available at this address, http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html.
American Academy of Pediatrics - http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;113/6/1827.pdf
American Medical Association - http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html
American Medical Student Association - http://www.amsa.org/advocacy/lgbtpm/
Here's some for starters:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/international/humanrights.pdf
i American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Adolescence. Sexual Orientation and Adolescents. – Pediatrics. 2005;113(6)1828
ii Rowlett JD, Patel D, Greydanus DE. Homosexuality. Behavioral Pediatrics. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1992:37-54 York, NY:Springer-Verlag; 1992
iii Savin-Williams RC. Theoretical Perspectives accounting for adolescent homosexuality. J Adolesc Health Care. 1988;9:95-104
iv LeVay, Simon, Hamer, Dean H. Evidence for a biological influence in male homosexuality. Sci Am. New York: May 1994; 270(5) 44-54
v Bailey, JM, RC Pillard, MC Neale and Y Agyei. Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry 50:217-23.
vi Pillard, RC and JD Weinrich. Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality. Archives of General Psychiatriy
vii A Family History Study of Male Sexual Orientation Using Three Independent Samples J. Michael Bailey, Richard C. Pillard, Khytam Dawood, Michael B. Miller, et al. Behavior Genetics. New York: Mar 1999;29:2: 79
viii Ryan C, Futterman D. Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling. New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 1998
ix Perrin EC. Sexual Orientation in Child and Adolescent Health Care. New York, NY. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers; 2002
x Friedman RC, Downey JI. Homosexuality. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:923-930
xi Stronski Huwiler SM, Remafedi G. Adolescent homosexuality. Adv Pediatics. 1998;45:107-144
xii Behrman: Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, 17th ed., Copyright © 2004 Saunders, Sexual Behavior and Its Variations.
xiii Outside the margins: youth who are different and their special health care needs. Alexander B - Prim Care - 01-JUN-2006; 33(2): 285-303
xiv For related information of from specific medical associations see these websites:
American Psychiatric Association - http://www.healthyminds.org/glbissues.cfm
American Psychological Association - http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/homepage.html The APA also has an informative webpage for educators regarding GLBT students. The page is co-endorsed by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, National Education Association. It is available at this address, http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html.
American Academy of Pediatrics - http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;113/6/1827.pdf
American Medical Association - http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/14754.html
American Medical Student Association - http://www.amsa.org/advocacy/lgbtpm/
bth7,
I have a couple of questions that came to mind reading this thread. I've noticed that the struggles of gays has been repeatedly compared to those of racial minorities. While your frustrations may be similar to theirs, is the struggle totally parralel? Before you answer, let me say why I think it is different. If you and a black guy walk into a store in a part of the country that isn't too friendly to gays or blacks, the black guy is instantly recognized as a target of discrimination, while the gay guy (he's white for the case of the example) looks like any other white guy in the store and is not targeted for discrimination unless he has a bright t-shirt on that says "I'M GAY", which he doesn't. Race is an outward difference, sexual orientation is inner and personal and not apparent , (unless you believe all gays can be spotted a mile away...you don't think that, right?) A stranger won't know if a gay person is gay or not, unless they declare it (and I see no reason to share our personal lives with strangers). Blacks however, were wrongly treated as blacks without having to tell every stranger that they were black, everyone knew it. Outward differences vs. inner differences to me means aspects of the struggles are diffent. One last question, why do think some in this movement feel the need to compare their cause to any past causes? More validation?
I have a couple of questions that came to mind reading this thread. I've noticed that the struggles of gays has been repeatedly compared to those of racial minorities. While your frustrations may be similar to theirs, is the struggle totally parralel? Before you answer, let me say why I think it is different. If you and a black guy walk into a store in a part of the country that isn't too friendly to gays or blacks, the black guy is instantly recognized as a target of discrimination, while the gay guy (he's white for the case of the example) looks like any other white guy in the store and is not targeted for discrimination unless he has a bright t-shirt on that says "I'M GAY", which he doesn't. Race is an outward difference, sexual orientation is inner and personal and not apparent , (unless you believe all gays can be spotted a mile away...you don't think that, right?) A stranger won't know if a gay person is gay or not, unless they declare it (and I see no reason to share our personal lives with strangers). Blacks however, were wrongly treated as blacks without having to tell every stranger that they were black, everyone knew it. Outward differences vs. inner differences to me means aspects of the struggles are diffent. One last question, why do think some in this movement feel the need to compare their cause to any past causes? More validation?
These are good questions that deserve to be addressed.
Racial discrimination is different. It is outward. But anyone can be discriminated against, they just have to not be the one in power. Usually, they are some small minority.
Jews have obviously suffered from discrimination. Christians too, even today in some parts of the world. The Mormons at one time we're the victims of violence at the hands of non-Mormons who thought their faith was sacrilegious. You can't tell someone religion just by looking at them, but religious persecution and discrimination exists as well. That's more of an "inner" difference as well.
Discrimination against a group of people is just that. When you see some group of people as "less than" for whatever reason, or a reason that has no rational basis. You could argue well, what types of groups are you talking about? Any group of people? Then you could just make up a group and say you're not being accepted. Trivializing the whole thing. I don't know how you define a group of people . . . a race, a religion, a sexual orientation. But a pretty good starting place is any group that has suffered longstanding injustice and prejudice. Blacks, gays, women, transgender persons, religious groups . . . they all fit nicely into that definition. That's why these forms of discrimination are often explicitly included in non-discrimination policies, and other differences (like hair color or preference for vanilla over chocolate) are not.
As far as referring to other groups for validation . . . I truly believe that discrimination is discrimination. It doesn't matter who you are discriminating against - Blacks, Jews, Gays, it doesn't matter. It amounts to the same thing. When I look to the US civil rights movement, I see a whole country realizing that discrimination is wrong, against any group of people. It inspires me to know that prejudice has been overcome before, even when there were huge, tremendous obstacles.
Eventually, people see that their values of being fair and not harming others is more important then their discomfort with People of Color, or Gays or Jews, or any other group - and people learn to hold their tongue, and change the laws, and society is the better for it. It's better now that women can hold office, that blacks can get high paying jobs. Its easy to forget that there was a time not so long ago when these things were actually impossible right here in the US of A. Now, a few decades later, those things are unthinkable! This kind of change is painful, it takes time, but change happens, and its better in the end.
I know I can't eliminate homophobia, just like I can't eliminate racism or sexism. What I can do is point out that it hurts people, that it's not rational, that it may be what your mom and dad told you . . . but its just doesn't make sense when held up under scrutiny, when you really think about it. Woman and men should have equal rights, Christians and Jews should have equal rights, Gays and Straights should have equal rights.
I hope that you will actually consider this. I know that it isn't easy. But consider it, think about it, ask other people some questions, and read some stuff about it. You can react reflexively . . . or you can be thoughtful and make some conscious choices. Thanks.
I apologize for diverting this discussion for just a second, but bth7, do you realize that someone had control of your screenname just a few days ago?? Or was that you??? If it wasn't you, then I'd be careful either leaving your computer alone or allowing others to access your account.
👍
awesome response.👍
great to have the real u back on this board.👍
p.s. i've already been accepted to med school but i've decided to send secondary to TUCOM since they reversed their decision. Wish me luck.🙂
This is a stupid argument. It's like saying "lets get funding for a white cultural center" to illustrate how taking away funding for an African American cultural center is ok.
Although for personal beliefs and feelings, I don't and in the future won't support alternate lifestyles, I can and do try to support you and others in the other aspects of your lives, like your medical career. There are issues out there that no matter what, there will be disagreement, but I agree it can and should stay civil. This only makes sense since people on both sides of the issue will be working side by side one day. I hope that those who don't agree with something (with any issue) remain reasonably minded "non-supporters" rather than cruel jerks (save "homophobe" for the real jerks). Best of luck in your education and career.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Thank you. I wish you the best as well. Your thoughtfulness and civility are appreciated.
What's with all this hoopla about a thread on the Touro LGBT situation anyway? It just seems rude to charge in and complain about a redundent thread....if you don't like it, DON'T READ IT. 🙄
I haven't been following the Touro LGBT situation all that much, and I'm curious as to why a place of higher education would pull support from a gay and lesbian group. I live in one of the reddest state in the nation and our med school have given a whole heartily okay to restart our LGBT group (the previous one died after its members left). Anyway, good to hear that Touro reversed their decision. 👍
I haven't been following the Touro LGBT situation all that much, and I'm curious as to why a place of higher education would pull support from a gay and lesbian group. I live in one of the reddest state in the nation and our med school have given a whole heartily okay to restart our LGBT group (the previous one died after its members left). Anyway, good to hear that Touro reversed their decision. 👍
GO TOURO LGBTPM! Congratulations! Keep up the work for equality and human rights!
Similar threads
