Touro LGBT students recognized for bravery

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

bth7

It's worth it in the end . . .
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
1,119
Reaction score
2
Today at the Gay and Lesbian Medical Associations 24th annual conference, the med students of Touro University were applauded by the conference goers for their bravery in standing up for LGTB equality in medicine. :clap:

The recognition came as part of a lecture regarding Religious Objections to Treating LGBT patients, by Jenny Phizer, JD.
Religious objections to homosexuality and to gay people’s quest for equal treatment present different challenges to medical ethics, licensing rules, civil rights laws, and other policies that protect minorities from discrimination in health care. This plenary will address confusion that has emerged between sometimes legitimate conscience objections to medical procedures and illegal objections to particular people.

It was a emotional, thrilling moment to receive this recognition from the American Medical Association, the American Medical Student Association and GLMA.

At the talk, the AMA representative made the AMA's position on this issue very clear:

The AMA has instituted a policy to advocate equality for GLBT physicians and patients. Related policy supports the rights of GLBT medical students and residents to form groups and meet on campus, supports legislative and other efforts to allow same- or opposite sex-partner co-adoption, and encourages physician practices, hospitals, medical schools and clinics to broaden all nondiscrimination statements to include sexual orientation, sex or gender identity.

Thanks for everyone on SDN who helped to make this happen. The entire medical community has made it clear that this knd of discrimination and bigotry has no place in medicine.

GLMA_Masthead1.jpg

Members don't see this ad.
 
No offense, but could we please just let this issue die (and please shut up with follow-up posts like, "should we let the Holocaust die etc....").
 
It was a emotional, thrilling moment to receive this recognition from the American Medical Association, the American Medical Student Association and GLMA.

At the talk, the AMA representative made the AMA's position on this issue very clear:

The AMA is meddling in osteopathic affairs....again...?

Interesting.

What is the AOA's stance on this situation?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
No offense, but could we please just let this issue die (and please shut up with follow-up posts like, "should we let the Holocaust die etc....").

yeah that's why you clicked into this post, read it, and posted a reply.

No offense, but just don't read it if you don't like it.
 
Enough of this. Keep your gay pride to yourself.

I originally read this post hoping I would get an update that Touro had remained strong and true to itself. Unfortunately it was more banter.
 
No offense, but could we please just let this issue die (and please shut up with follow-up posts like, "should we let the Holocaust die etc....").

It's within SDN guidelines, so the op has a perfect right to post this information. Just because it bothers you doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. I agree with the other poster -- you knew what the thread was going to be about when you opened it, so don't open it if you don't like it.

Congrats on the recognition!
 

What is the AOA's stance on this situation?

That's a really good question. A lot of the osteopaths at the GLMA conference were discussing this issue. The AMA has really reached out to the LGBT physician community, whereas the AOA and SOMA have been a bit slower to act. The AMA has a committee for LGBT issues that works on health policy recommendations to the AMA's board.

AOA doesn't have such a committee looking at AOA policies, at least not that I know of, but I'm trying to build some momentum about starting one.
The DO's at the conference are drafting a letter to the AOA president on the importance of this matter.

Here's a link to the AMA's LGBT committee website. They have some great policy!!

To those who wish this whole issue would "just go away" - I will say this. This issue will go away when homophobia goes away that is, when gay patients stop being shown the door by the physicians just because they are gay, when the unethical denial of care by these physicians is no longer protected under some cliched notion of "religious objections gay lifestyle." Refusal to provide care to LGBT patients is discrimination. It's bad medicine and it's wrong.
 
I originally read this post hoping I would get an update that Touro had remained strong and true to itself. Unfortunately it was more banter.

just out of curiousity, and maybe i'm missing something here, but what part of the thread topic "Touro LGBT students recognized for bravery" led you to the above conclusion?
 
Enough of this. Keep your gay pride to yourself.

I originally read this post hoping I would get an update that Touro had remained strong and true to itself. Unfortunately it was more banter.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Thumb-war, who else wants in?
 
To the OP and all who acted and spoke to make a difference:
Congrats on the recognition, I hope that it results in lasting changes in medicine and society. It's about damned time!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
To the OP and all who acted and spoke to make a difference:
Congrats on the recognition, I hope that it results in lasting changes in medicine and society. It's about damned time!
Thank You. If we're are going to make a lasting change, we need to change the climate at med schools. It has recently come to my attention that theres a strong thread of fundamentalist, fanatical right-wing people within Osteopathy, in positions of power. Does the next generation of DO's want to change this? Or do they want the status quo?

the politics of the AOA are very conservative, whereas the AMA has taken a patient-centered stance on everything from reproductive rights to stem cell research. What's your position? Investigate these organizations for yourself, if you are so inclined. the positions of physicians on these issues actually matters, so the education of doctors-to-be is very relevant. Find out what your school is teaching, what the climate is, what the reality is. Does it represent reasonable values of tolerance and compassionate patient care for everyone? Or does it represent the political views of a small but politically-connected minority?

Is it okay that people express their bigotry openly on this website? What is SDN's position on these matters? Is racism allowed? Sexism? Homophobia? Are people allowed to post that LGTB's should "keep their gay pride to themselves"? Would it be allowed for someone who thinks that women should not be allowed to be physicians to say "keep your feminism to yourself" in response to someone who disagrees? Is that okay with SDN? What do the moderators think about this? To me, this is totally offensive speech. Is that level of ignorance and bigotry protected on this site? What are the rules here?

bh
 
Thank You. If we're are going to make a lasting change, we need to change the climate at med schools. It has recently come to my attention that theres a strong thread of fundamentalist, fanatical right-wing people within Osteopathy, in positions of power. Does the next generation of DO's want to change this? Or do they want the status quo?

the politics of the AOA are very conservative, whereas the AMA has taken a patient-centered stance on everything from reproductive rights to stem cell research. What's your position? Investigate these organizations for yourself, if you are so inclined. the positions of physicians on these issues actually matters, so the education of doctors-to-be is very relevant. Find out what your school is teaching, what the climate is, what the reality is. Does it represent reasonable values of tolerance and compassionate patient care for everyone? Or does it represent the political views of a small but politically-connected minority?

Is it okay that people express their bigotry openly on this website? What is SDN's position on these matters? Is racism allowed? Sexism? Homophobia? Are people allowed to post that LGTB's should "keep their gay pride to themselves"? Would it be allowed for someone who thinks that women should not be allowed to be physicians to say "keep your feminism to yourself" in response to someone who disagrees? Is that okay with SDN? What do the moderators think about this? To me, this is totally offensive speech. Is that level of ignorance and bigotry protected on this site? What are the rules here?

bh

:laugh:
 
Is it okay that people express their bigotry openly on this website? What is SDN's position on these matters? Is racism allowed? Sexism? Homophobia?

Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that while homophobia may actually not exist, homonausea is a prevalent and widespread phenomenon that seems to be growing every year?
 
Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that while homophobia may actually not exist, homonausea is a prevalent and widespread phenomenon that seems to be growing every year?

Homonausea?? Is that similar to how some people react when they listen to minorites talk about the oppression they face in todays society, "like what the hell are they talking about they should just stop complaining." Sometimes its hard for people to comprehend the importance of certain subjects when it does not affect them or just makes them uncomfortable. I'm happy for the LGBT students at Touro, congrats.
 
Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that while homophobia may actually not exist, homonausea is a prevalent and widespread phenomenon that seems to be growing every year?

What do you call someone walking into to a clinic and being shown the door by the physician after the patient reveals that their partner is same sex? What do you call patients being DENIED care b/c their are trans gender and the doctor has a "religious objection" to their trans gender status?

How can people say they are sick of hearing about this issue? Why not just not read the post if your not interested? Do you feel it neccessary to go onto other threads that "you're not interested in" and post how sick of those threads you are? Or do you reserve that kind of hypocrisy for gay threads? Don't you see how unexamined your own views are? What is this need you have to go onto some random post about LGBT issues and read it and post that you don't care. The only effect it has to make LGBT students, who DO CARE about this, feel further marginalized, alienated and invisible. Do you go onto the threads aout the issues of Asian students? Christian students? DO students? Disabled students? Or do you respect those people needs?

Do you see how bigoted it is to say that "gay people make me nauseous?" IE - "homo-nausea." This is allowed here?

As this thread goes to show, these kinds of attitudes are rampant in the medical world. And med students express this kind of bias
UNCHALLENGED at the med schools. These are the words of someone who will one day be a physician??? Committed to compassionate care???
 
Thank You. If we're are going to make a lasting change, we need to change the climate at med schools. It has recently come to my attention that theres a strong thread of fundamentalist, fanatical right-wing people within Osteopathy, in positions of power. Does the next generation of DO's want to change this? Or do they want the status quo?

the politics of the AOA are very conservative, whereas the AMA has taken a patient-centered stance on everything from reproductive rights to stem cell research. What's your position? Investigate these organizations for yourself, if you are so inclined. the positions of physicians on these issues actually matters, so the education of doctors-to-be is very relevant. Find out what your school is teaching, what the climate is, what the reality is. Does it represent reasonable values of tolerance and compassionate patient care for everyone? Or does it represent the political views of a small but politically-connected minority?

Is it okay that people express their bigotry openly on this website? What is SDN's position on these matters? Is racism allowed? Sexism? Homophobia? Are people allowed to post that LGTB's should "keep their gay pride to themselves"? Would it be allowed for someone who thinks that women should not be allowed to be physicians to say "keep your feminism to yourself" in response to someone who disagrees? Is that okay with SDN? What do the moderators think about this? To me, this is totally offensive speech. Is that level of ignorance and bigotry protected on this site? What are the rules here?

bh

Make a “lasting change”? Gimme a break.
You make it sound as if your position is ‘middle of the road,’ and anyone opposing it is an extreme-right zealot fundamentalist Christian. “Patient centered stance” equates “reproductive rights and stem cell research”?
Ok, this is one of the more pathetic posts I’ve read.

You express any disagreement with normalization of “alternative lifestyles” as homophobic bigotry, and take offense to the notion that people have the right to philosophically oppose your stance.

The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn’t exist (for you Usual Suspects fans out there). The greatest trick the progressives ever played was convincing the world that they were mainstream America and the “norm” of American culture.
 
Call me crazy but when did the AMA decide that it should even have an opinion on same-sex couples adopting children?

It seems, I don't know, a bit out of their scope.
 
Make a "lasting change"? Gimme a break.
You make it sound as if your position is ‘middle of the road,' and anyone opposing it is an extreme-right zealot fundamentalist Christian. "Patient centered stance" equates "reproductive rights and stem cell research"?
Ok, this is one of the more pathetic posts I've read.

You express any disagreement with normalization of "alternative lifestyles" as homophobic bigotry, and take offense to the notion that people have the right to philosophically oppose your stance.

The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist (for you Usual Suspects fans out there). The greatest trick the progressives ever played was convincing the world that they were mainstream America and the "norm" of American culture.


That was so incredibly well said, I won't even try to expound upon it. I just want to add that BTH sounds as though he's advocating suppression of free speech.
bth7 said:
Is that okay with SDN? What do the moderators think about this? To me, this is totally offensive speech. Is that level of ignorance and bigotry protected on this site? What are the rules here?
.

I don't believe that anyone has verbally threatened or attacked anyone else, so they are in turn not infringing upon anyone else's rights. So please don't log on to a FREE FORUM and attempt to convince others that you believe certain individuals' voices should be suppressed. Don't feed me that garbage.
 
Come on, give me a break. You have forced your agenda upon the world in such a way that some foolish individuals are provoked. I think all individuals should behave rationally no matter how they feel about the issue but acting oblivious to the reasons people come out so openly against the gay and lesbian community should be no surprise. You try to force it down the throat up America. I do not hate or have any ill will towards gay and lesbian individuals I am just tired of having it shoved down my throat! Also you keep stating that gay and lesbian individuals are being shown the door at clinics etc... I really think this may have happened a few times and prehaps not so recently but you speak of it as if it is happening all the time. While I think this is horrible that a doctor wouldn't treat an individual based on sexual orrientation it is certainly the exception and not the rule. Finally people can openly oppose any view point or philosophy and have a right to do so without being termed a bigot. You and the far left need to understand that just becuase everyone doesn't share your agenda they are not unintelligent, uniformed bigots. You are continuing to stir the pot and light the flames and thenyou keep asking why is it so hot in here. I know your smarter than that.

What do you call someone walking into to a clinic and being shown the door by the physician after the patient reveals that their partner is same sex? What do you call patients being DENIED care b/c their are trans gender and the doctor has a "religious objection" to their trans gender status?

How can people say they are sick of hearing about this issue? Why not just not read the post if your not interested? Do you feel it neccessary to go onto other threads that "you're not interested in" and post how sick of those threads you are? Or do you reserve that kind of hypocrisy for gay threads? Don't you see how unexamined your own views are? What is this need you have to go onto some random post about LGBT issues and read it and post that you don't care. The only effect it has to make LGBT students, who DO CARE about this, feel further marginalized, alienated and invisible. Do you go onto the threads aout the issues of Asian students? Christian students? DO students? Disabled students? Or do you respect those people needs?

Do you see how bigoted it is to say that "gay people make me nauseous?" IE - "homo-nausea." This is allowed here?

As this thread goes to show, these kinds of attitudes are rampant in the medical world. And med students express this kind of bias
UNCHALLENGED at the med schools. These are the words of someone who will one day be a physician??? Committed to compassionate care???
 
That was so incredibly well said, I won't even try to expound upon it. I just want to add that BTH sounds as though he's advocating suppression of free speech. .

I don't believe that anyone has verbally threatened or attacked anyone else, so they are in turn not infringing upon anyone else's rights. So please don't log on to a FREE FORUM and attempt to convince others that you believe certain individuals' voices should be suppressed. Don't feed me that garbage.

i gotta disagree on this one... how can you claim that posts that use words like "homo-nausea" are not attacking someone else? i'm pretty sure that if i were to enter into other threads and start throwing around terms like "black-nausea", "jew-nausea", or "asian-nausea", it would deemed highly offensive (and rightly so).

we are all educated people--there should be a minimal amount of respect and decency here...
 
i gotta disagree on this one... how can you claim that posts that use words like "homo-nausea" are not attacking someone else? i'm pretty sure that if i were to enter into other threads and start throwing around terms like "black-nausea", "jew-nausea", or "asian-nausea", it would deemed highly offensive (and rightly so).

we are all educated people--there should be a minimal amount of respect and decency here...

Using the phrase homo-nausea is in no way threatening or beyond the rights of freedom of speech. Furthermore, the opposite side of the spectrum continues to attack others with differing view points by calling them hypocrites, bigots, etc. and comparing them to racists, sexists. I'm ok with that, because NO ONE has threatened or made a personal attack on anyone during the course of these threads. When that happens, the rights of free speech are being abused. Until then, please don't try to justify silencing other people, just because they happen to feel a different way than someone with an extreme view.
 
Using the phrase homo-nausea is in no way threatening or beyond the rights of freedom of speech. Furthermore, the opposite side of the spectrum continues to attack others with differing view points by calling them hypocrites, bigots, etc. and comparing them to racists, sexists. I'm ok with that, because NO ONE has threatened or made a personal attack on anyone during the course of these threads. When that happens, the rights of free speech are being abused. Until then, please don't try to justify silencing other people, just because they happen to feel a different way than someone with an extreme view.

while free speech does exist, it's not an adequate excuse for derogatory commentary. insinuating or flat-out stating that an entire group of people, minority or otherwise, make other people nauseous is both insulting and in poor taste. furthermore, using the concept of "threatening" words/behavior as the litmus test for acceptable postings here is rediculous - anything that is truely "threatening" is illegal, both here and, i'm pretty sure, in most states.

i don't think the goal here is to silence anyone--it's just to have people respect others. the spirit of the original poster was NOT about forwarding some sort of 'agenda'... rather, it was an acknowledgement of a group of people's efforts. it'd be nice if people could take this into consideration when posting commentary.
 
Using the phrase homo-nausea is in no way threatening or beyond the rights of freedom of speech. Furthermore, the opposite side of the spectrum continues to attack others with differing view points by calling them hypocrites, bigots, etc. and comparing them to racists, sexists. I'm ok with that, because NO ONE has threatened or made a personal attack on anyone during the course of these threads. When that happens, the rights of free speech are being abused. Until then, please don't try to justify silencing other people, just because they happen to feel a different way than someone with an extreme view.

One, nice way to twist the issues here and label a non-extreme viewpoint as "extreme." Two, I'd leave the free speech analysis home. Free speech is well and good and is guaranted to us against the government. SDN is not a governmental entity, so they can set whatever speech guidelines they choose. From reading the (admittedly vague) SDN guidelines, nowhere is it mentioned that only posts that threaten violence to others merit censorship. You can check 'em out here.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_sdn_tos

What I find amazing is that all these non-interested parties jumped into this thread just looking to be offended and to make cheap potshots. Really, at some point you're going to have to deal with the fact that gay people do indeed exist. If it grosses you out that much, perhaps you should enter a field where you don't have any human contant because you will have gay patients.
 
i don't think the goal here is to silence anyone--it's just to have people respect others. the spirit of the original poster was NOT about forwarding some sort of 'agenda'... rather, it was an acknowledgement of a group of people's efforts. it'd be nice if people could take this into consideration when posting commentary.[/QUOTE

You're kidding, right?

I'm willing to bet (or at least hoping) that you wouldn't be able to look someone in the eyes and say that with a straight face. The OP has been pushing an agenda the entire time. Maybe you didn't read the same post as I did. Once again, it's perfectly fine with me if people want to push their own agendas, but don't be suprised when others retort with their own DIFFERING opinions.

As another poster much more eloquently put, bth7 is trying to paint himself as mainstream and everyone else that differs from his beliefs as being bigots, ultra-conservatives, and generally incorrect in their ideals. That could NOT be further from the truth.
 
As another poster much more eloquently put, bth7 is trying to paint himself as mainstream and everyone else that differs from his beliefs as being bigots, ultra-conservatives, and generally incorrect in their ideals. That could NOT be further from the truth.

How so? I'm seeing a lot of radical, conservative, fundies in this thread.
 
One, nice way to twist the issues here and label a non-extreme viewpoint as "extreme." Two, I'd leave the free speech analysis home. Free speech is well and good and is guaranted to us against the government. SDN is not a governmental entity, so they can set whatever speech guidelines they choose. From reading the (admittedly vague) SDN guidelines, nowhere is it mentioned that only posts that threaten violence to others merit censorship. You can check 'em out here.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_sdn_tos

What I find amazing is that all these non-interested parties jumped into this thread just looking to be offended and to make cheap potshots. Really, at some point you're going to have to deal with the fact that gay people do indeed exist. If it grosses you out that much, perhaps you should enter a field where you don't have any human contant because you will have gay patients.


One, thank you for lining the TOS, because they simply proved that no one had violated them. Secondly, I've never once even mentioned having a problem with gays. I will have no problem whatsoever treating gays, transgenders, etc. I have a problem with bth7's rhetoric. He's spinning the issue and painting a picture that IS (whether you believe it or not) an attempt to make everyone that doesn't necessarily fully agree with his ideals as a bigot. That right there is obscene.

Not everyone has had the opportunity to be exposed to a wide variety of people and various lifestyles. And the fact of the matter is that not everyone (even after exposure) will fully accept all lifestyles. That is their right! Just because someone doesn't accept someone else and their lifestyle with open arms, that doesn't mean that they will treat them as a second class citizen. I can't speak for everyone on here, but I'm willing to bet that many of the people who have spoken out against bth7 fall within this category. They will NOT turn away a pt. because of their sexual orientation. The vast majority of people that are being called bigots and homophobes on this thread and like threads have never once said that gays are bad, wrong, etc. and don't deserve to receive healthcare as heterosexuals. They've simply stated an unwillingness to openly accept a lifestyle. I personally have no problem with that. It's their choice.
 
How so? I'm seeing a lot of radical, conservative, fundies in this thread.

Oh exlawgrrl. To see through your eyes would be fun. You see what you want, because you're an extreme leftist. I've read your previous posts, and you are nowhere near the middle. No closer to the middle than Bill O'Reilly is at least.
 
How so? I'm seeing a lot of radical, conservative, fundies in this thread.

I love how all the moderate, middle of the road, mainstream people who just can't understand the forceful gay and lesbian agenda are now called radical conservatives.
 
i don't think the goal here is to silence anyone--it's just to have people respect others. the spirit of the original poster was NOT about forwarding some sort of 'agenda'... rather, it was an acknowledgement of a group of people's efforts. it'd be nice if people could take this into consideration when posting commentary.[/QUOTE

You're kidding, right?

I'm willing to bet (or at least hoping) that you wouldn't be able to look someone in the eyes and say that with a straight face. The OP has been pushing an agenda the entire time. Maybe you didn't read the same post as I did. Once again, it's perfectly fine with me if people want to push their own agendas, but don't be suprised when others retort with their own DIFFERING opinions.

As another poster much more eloquently put, bth7 is trying to paint himself as mainstream and everyone else that differs from his beliefs as being bigots, ultra-conservatives, and generally incorrect in their ideals. That could NOT be further from the truth.

actually, i'm not kidding. (and, yes, i'd gladly give the above commentary to someone face to face.) if you read the original post, there isn't an agenda to be found. the 'agenda' appeared to arise when people started voicing their own rhetoric and getting off topic.

on the note of 'retorts': it's easy to chalk them up as 'differing opinions', but if they're rude and/or slanderous (i refer you back to "homo-nausea"), then that's nothing more than insensitive and inappropriate behavior. we're all here because we're slugging our way through doctoral-level degrees; we're not stupid people. it'd be nice if we all could have the minimal amount of respect for other people here that one would hope our level of education (and desire to help other people) would impart.
 
actually, i'm not kidding. (and, yes, i'd gladly give the above commentary to someone face to face.) if you read the original post, there isn't an agenda to be found. the 'agenda' appeared to arise when people started voicing their own rhetoric and getting off topic.

on the note of 'retorts': it's easy to chalk them up as 'differing opinions', but if they're rude and/or slanderous (i refer you back to "homo-nausea"), then that's nothing more than insensitive and inappropriate behavior. we're all here because we're slugging our way through doctoral-level degrees; we're not stupid people. it'd be nice if we all could have the minimal amount of respect for other people here that one would hope our level of education (and desire to help other people) would impart.

One, singular post is what you keep referring to as evidence of slanderous speech. One post. I'm glad you feel that is sufficient to represent everyone else that has yet to make a post even remotely close to that one.
 
I love how all the moderate, middle of the road, mainstream people who just can't understand the forceful gay and lesbian agenda are now called radical conservatives.

i'm not sure this is the appropriate forum for the "gay agenda" debate.
 
One, singular post is what you keep referring to as evidence of slanderous speech. One post. I'm glad you feel that is sufficient to represent everyone else that has yet to make a post even remotely close to that one.

i have no idea how or why you are drawing the above conclusion...i'm more than capable of saying what i mean, and i'm pretty confident i didn't say anything of that nature.

all i'm saying (for the 3rd time...) is that it'd be nice if people can respect one another. simple as that.
 
I fully agree. I'm simply saying that I believe that 95% of everyone here is respecting each other. I was under the impression that you felt that everyone was being rude and insensitive. The homonauseous quote was the only rude remark I've heard. Everyone else has respected each person's rights, and my point was that bth7 appeared as though he felt that dissenting opinions should be silenced by mods (he stated this far before the homonauseous comment), and I personally think that is bunk.
 
This issue will go away when homophobia goes away that is, when gay patients stop being shown the door by the physicians just because they are gay, when the unethical denial of care by these physicians is no longer protected under some cliched notion of "religious objections gay lifestyle." Refusal to provide care to LGBT patients is discrimination. It's bad medicine and it's wrong.

this was on one of my board review questions.

According to USMLE step 1, refusing care to a gay patient is completely unethical, but not illegal. I believe this is correct, but am not 100% certain. Actually, it may have been refusing care to an HIV + person, but i can't remember
 
A good starting place for me is the AMA's position on this issue. (from their website)

"The AMA has instituted a policy to advocate equality for GLBT physicians and patients. Related policy supports the rights of GLBT medical students and residents to form groups and meet on campus, supports legislative and other efforts to allow same- or opposite sex-partner co-adoption, and encourages physician practices, hospitals, medical schools and clinics to broaden all nondiscrimination statements to include sexual orientation, sex or gender identity."


The AMA's message is clear. But it gets lost b/c so many people have been indoctrinated on this issue. They can't see how discriminatory their attitudes are. They can't even see that denying gay and lesbians their rights, like access to health care, the right to adopt a child, etc. is the moral equivalent of denying those rights to Persons of Color or Jews or Irish people or any other minority. Those people have been told that being gay is "different" being a member of another minority. It's not the same, it's a choice, it's a lifestyle, it's a sin, it's a political agenda.

I don't have an agenda. I don't have a lifestyle. I'm just another med student, and I don't want to be told on my own campus that I'm not welcome. I was born this way, just like every other GLBT person. The scientific research shows this. But people don't read it. Science has proven again and again that being gay is a biological process, but science can only go so far.
Some people will never believe the research, but then again, some people think evolution is a theory that has no hard evidence to verify its validity.

I'm sorry if I pissed people off. But it's just not okay to say that a certain minority makes you nauseous. It actually really hurts, makes me feel like crap, and I'm sick of hearing it. I grew up in Alabama, in a Christian household. When I came out at age 21, it was really hard for my parents to accept me, they thought being gay was a horrible sin. But eventually, they realized that it wasn't. They saw that I may be different, but different is okay. That I just fell in love with a man, and not a woman.

A lot of people still don't get that. They feel like its perfectly fine to hold onto their beliefs that gay people are messed up, or sinners or somehow not as good. Sometimes, I'm weary of dealing with this attitude, but I'm not going to give up. I'm going to keep talking to people, trying to educate them - I know that a lot of people have never had a gay friend or a transgender friend. So how would they even know?

They fact is that gay people are everywhere - in your church, in the military, in your school, in your family -Republicans and Democrats, Jews and Muslims and Christians. You have to understand, a lot of gays don't say anything b/c when we do - we get told to go away, we get told to stop being so gay, or loud. We get told "that's sick" or "it makes me nauseous", or that "you have an agenda." Just look at this thread. So a lot of people just never tell anyone, even if they are married, even if they have kids. The judgment and harassment are so intense that they just keep their mouths shut.

But that's changing. I hope.

As I said in the OP, thanks to everyone on SDN who helped make Touro the gay-welcoming, diversity embracing school that it is. Does your med school need a make-over next? :)
 
Although arguments can be made both sides about whether certain terminology constitutes "attacking" members, I'd say the mods will stay out of this one. It may be unpleasant, but is an important debate and one that's obviously affecting practice in the real world. On the other hand, just as most people are uncomfortable with fundamentalist religious groups prosetylizing or however you spell it, these forums and the medical profession does not need gay prosetylization either, nor individuals expounding the miracles of gayness. Now that's an exaggeration, but you get my drift.

In my personal view, I can understand gay meds needing to support one another and meeting on campus and such. However, all this stuff and posters about specific "LGBT Healthcare" being produced I find a little much. Reason being that there's no difference and shouldn't be any difference between LGBT healthcare and normal healthcare. Gays aren't anatomically different. So producing all that literature and propaganda stuff seems to me to be gays emphasizing a difference and thus creating some sort of divide in itself. Not to mention that there are way worse things in healthcare than the gay issue, so it seems to be making itself a bigger issue than it is. Just do GP/FP in a rural area and you will hear some really bizarre crap with issues that really need addressing.
 
A good starting place for me is the AMA's position on this issue. (from their website)

"The AMA has instituted a policy to advocate equality for GLBT physicians and patients. Related policy supports the rights of GLBT medical students and residents to form groups and meet on campus, supports legislative and other efforts to allow same- or opposite sex-partner co-adoption, and encourages physician practices, hospitals, medical schools and clinics to broaden all nondiscrimination statements to include sexual orientation, sex or gender identity."


The AMA's message is clear. But it gets lost b/c so many people have been indoctrinated on this issue. They can't see how discriminatory their attitudes are. They can't even see that denying gay and lesbians their rights, like access to health care, the right to adopt a child, etc. is the moral equivalent of denying those rights to Persons of Color or Jews or Irish people or any other minority. Those people have been told that being gay is "different" being a member of another minority. It's not the same, it's a choice, it's a lifestyle, it's a sin, it's a political agenda.

I don't have an agenda. I don't have a lifestyle. I'm just another med student, and I don't want to be told on my own campus that I'm not welcome. I was born this way, just like every other GLBT person. The scientific research shows this. But people don't read it. Science has proven again and again that being gay is a biological process, but science can only go so far.
Some people will never believe the research, but then again, some people think evolution is a theory that has no hard evidence to verify its validity.

As I said in the OP, thanks to everyone on SDN who helped make Touro the gay-welcoming, diversity embracing school that it is. Does your med school need a make-over next? :)

I am completely not attacking you at all, however, please show me this research. I have never seen research that shows w/ statistical significance that being gay is a biological process. Where is the 'gay' gene on whatever the pertinent chromosome??

And, if you are going to claim that gays are biologically different (by which I assume you mean chemical make-up)...then you also must be saying that it would be theoretically possible to correct this biological difference w/ pharmacologic therapy. I don't see the argument that being gay is a biological process as one that could help the gay community b/c having clinical depression is also a biological process that we treat everyday w/ drugs.

I honestly am not trying to flame you or anything, bth7. If there is research out there, I would like to read it. Like I said though, I don't see the biological process argument being a good one for the gay community.
 
The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn’t exist (for you Usual Suspects fans out there). The greatest trick the progressives ever played was convincing the world that they were mainstream America and the “norm” of American culture.

No, I think the trick started with the misnomer back in the day: "moral majority." The outspoken conservative minority...generally less educated than the rest of the public, has tricked the world into thinking we are all inbred rednecks. But alas... sorry to say, it's just not so.
 
A good starting place for me is the AMA's position on this issue. (from their website)

"The AMA has instituted a policy to advocate equality for GLBT physicians and patients. Related policy supports the rights of GLBT medical students and residents to form groups and meet on campus, supports legislative and other efforts to allow same- or opposite sex-partner co-adoption, and encourages physician practices, hospitals, medical schools and clinics to broaden all nondiscrimination statements to include sexual orientation, sex or gender identity."


The AMA's message is clear. But it gets lost b/c so many people have been indoctrinated on this issue. They can't see how discriminatory their attitudes are. They can't even see that denying gay and lesbians their rights, like access to health care, the right to adopt a child, etc. is the moral equivalent of denying those rights to Persons of Color or Jews or Irish people or any other minority. Those people have been told that being gay is "different" being a member of another minority. It's not the same, it's a choice, it's a lifestyle, it's a sin, it's a political agenda.

I don't have an agenda. I don't have a lifestyle. I'm just another med student, and I don't want to be told on my own campus that I'm not welcome. I was born this way, just like every other GLBT person. The scientific research shows this. But people don't read it. Science has proven again and again that being gay is a biological process, but science can only go so far.
Some people will never believe the research, but then again, some people think evolution is a theory that has no hard evidence to verify its validity.

I'm sorry if I pissed people off. But it's just not okay to say that a certain minority makes you nauseous. It actually really hurts, makes me feel like crap, and I'm sick of hearing it. I grew up in Alabama, in a Christian household. When I came out at age 21, it was really hard for my parents to accept me, they thought being gay was a horrible sin. But eventually, they realized that it wasn't. They saw that I may be different, but different is okay. That I just fell in love with a man, and not a woman.

A lot of people still don't get that. They feel like its perfectly fine to hold onto their beliefs that gay people are messed up, or sinners or somehow not as good. Sometimes, I'm weary of dealing with this attitude, but I'm not going to give up. I'm going to keep talking to people, trying to educate them - I know that a lot of people have never had a gay friend or a transgender friend. So how would they even know?

They fact is that gay people are everywhere - in your church, in the military, in your school, in your family -Republicans and Democrats, Jews and Muslims and Christians. You have to understand, a lot of gays don't say anything b/c when we do - we get told to go away, we get told to stop being so gay, or loud. We get told "that's sick" or "it makes me nauseous", or that "you have an agenda." Just look at this thread. So a lot of people just never tell anyone, even if they are married, even if they have kids. The judgment and harassment are so intense that they just keep their mouths shut.

But that's changing. I hope.

As I said in the OP, thanks to everyone on SDN who helped make Touro the gay-welcoming, diversity embracing school that it is. Does your med school need a make-over next? :)


Let me start off by saying that I entirely sympathize w/ your plight. I can't really use the word empathy, since I feel as though I could never really have a true understanding of what it's like. I will always be a strong advocate for the equal rights of everyone.

All that being said, you really skirted around what is the real issue at hand. Touro, a PRIVATE and religious affiliated university, removed funding (I'm sure it wasn't much to begin w/) from a club that was in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. They never once said that gays could not meet on their campus. In fact, they stated that they were welcome to continue to meet and support each other. Your quote on the AMA's policy towards GLBT is essentially identical to what Touro was attempting to do. The AMA never guarantees funding or any other sort of financial support. Basically, they just give their approval of GLBT groups.

Like I said, I definitely sympathize with anyone that is being actively discriminated against, but you're turning a minor issue (removal of funding) into some sort of Global attack. I know it's likely difficult, but you're bring in so many other emotions and ideas into a conversation that isn't about those things.
 
congrats touro people! impressive how quickly the decision was changed, compared to a whole year of work with nymc. and keep being brave in the osteo world (and forum) here... it takes a lot to keep standing up and speaking for justice and your own diginity.

I have never seen research that shows w/ statistical significance that being gay is a biological process.

i just attended a one-and-a-half hour lecture on this (as part of developmental psych class.) there is very clear evidence that sexual orientation is a biological process (or, more precisely, a construct rooted causatively in biology) - just look at twin studies to start. but there hasn't been anything conclusive on any specifics, whether genetic or otherwise. it's certainly a very open field, scientifically.

references for twin & genetic linkage studies:
Bailey and Pillard, 1991
Bailey et al., 1993
Bailey et al., 1999
Bailey et al., 2000
Hamer et al., 1993
Hu et al., 1995
Rice et al., 1999
Sanders et al., (unpublished data)

neuroendocrine studies:
LeVay, 1991
Gladue et al., 1984
Money, Schwartz and Lewis, 1984

a PRIVATE and religious affiliated university
the issue isn't whether touro has the legal right to do this - yes, as a private religious school they do. the question is one of moral right and wrong, a separate issue from legality. was it morally right of touro to remove the funding? i have to say i'm not sure anyone in the touro administration actually changed their mind on this point (who knows?)... most likely they saw a political mess on their hands and took the easiest road out they could. but that's how civil rights movements always progress - if you can't use logic or empathy, then you have to try to shame your opponents into doing the (morally, not legally) right thing, and if that doesn't work, just try to use raw political power if you can to push for (moral - again different from legal) the right thing.
 
I love how all the moderate, middle of the road, mainstream people who just can't understand the forceful gay and lesbian agenda are now called radical conservatives.

What opinions do you have that make you not a radical conservative? I haven't seen you express any. Fox News claims to be a moderate news source. They're not. You can claim what you want, but it doesn't make it true.
 
I'm sorry if I pissed people off. But it's just not okay to say that a certain minority makes you nauseous. It actually really hurts, makes me feel like crap, and I'm sick of hearing it. I grew up in Alabama, in a Christian household. When I came out at age 21, it was really hard for my parents to accept me, they thought being gay was a horrible sin. But eventually, they realized that it wasn't. They saw that I may be different, but different is okay. That I just fell in love with a man, and not a woman.

You're right. Old-Mil's post was appalling, and I'm saddened that the moderators here feel like there's nothing wrong with it. It certainly went well beyond discussing the merits of this issue and added nothing to our conversation. If anything, it shows how entrenched homophobia is in our society.
 
What opinions do you have that make you not a radical conservative? I haven't seen you express any. Fox News claims to be a moderate news source. They're not. You can claim what you want, but it doesn't make it true.

I don't have to list every opinion i have on every social-political subject to you to justify anything. Needless to say I have some views which in general fall in line with the democrats (like I hate this freakin war in Iraq and my Father is a fighter pilot in the Air Force) and in some ways I find myself agreeing with the Republicans. I am registered as an independent and am proud that I am not bound by the lies that both major parties surround themselves with. This is the very definition of moderate. You on the other hand appear to fall right in line with the marching orders of the Democrats which I have to say in my opinion are more radical than the average republican. Go ask your pal Nancy Pelosi!
 
I don't have to list every opinion i have on every social-political subject to you to justify anything. Needless to say I have some views which in general fall in line with the democrats (like I hate this freakin war in Iraq and my Father is a fighter pilot in the Air Force) and in some ways I find myself agreeing with the Republicans. I am registered as an independent and am proud that I am not bound by the lies that both major parties surround themselves with. This is the very definition of moderate. You on the other hand appear to fall right in line with the marching orders of the Democrats which I have to say in my opinion are more radical than the average republican. Go ask your pal Nancy Pelosi!

I dont understand why anyone would register as independent. I am truly independent, but I registered Democratic since I am more a Democrat than a Republican, and I want to be able to vote in a primary. Its not like I have to vote Democratic in the elections, it just gives me extra voting power.
 
the issue isn't whether touro has the legal right to do this - yes, as a private religious school they do. the question is one of moral right and wrong, a separate issue from legality. was it morally right of touro to remove the funding?
And that's why there's so much heated debate, obviously. Many do *not* see anything morally wrong with Touro's choice. I say this knowing that many openly gay students at TUCOM-MI involved in the process (as senior members of the student government) stayed far, far away from bth7's campaign.

There are two possibilities here.

- First, we can "shame" (as you said) orthodox Jews into recognizing that their religious beliefs, which translates into an unwillingness to sponsor a gay-specific club, are morally wrong. Frankly, I find this path ridiculous and undesirable. As a follow-up, maybe we'll convince the Catholic Church to change their moral opposition to abortion.

- Second, we can find a compromise in which the moral outrage of both parties are set aside while we advance the principle causes that *everyone* agree should be a real concern: improving support for TUCOM students of all "types", as well as increasing education so that gay patients are treated with professional and compassionate health care.

Here's something important to note: in the eyes of whatever orthodox Jews were originally behind this inititive, they clearly also find homosexual behavior to be morally wrong. But rather than "shaming" the gays on campus into rectifying their behavior, they chose the high road: live and let live. No openly gay student on campus has ever been harassed or discriminated against professionally; the comparison to the KKK in the other thread really shows how perverse and this debate has become.

Absolute moral superiority is a dangerous road to go down. Go down that path, and quickly those who do not agree with you are evil and targets for scorn; look around the world today, and you'll see what I mean. The best thing this country can possibly achieve is not one-ness of opinion and belief... that can only possibly occur through fascism and pervasive use of violent force. The best thing this country can achieve is accomodation of each other's morality.

I eat pork, but I would never insist that I have the "moral right" to eat a hot dog in a Muslim mosque; instead, I believe I have a moral responsibility to respect their beliefs. They have not prevented me from eating pork in my own home, and I certainly will not force them into accept my behavior in theirs.

EDIT: By the way, I should point out that one alternate proposal that the TUCOM administration pushed was the creation of a student group tasked with the responsibility of making sure *all* students feel welcome (preserving/promoting diversity in the student body). I for one think that would've been a great compromise solution.
 
And that's why there's so much heated debate, obviously. Many do *not* see anything morally wrong with Touro's choice. I say this knowing that many openly gay students at TUCOM-MI involved in the process (as senior members of the student government) stayed far, far away from bth7's campaign.

There are two possibilities here.

- First, we can "shame" (as you said) orthodox Jews into recognizing that their religious beliefs, which translates into an unwillingness to sponsor a gay-specific club, are morally wrong. Frankly, I find this path ridiculous and undesirable. As a follow-up, maybe we'll convince the Catholic Church to change their moral opposition to abortion.

- Second, we can find a compromise in which the moral outrage of both parties are set aside while we advance the principle causes that *everyone* agree should be a real concern: improving support for TUCOM students of all "types", as well as increasing education so that gay patients are treated with professional and compassionate health care.

Here's something important to note: in the eyes of whatever orthodox Jews were originally behind this inititive, they clearly also find homosexual behavior to be morally wrong. But rather than "shaming" the gays on campus into rectifying their behavior, they chose the high road: live and let live. No openly gay student on campus has ever been harassed or discriminated against professionally; the comparison to the KKK in the other thread really shows how perverse and this debate has become.

Absolute moral superiority is a dangerous road to go down. Go down that path, and quickly those who do not agree with you are evil and targets for scorn; look around the world today, and you'll see what I mean. The best thing this country can possibly achieve is not one-ness of opinion and belief... that can only possibly occur through fascism and pervasive use of violent force. The best thing this country can achieve is accomodation of each other's morality.

I eat pork, but I would never insist that I have the "moral right" to eat a hot dog in a Muslim mosque; instead, I believe I have a moral responsibility to respect their beliefs. They have not prevented me from eating pork in my own home, and I certainly will not force them into accept my behavior in theirs.

EDIT: By the way, I should point out that one alternate proposal that the TUCOM administration pushed was the creation of a student group tasked with the responsibility of making sure *all* students feel welcome (preserving/promoting diversity in the student body). I for one think that would've been a great compromise solution.

Very well said.
 
Top