Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think the university was wrong on what they wrote/did.
I think there is a predisposition towards being gay, I think most of us know even as kids that some are 'different' in first or second grade. Today some folks go 'both ways', that's not so much homosexuality as choice, from what I know of it.
In any case, seems to me if a counselor of a 'biblical based philosophy' happened to have a person that was homosexual and depressed or some other feelings that weren't on the idea of wanting to 'change' or become 'celebrate', they should be referred to someone else, as not to do harm. If that was acknowledged, seems they should be able to go forward.
It's when someone tries to 'impose their personal beliefs' on one that isn't aligned with the same that it's time to get out of that exchange.
More weakness from you. Perhaps you should formally study some biological sciences before dismissing M.D.s and Ph.D.s as "not scientific enough".
BTW, if psychiatrists and psychologists are "scientific" enough to study behavior, then who is?
Scientist do not ignore data points that disprove their theories. There exist some homosexuals that insist that they made a conscious choice to be homosexual, which is a data point that destroys the consensus you claim holds sway. If they ignore these people they are not scientists.
By the way, I know plenty of people who are PhDs who are not scientific, among them is Glenn Beck. A degree does not make a scientist, something you should know, if you were honest.
Glen Beck doesn't have a bachelor's degree let alone a doctoral degree. An honorary doctorate isn't a degree. You can basically frame it or wipe your ass with it. Either way, it's useless in academia.
I also never claimed that a Ph.D. = scientist.
It does equal "expert in your field". The Ph.D. degree covers everything from English to Organic Chemistry.
In regards to your earlier dismissal of the consensus of 150,000 psychologists that homosexuality is a choice, you can move the goal posts all you want. There really isn't any "bench science" when it comes to behavioral science. That doesn't mean the issue can't be addressed by the experts in the field. There is no definitive test to diagnose schizophrenia. It doesn't mean we can't diagnose it.
So retreat to your anecdotes. It doesn't matter to me. I knew you and your compatriots would never accept the facts of the matter. I have done what I was asked to do: prove that the expert consensus is that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.
But hey, go grap a Ph.D. or an M.D. and start researching in order to refute that.
Your Nobel Prize will await.
Hey, I happen to agree that they don't have it right, but someone in any particular field is going to have a more knowledgable opinion than someone who isn't.
I mean look at some of the people on this board who spout opinions which are clearly invalid. They have no basis in fact , and are nothing except for a person having diarrhea of the keyboard and being unable to admit that they in fact do NOT know what they are talking about. For instance, how can you have a a valid opinion of whether sanctuary cities are legal when you can't even understand the basic premise of Article Six of the US COTUS? Or in the case of this thread, how can one have a valid opinion when one doesn't understand that religious discrimination is the issue here, or maybe understands it, but won't admit it?
I guess what I'm saying is that not all opinions are created equal.
if certain beliefs/actions are part of the groups ethics though why shouldn't she have to follow them to be accredited by the group even if they conflict with her religious belief?
Read the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
okay and where does it say that private groups have to change their guidelines and rules to fit all religions in the world?
We are getting off subject here. My point is the school should not deny her based on her religous beleif.
they aren't. they are denying her based on her views of homosexuals
I think the university was wrong on what they wrote/did.
I think there is a predisposition towards being gay, I think most of us know even as kids that some are 'different' in first or second grade. Today some folks go 'both ways', that's not so much homosexuality as choice, from what I know of it.
In any case, seems to me if a counselor of a 'biblical based philosophy' happened to have a person that was homosexual and depressed or some other feelings that weren't on the idea of wanting to 'change' or become 'celebrate', they should be referred to someone else, as not to do harm. If that was acknowledged, seems they should be able to go forward.
It's when someone tries to 'impose their personal beliefs' on one that isn't aligned with the same that it's time to get out of that exchange.
Absolutely agree.
Much like the judge that recuses him or herself from a case because of a "possible" conflict of interest.
If there is a possibility of a conflict or a problem in regards to a particular student, one would think that as a counselor doing her job, Ms. Keeton would recuse herself from a particular case and seek help from another professional. I am certain that happens all the time.
Immie
if certain beliefs/actions are part of the groups ethics though why shouldn't she have to follow them to be accredited by the group even if they conflict with her religious belief?
Read the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
okay and where does it say that private groups have to change their guidelines and rules to fit all religions in the world?
if certain beliefs/actions are part of the groups ethics though why shouldn't she have to follow them to be accredited by the group even if they conflict with her religious belief?
Explain accepted knowledge? If you do not accept Jesus as the truth you belong to church that does not teach the truth, period. Otherwise a church that teaches a lie.1) its not based on her being christian. christians, like all other religions, are allowed to attend and graduate from the school. on top of that her "christian" vviews don't even fit in with accepted knowledge of many churhc members, especially in regards to being gay not being a choice, etc
2) you do have to believe in the professions code of ethics if you want to work int hat profession. see my previous post about doctors etc
please show me jesus said that homosexuality was curable and that people should work to revert people
I think the university was wrong on what they wrote/did.
I think there is a predisposition towards being gay, I think most of us know even as kids that some are 'different' in first or second grade. Today some folks go 'both ways', that's not so much homosexuality as choice, from what I know of it.
In any case, seems to me if a counselor of a 'biblical based philosophy' happened to have a person that was homosexual and depressed or some other feelings that weren't on the idea of wanting to 'change' or become 'celebrate', they should be referred to someone else, as not to do harm. If that was acknowledged, seems they should be able to go forward.
It's when someone tries to 'impose their personal beliefs' on one that isn't aligned with the same that it's time to get out of that exchange.
Absolutely agree.
Much like the judge that recuses him or herself from a case because of a "possible" conflict of interest.
If there is a possibility of a conflict or a problem in regards to a particular student, one would think that as a counselor doing her job, Ms. Keeton would recuse herself from a particular case and seek help from another professional. I am certain that happens all the time.
Immie
Exactly what I meant. Though I meant celibate, not celebrate. Not pushing drugs.
Absolutely agree.
Much like the judge that recuses him or herself from a case because of a "possible" conflict of interest.
If there is a possibility of a conflict or a problem in regards to a particular student, one would think that as a counselor doing her job, Ms. Keeton would recuse herself from a particular case and seek help from another professional. I am certain that happens all the time.
Immie
Exactly what I meant. Though I meant celibate, not celebrate. Not pushing drugs.
Immie, donca think it is a different matter for a judge to recuse himself from a case in which he knows one of the litigants, compared to announcing pre-emptorially that he is incapable of being fair to any litigant who is gay?
If this chick were a lawyer seeking a public defender position, would you find it acceptable if "her religion made it impossible for her to defend any gay defendant"?
If one has religious views that disable him from certain dealings with members of the public, are we to nonetheless allow him to seek and obtain public employment, as this chick wishes to? Should we hire homophobic firemen who would refuse to try and save the lives of people they thought were gay?
How far do you wish to extend some individual's religious freedom rights into everyone's public life here?
