Recently, Morehouse College was heavily scrutinized and shunned for speaking out and taking action against cross-dressing and promotion of thuggery. The school requested that black men refrain from making a mockery of themselves and race, and be what they have always been: dignified men. The Atlanta-based school's policy prohibits wearing of sagging pants, women’s clothing, clothes with derogatory language, and headwear such as ‘do-rags. However, some folks charge that Morehouse's new dress code is homophobic and stifles civil liberties.
In today’s society, it’s somewhat disturbing that any time a stand is taken for heterosexuality, an immediate outcry, charge or labeling of homophobia from critics echoes throughout society. Certain established moral standards, convictions and values—without compromise—are the essential foundation of a mentally-sound, morally-secure societal—not because man said so, but because natural order designed it that way. However, there is clearly a growing trend to challenge this long-established rule as American convictions and values seem to be slowly eroding away, succumbing to the pressures and demands for “individualism, equal rights,” and acceptance of unnatural trends of more effeminate men and masculine women—man-made “normalcy”.
Now at this juncture in this article, one may be having some trouble with understanding how an African-American—one who knows the story well of struggling for entitlement to individual freedoms—does not side with the Gay community’s fight for self-expression. Although the intension is not to downplay the significance of the gay community’s desire for acceptance—as to do so would be disrespectful to another’s beliefs, homosexuality is not a plight to restore natural order, and thus, cannot be viewed in the same light as the African-American’s struggle for equality. Homosexuality reflects, just as slavery and the heinous mistreatment of African Americans for centuries, the birth of man-made ideologies attempting to take precedence over that which is natural.
Furthermore, I do not condone or condemn one’s domesticating preferences, but I do believe that if one so chooses to engage in a less traditional relationship, that he or she should continue to dress, look, and take on certain mannerisms indigenous to their biological gender or sex. I have often heard people say—when referring to a job, “dress (or look) the part, get the part”; but if the argument by gay individuals is that they’re happy with who they are, why is it necessary to look like or behave like something they’re not? The question then becomes: Who are they working to convince of their truth?
By men acting more feminine, women acting more masculine, and either one dressing in “drag”—which is often done for purposes of entertaining or performing and for comic, dramatic, or satirical effects—to convey “who they are,” one is only making a mockery of themselves and their way of life. And just a word to the wise: Women dressing like men and men dressing like women for purposes of not entertaining (i.e., the way one dresses on a daily basis) is still undoubtedly “drag.”
It’s unfortunate that a dress code should even have to be revised to call for black men to put away their skirts, pumps and purses—or to pull their saggy jeans up. I applaud Morehouse’s crack down on what seems to be misguided expressions of black male “individualism” and overly-exaggerated heterosexuality. Morehouse College has a rich tradition of educating and training African-American men to be solid, upright, unwavering leaders and excellent representations of the promised Black man. By no means am I saying that homosexuals do not own the ability to embody these characteristics, but quite honestly, a man can’t lead other men wearing a dress. Women already have it hard enough being taken seriously wearing pants…why would anyone take more seriously a man wearing lip gloss, carrying a hand bag, modeling a “cute outfit” and switching harder than the lady walking next to him? They would not.
As old school as it may appear to a younger generation, there are some good intentions in using the dress code as a way to build character and professionalism. Morehouse is an institution of learning, preparing students to obtain a degree and secure employment at some of the best, most high-profile companies in the nation. One should also understand that there are likely homosexuals that attend Morehouse College. However, these homosexuals “get it” that Morehouse is a breeding ground for consummate professionals, not inappropriate cross-dressing or promoting one social/personal lifestyle over any other. Morehouse College prepares students for the real work world in terms of intellect (the academic aspect) and generally-accepted practices (dress code and personal behavior).
Morehouse College gets a high-five for addressing this issue, remaining steadfast to their values and convictions and not trading their beliefs for popular opinion or acceptance. Besides, a school like Morehouse is not one that has survived based on popular opinion, but is one that thrives from producing results: professional, self-confident, intellectually-sharp Black males competently capable of competing at any level.
H. Lewis Smith is the founder and president of UVCC, the United Voices for a Common Cause, Inc., and author of Bury that Sucka: A Scandalous Love Affair with the N-Word. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP2U0jmZjec
I'm one of the folks who has criticized Morehouse College for its recent policiy change.
The school requested that black men refrain from making a mockery of themselves and race, and be what they have always been: dignified men.
Unfortunately, the new "Appropriate Attire Policy" doesn't make the men of Morehouse appear "dignified" as much as it makes them appear "ignorant and intolerant."
However, some folks charge that Morehouse's new dress code is homophobic and stifles civil liberties.
That's because it is and it does. Morehouse's vice president fopr Student Services Dr. William Bynum confirmed this rather bluntly, in responding to questions about the new policy. He said...
This statement plainly reveals that one of the motivations of this policy is to target and isolate students at Morehouse who are perceived to be gay. The policy intentionally targets LGBT students and does so by specifically prohibiting a form of expression that the school perceives as being expressive of their sexuality. Describing this policy as "homophobic" and noting that it "stifles civil liberties" seems pretty much dead on to me.
Of course, this isn't suprising, and in fact Morehouse has a history of homophobia and anti-gay violence. In the words of Ford Fellow and doctoral candidate at Harvard Divinity School's Rev. Irene Monroe...
Certain established moral standards, convictions and values—without compromise—are the essential foundation of a mentally-sound, morally-secure societal—not because man said so, but because natural order designed it that way. However, there is clearly a growing trend to challenge this long-established rule as American convictions and values seem to be slowly eroding away, succumbing to the pressures and demands for “individualism, equal rights,” and acceptance of unnatural trends of more effeminate men and masculine women—man-made “normalcy”.
And this is a perfect example of why this policy, and the undelying attitudes which spawned it, are ignorant. It is certainly ignorant to argue against the presence of homsexual people on the basis of "natural order," since homosexuality is in fact common throughout the animal kingdom. Further, the idea that homosexuality isn't "normal" franly flies in the face of the very standards of academic excellence that Morehouse tries to promote on its campus. According to the American Psychological Association...
Now at this juncture in this article, one may be having some trouble with understanding how an African-American—one who knows the story well of struggling for entitlement to individual freedoms—does not side with the Gay community’s fight for self-expression. Although the intension is not to downplay the significance of the gay community’s desire for acceptance—as to do so would be disrespectful to another’s beliefs, homosexuality is not a plight to restore natural order, and thus, cannot be viewed in the same light as the African-American’s struggle for equality. Homosexuality reflects, just as slavery and the heinous mistreatment of African Americans for centuries, the birth of man-made ideologies attempting to take precedence over that which is natural.
Unfortunately, you lost any credibility you might have claimed regarding not being "disrespectful to another’s beliefs" when you referred to the gender-expression of students affected by this policy as a "mockery." And, since your "natural order" argument is completely without rational basis in what we acutally see in nature, I do indeed find it mind-boggling that a member of an oppressed minority would turn so viciously on another by promulgating this kind of blatant discrimination. And, I wouldn't be the only one to find your position perplexing. Take the words of Coretta Scott King, for example...
Furthermore, I do not condone or condemn one’s domesticating preferences, but I do believe that if one so chooses to engage in a less traditional relationship, that he or she should continue to dress, look, and take on certain mannerisms indigenous to their biological gender or sex. I have often heard people say—when referring to a job, “dress (or look) the part, get the part”; but if the argument by gay individuals is that they’re happy with who they are, why is it necessary to look like or behave like something they’re not? The question then becomes: Who are they working to convince of their truth?
There's a major flaw in your argument, which is of course the fact there's no such thing as a particular mode of dress that is "indigenous" to people's biological gender or sex. Clothing styles are cultural and vary widely, and in a place like the United States, that means that not everyone is going to dress the same way. Similar arguments have been made by other bigots, who have in the past denied opportunties to young black men who chose to embrace their heritage and identity by dressing in the traditional dashiki. I could understand if Morehouse's goal was to teach its students that presenting a clean and kempt appearance is a part of being an effective leader. But to target students with the expressed purpose of supressing their identities is something else...something sinister and frankly hypocritical on a campus that claims to be working...
By men acting more feminine, women acting more masculine, and either one dressing in “drag”—which is often done for purposes of entertaining or performing and for comic, dramatic, or satirical effects—to convey “who they are,” one is only making a mockery of themselves and their way of life. And just a word to the wise: Women dressing like men and men dressing like women for purposes of not entertaining (i.e., the way one dresses on a daily basis) is still undoubtedly “drag.”
Statements like this only serve to exacerbate the image of ignorant intolerance which your position projects. It bespeaks an almost total lack of understanding of the challenges that transgendered people encounter in their daily lives. In fact, it serves once again as a perfect example of the bigotry that is born in the small minded idea that everyone should look at act "just like me."
It’s unfortunate that a dress code should even have to be revised to call for black men to put away their skirts, pumps and purses—or to pull their saggy jeans up.
It makes me wonder at how shallow are the men of Morehouse that they would so harshly judge their fellow men based on the most superficial of criteria, while totally ignorning the "the content of their character" (thank you, Dr. King). One of the little facts of history that people tend to (conveniently) forget is the life and work alongside Dr. King of Bayard Rustin, an openly gay man and activist for gay rights. Rustin was King's personal advisor and instructor on Ghandian techniques for non-violent resistance, and assisted Dr. King in organizing the Montgomery public transport boycotts. Even after Strom Thurmond produced a photograph of Dr. King and Rustin taling together while Dr. King was bathing (and tried to imply a sexual relationship between them), King continued to support his openly gay friend and colleague. Dr. King often found himself at odds with some of the more fanatical wings of his christian supporters, but he never gave in to their bigotry, and Rustin remained a prominent figure thoughout the history of the movement, even after Dr. King's murder. It is a shame that Morehouse College has decided to so blatantly disrespect the legacy of one of its most famous and influential alumni.
Morehouse College has a rich tradition of educating and training African-American men to be solid, upright, unwavering leaders and excellent representations of the promised Black man. By no means am I saying that homosexuals do not own the ability to embody these characteristics, but quite honestly, a man can’t lead other men wearing a dress.
Have you ever heard of We'wha, a leader of the Native American Zuni Tribe, who represented her people as an ambassador to the United States government from 1885-1886?
We'wha was biologically male, but dressed as a woman (in the two-spirit tradition of her Tribe).
Women already have it hard enough being taken seriously wearing pants…why would anyone take more seriously a man wearing lip gloss, carrying a hand bag, modeling a “cute outfit” and switching harder than the lady walking next to him? They would not.
I would guess that those who are so misogynistic as to not take a woman seriously because she wears pants, is probably a lost cause. I would certainly not be suprised is someone that shallow also had a hard time taking a transgendered person seriously. Its funny how someone who is as opposed to stereotyping as you claim to be (according to your blogs, anyway...see here, here and here), can be so intellectually paralyzed by them. Perhaps you should listen to your own advice...
As old school as it may appear to a younger generation, there are some good intentions in using the dress code as a way to build character and professionalism.
Trying to force gay people to conform to heteronormative expectations about how they should dress and act builds intolerance, not character. And if its professionalism you're looking for, then you might want to consider the fact that LGBT people exist in the work-place, too, and the professional thing to do is to judge the based on their competence, rather than imposing your personal biases on them, and making assumptions about their character just because they're not like you.
Morehouse is an institution of learning, preparing students to obtain a degree and secure employment at some of the best, most high-profile companies in the nation. One should also understand that there are likely homosexuals that attend Morehouse College. However, these homosexuals “get it” that Morehouse is a breeding ground for consummate professionals, not inappropriate cross-dressing or promoting one social/personal lifestyle over any other. Morehouse College prepares students for the real work world in terms of intellect (the academic aspect) and generally-accepted practices (dress code and personal behavior).
If preparing students to excel in the most high-profile companies in the nation was REALLY Morehouse's goal, then it would be wise of its leaders to recognize the fact that more than half of the Fortune 100 have agressive protections for transgendered persons in the work-place, and more than 90% protect their employees from sexual orientation discrimination as well (LINK). In the REAL "real world," if you get a job with any major employer, there a better than even chance that you will have openly LGBT associates and clients, and if you want to be sucessful you will have to learn to treat them with respect.
Besides, a school like Morehouse is not one that has survived based on popular opinion, but is one that thrives from producing results: professional, self-confident, intellectually-sharp Black males competently capable of competing at any level.
If the current policy is any indication, Morehouse has utterly failed.
In the most sucessful modern companies, professional standards require respect for the diversity of LGBT people.
Morehouse = FAIL!
Marginalizing an entire identity group and suppressing their identity-based expressions builds self-loathing, not self-confidence.
Morehouse = FAIL!
Intellectually-sharp black males know better than to fall prey to anti-intellectual and poorly informed stereotypes about gay men and transgendered persons.
Morehouse = FAIL!
Bigotry doesn't make you more competitive, and in this day and age is in fact a serious obstacle to sucess in a society that has increasingly begun to realize that LGBT people are PEOPLE first, and as such deserve the same respect as everyone else.
Morehouse = FAIL!
And finally, let me end with one more quote from the eloquent Mrs. Coretta Scott King...
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
There appears to be a tendency for LGBT people to be somewhat overly sensitive and melodramatic when you encounter opinions inconsistent with your very own. Politiicians and any other public figures are held to public scorn by a well orchestrated LGBT organization if they do not conform to your uncompromising and unyielding demands to trample over heterosexual values and convictions.
Certainly LGBT people are entitled to equal representation and protection of the law as anyone and should not be looked upon as second class citizens and treated indiscriminately. Expecting men to dress as men and not as a woman is not a form of discrimination, though it is certainly to your benefit and advantage if you can get away with such a claim.
There is an old saying you either "Stand for something, or fall for anything". And it appears to be the intent of the Gay community to [force] a lifestyle upon an unsuspecting community whether they want it or not. I must say that you do have an excellent strategy in place to smear whoever publicly dares to stand up against your advancing ideologies to displace established customs and replace them with your very own.
...unless you actually address through counter-point the substative issues presented by your opponent, which of course you failed to do. I will however respond to what you did say, such as it is...
There appears to be a tendency for LGBT people to be somewhat overly sensitive and melodramatic when you encounter opinions inconsistent with your very own. Politiicians and any other public figures are held to public scorn by a well orchestrated LGBT organization if they do not conform to your uncompromising and unyielding demands to trample over heterosexual values and convictions.
I can only respond by asking you what level of discrimination would YOU be willing to quietly accept?
Certainly LGBT people are entitled to equal representation and protection of the law as anyone and should not be looked upon as second class citizens and treated indiscriminately.
I do not believe that this statement is sincere, as it completely contradicts everything that you have said about LGBT people in both this and other blogs that you have written. I also have to point out that if you DO truly believe this, then you should be opposing this dress code, since the officials of Morehouse have publically admitted that one of the purposes of this code was to target students that were "living a gay lifestyle." One could hardly ask for a more blatant admission of a discriminatory purpose.
Expecting men to dress as men and not as a woman is not a form of discrimination, though it is certainly to your benefit and advantage if you can get away with such a claim.
Aside from the intellectually vacant idea that there is an objective standard for the way that men and women should dress, I would suggest that your position is poorly informed. (Did you attend Morehouse?) In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) that sex-stereotyping (and specifically including dress codes that require men and women to dress more masulinely or femininely) is discrimination as defined in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Similarly, our courts have ruled that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex-stereotyping as a form of illegal discrimination. Even though Morehouse College is a private institution, it does accept Title IX funding, and is subject to these laws. It is possible that Morehouse could potentially claim exemption under the provisions for single-sex programs, but that wouldn't mean that the dress code isn't discriminatory by defintion.
There is an old saying you either "Stand for something, or fall for anything".
I wonder if when British journalist Alex Hamilton said this, he was talking about standing for mysogyny, homophobia and other forms of discrimination. I was unsuccessful in my search for a transcript of the "Born Old" radio broadcast in which he said this, but I really doubt that it was being used as you suggest.
And it appears to be the intent of the Gay community to [force] a lifestyle upon an unsuspecting community whether they want it or not.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's some pretty remarkable bullshit. It is a common refuge of bigots to claim that they are being "forced" to tolerate the people against whom they have decided to discriminate. And as a black man, you should be well aware of that. If a student decides to express his identity through by wearing a dress, he's not forcing his lifestyle on you. In order for that claim to be true, he would have to attempt to force you to wear a dress also. Rather, it is the admistrators of Morehouse who are attempting to force a "lifestyle"--or more specifically a particular style of gender expression--on the student.
I must say that you do have an excellent strategy in place to smear whoever publicly dares to stand up against your advancing ideologies to displace established customs and replace them with your very own.
Sometimes, the truth hurts. And call me crazy, but I don't think the ideas of respectful tolerance and full equality for all citizens is a radical concept, and certainly shouldn't be at an institution like Morehouse that has such a deeply connected history to movement for Civil Rights.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
there is no gray area here. One's values and convictions are going to be either along the lines of homosexuality or heterosexuality (heteronormativity). Clearly what is at stake is the salient question...which way is the pendulum going to swing? I submit to you that the Gay community is working very hard at having that pendulum swing in their direction.
Case in point you took my comment: "Certainly LGBT people are entitled to equal representation and protection of the law as anyone and should not be looked upon as second class citizens and treated indiscriminately." to try and validate your reasoning of being discriminated against by labeling me as being insincere.
You have conveniently overlooked the fact that Morehouse’s dress code doesn’t just apply to gays but to heterosexuals who wear saggin pants and headwear such as do- rags.
There is a simple solution with Morehouse college, if a person has a problem with Morehouse’s dress code, then simply attend college elsewhere. The student doesn’t dictate what the dress code should be. And to answer your question no I did not attend Morehouse College but I do salute their effort to stand by their institutionalized values and convictions. I seriously doubt if you will allow someone to come into your home and dictate terms to you as to how things are going to be. You are not going to kowtow to them and submissively allow them to have their way, they either respect your wishes or they must leave.
Standards are going to have to be in place and I reiterate that the Gay community is working very hard at replacing heterosexual standards with those of homosexuality. One tactic used by said community is to label anyone who isn’t in compliance with their way of thinking as being homophobic.
Homophobia is defined as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals", or individuals perceived to be homosexual; it is also defined as "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality", "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men", as well as "behavior based on such a feeling". Expecting someone to adhere to a particular dress code isn’t being homophobic as you would suggest, but an argument can be made that it is heteronormative.
Heteronormativity is a concept that reveals the expectations, demands, and constraints produced when heterosexuality is taken as normative within a society.
Heteronormativity is a term for a set of lifestyle norms which indicate or imply that (1.) people fall into only one of two distinct and complementary sexes ( male and female) with each having certain natural roles in life, and that (2.) heterosexuality is the only normal sexual orientation, thus making sexual and marital relations appropriate only between members of the opposite sex. Consequently, a heteronormative view is one that promotes alignment of biological sex, gender identity, and gender roles to the gender binary.
Those who identify and criticize heteronormativity say that it distorts discourse by stigmatizing and marginalizing some forms of sexuality and gender, and makes certain types of self-expression more difficult when that expression violates the norm. Non-heterosexual and gender-variant people who transgress heteronormativity include homosexual, bisexual, asexual, intersex and transgender people in addition to people who are married to or form pair-bonds with more than one partner such as polygamists or polyamorists.
For the record, I say different strokes for different folks, what someone does with there life is their business; but when they expect me to conform and accept a particular lifestyle then it does become my business. I have no problem with the Gay communities fight for equality and justice but I am concern that there is more going on here than what meets the eye. A set of values and standards has to be in place…[at present] such values and standards are heterosexual.
The cognitive dissonance in your postion is really rather amazing.
One's values and convictions are going to be either along the lines of homosexuality or heterosexuality (heteronormativity).
The obvious problem with this statement is that neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality are "values." They are sexual orientations which quite literally all major scientific, medical and psychological sources agree are perfectly natural and normal expressions of human sexuality. To presume otherwise is a belief based in (usually religous) bias.
Case in point you took my comment: "Certainly LGBT people are entitled to equal representation and protection of the law as anyone and should not be looked upon as second class citizens and treated indiscriminately." to try and validate your reasoning of being discriminated against by labeling me as being insincere.
Actually, I based on the fact that this isn't the first blog in which you have taken the position that gay and lesbian people are "unnatural" and the fact that you have in the past blogged very specifically against the equal treatment of LGBT people. And I quote...
So, please don't try to play the "ooohhh, you misunderstood me" card. You've made your postion against the full equality for LGBT people very clear.
You have conveniently overlooked the fact that Morehouse’s dress code doesn’t just apply to gays but to heterosexuals who wear saggin pants and headwear such as do- rags.
I'm not familiar enough with the culture and identity-expression of do-rag wearers to comment intelligently on whether or not limitng that particular form of dress represents an invidious discrimination. Unfortunatelty (for your position) we have a clear admission from the officials of Morehouse that the section of the dress code against wearing dresses was specifically targeted at 5 students whom the administration perceives to be "too gay." Here's the quote for you again...
There is a simple solution with Morehouse college, if a person has a problem with Morehouse’s dress code, then simply attend college elsewhere.
What a great idea! Should we also tell the gay students of Morehouse to get their own water fountains? Should they get their own restaurants and hotel? Maybe we can segregate them to the backs of busses, too!
The student doesn’t dictate what the dress code should be.
True, but students don't shed their right to free speech just because their schools don't want them to speak out, and our Courts have ruled that schools and businesses can't just arbitrarily impose dress codes that infringe upon that right, especially when it comes to transgendered persons who cross-dress as one of the primary expressions of their identity.
And to answer your question no I did not attend Morehouse College but I do salute their effort to stand by their institutionalized values and convictions.
What values would those be, exactly? Bigotry? Invidious Discrimination? Homophobia? Unequal Treatment? Those are strange values to "stand by" in my opinion.
I seriously doubt if you will allow someone to come into your home and dictate terms to you as to how things are going to be. You are not going to kowtow to them and submissively allow them to have their way, they either respect your wishes or they must leave.
True enough...but Morehouse isn't a home. Morehouse is an private educational institution that accepts public Title IX funding and which is thus subject to the laws and defintions which prohibit discriminatory policies of this sort.
Standards are going to have to be in place and I reiterate that the Gay community is working very hard at replacing heterosexual standards with those of homosexuality. One tactic used by said community is to label anyone who isn’t in compliance with their way of thinking as being homophobic.
When you continuously refer to LGBT people and their lives as "not natural," and specifically advocate for discriminations that are targetted at them, it becomes rather difficult to make the case that you aren't homophobic.
Expecting someone to adhere to a particular dress code isn’t being homophobic as you would suggest, but an argument can be made that it is heteronormative.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, and so do I. If Morehouse had no intention of specifically supressing the expression of its gay student's identity, I might buy this argument. But we have a clear admission that this is not the case, and that the discrimination against the LGBT students is intentional.
Heteronormativity is a term for a set of lifestyle norms which indicate or imply that (1.) people fall into only one of two distinct and complementary sexes ( male and female) with each having certain natural roles in life, and that (2.) heterosexuality is the only normal sexual orientation, thus making sexual and marital relations appropriate only between members of the opposite sex. Consequently, a heteronormative view is one that promotes alignment of biological sex, gender identity, and gender roles to the gender binary.
Wow...that's some ignornat shit, my friend. I mean, seriously..."gender binary?" Where DID you go to school? You really need to educate yourself on this topic, if you plan to engage in debates relating to it. Your information is more than 40 years out-of-date.
For the record, I say different strokes for different folks, what someone does with there life is their business; but when they expect me to conform and accept a particular lifestyle then it does become my business.
You do know that you live in the United States of America, right? That other citizens need neither your permission nor your approval in order to access the freedoms that are guaranteed to us all?
I have no problem with the Gay communities fight for equality and justice
Again, I do not believe this statement to be sincere, and your current and previous blogs demonstrate that contradiction quite clearly.
A set of values and standards has to be in place…[at present] such values and standards are heterosexual.
Here's another Supreme Court quote for you...
Be careful what you wish for, my friend. The freedoms YOU enjoy as a black man are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and when you attempt to deny those same freedoms to others, you weaken your own.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
is an exercise of absolute power to take over the mindset of the general population. What is the real driving force behind the LGBT civil rights movement?
The obvious problem with this statement is that neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality are "values." They are sexual orientations...
In your misguided attempts to miscontrue one's thoughts you once again fall short of comprehending the nature of my comment, though you quoted me correctly your interpretation of the quote is way off base. I didn't say that heterosexuality nor homosexuality are "values" what I said was: "One's values and convictions are going to be either [along the lines of] homosexuality or heterosexuality (heteronormativity)."
There is a significant difference as to what you are trying to imply. My thinking, convictions and values are along the lines of heterosexuality and yours obviously are along the lines of homosexuality.
The Smoking Gun: Proposition 8 thank you for bringing that up I'll refer back to it momentarily.
What a great idea! Should we also tell the gay students of Morehouse to get their own water fountains? Should they get their own restaurants and hotel? Maybe we can segregate them to the backs of busses, too!
Puh-leeze spare me the histrionics and melodramatics. A tactic that is so commonly used by LGBT to distort and muddy the waters to get your point across when confronted with an opposing view. All colleges have there traditional values not just Morehouse. Students leave universities every day for some reason or other, if the students at Morehouse don't like how the school is ran, like i said before, they can always leave.
The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you, and so do I. If Morehouse had no intention of specifically supressing the expression of its gay student's identity, I might buy this argument. But we have a clear admission that this is not the case, and that the discrimination against the LGBT students is intentional
Then based upon what you say the students involved need to take their concerns to court, surely if the law is being broken by Morehouse and the students are being illegally discriminated against like you say then they should have themselves an open and shut case...shouldn't they?
You do know that you live in the United States of America, right? That other citizens need neither your permission nor your approval in order to access the freedoms that are guaranteed to us all?
Well we all know about proposition 8...don't we? Seems like my permission and approval is needed after all. Since you were kind enough to make reference to my previous article The Smoking Gun: Proposition 8 accusing me of not wanting equal rights for LGBT I'll take the liberty at this time to expound upon my concerns.
I'm deeply concerned about LGBT's march towards repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. Your uncompromising attitude and behavior, in my opinion, smacks of totalitarianism and social control. The strategies and tactics used by the Gay community is to pooh pooh any opposing views and try to crucify anyone who stands up for heterosexual beliefs. You seem to be on a search and destroy mission, character and political assassination of anyone who dares to be supportive of heterosexual views...it's either be 100% dedicated to LGBT's agenda or suffer the consequences.
I'm genuinely concerned about the LGBT attempts and desires to want to teach elementary school kids at the 2nd grade level about gay marriage. Why is that necessary?
I'm concerned that same-sex marriage will somehow be the catalyst for the decline of society. If the LGBT have their way, you will not rest until our societal is based upon homosexual customs, beliefs, values and tradition as opposed to heterosexuality. If so? What happens to procreation?
In my opinion there is more going on here than just a fight for LGBT civil rights...much more.
What is the real driving force behind the LGBT civil rights movement?
The driving force for the movement, of course, is the recognition of full equality for LGBT people, and for that matter ALL people.
There is a significant difference as to what you are trying to imply. My thinking, convictions and values are along the lines of heterosexuality and yours obviously are along the lines of homosexuality.
This makes no sense. Values have nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the person who holds them. A gay person may be conservative or liberal, compassionate or cruel, generous or greedy, and so forth...just like a straight person. Sexual orientation is conglomeration of biological and psychological traits. Terms like "heterosexual values" have no real meaning, and are akin to misapprobations such as "red-headed values" or "left-handed values."
Puh-leeze spare me the histrionics and melodramatics. A tactic that is so commonly used by LGBT to distort and muddy the waters to get your point across when confronted with an opposing view.
You may not like the comparison, but I maintain (with the support of the late Dr. and Mrs. Martin Luther King) that it is a valid one. Your desire to segregate and marginalize LGBT people is no different than the intolerance and bigotry which framed the opposition to the black civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's.
All colleges have there traditional values not just Morehouse.
Just because an expression of discrimination is traditional, doesn't make it right. If it did, we would still have slaves. Appeals to tradition are nothing more than a convenient evasion behind which hidebound minds attempt to hide from having to defend their positions in a substantive manner.
Students leave universities every day for some reason or other, if the students at Morehouse don't like how the school is ran, like i said before, they can always leave.
There is a difference between leaving a university "for some reason or other," and being run out of a university after being subjected to discriminatory, and I maintain unlawful treatment.
Then based upon what you say the students involved need to take their concerns to court, surely if the law is being broken by Morehouse and the students are being illegally discriminated against like you say then they should have themselves an open and shut case...shouldn't they?
I think we're still a bit early in the controversy for lawsuits, and that there is still an opportunity for the school to settle this issue and thus avoid the need for litigation. Of course, the necessary component there is for one of the targetted students to decided to sure, but with the open admission of a discriminatory motivation by Morehouse's V.P. of Student Services, I think that the students being targetted by this policy have a very good case if they decide to go that route.
Well we all know about proposition 8...don't we? Seems like my permission and approval is needed after all. Since you were kind enough to make reference to my previous article The Smoking Gun: Proposition 8 accusing me of not wanting equal rights for LGBT I'll take the liberty at this time to expound upon my concerns.
Actually, that question remains to be answered. The case of Perry v Schwarzenegger challenging the Constitutionality of Proposition 8 is still pending trail in federal court.
I'm deeply concerned about LGBT's march towards repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. Your uncompromising attitude and behavior, in my opinion, smacks of totalitarianism and social control.
You seriously expect anyone to buy this crap, can you? YOU are the one advocating a control over other people's lives, not me (or the LGBT movement). I am uncompromising, because equality books no compromise.
The strategies and tactics used by the Gay community is to pooh pooh any opposing views and try to crucify anyone who stands up for heterosexual beliefs. You seem to be on a search and destroy mission, character and political assassination of anyone who dares to be supportive of heterosexual views...it's either be 100% dedicated to LGBT's agenda or suffer the consequences.
Again, there are no such things as "heterosexual beliefs." One's sexuality has nothing to do with what you believe. And I AM on a search and destroy, missing. I search out bigots and destroy their attempt to discriminate against my family and friends. If you really wanted to stand up for your own beliefs, then you should simply embody those beliefs in demonstration to those around you. But the policy at Morehouse goes beyond this. Instead, it reaches out and targets a specific group of students and intentionally supresses their identity in an attempt to force them to embody beliefs that they do not share.
I'm genuinely concerned about the LGBT attempts and desires to want to teach elementary school kids at the 2nd grade level about gay marriage. Why is that necessary?
A better question would be "why do you want your children to be ignornant of the world around them?" It would be different if subject of diverse families never came up in elementary school, but it is already common for such discussions to be broached in our schools. As such, why WOULDN'T one include families with gay parents in those discussions? Why should a teacher be expected to withold knowledge about the families of some students, but not others?
I'm concerned that same-sex marriage will somehow be the catalyst for the decline of society. If the LGBT have their way, you will not rest until our societal is based upon homosexual customs, beliefs, values and tradition as opposed to heterosexuality. If so? What happens to procreation?
This argument is without rational basis. Same-sex marriage is really nothing new. There are numerous examples of the relationships of same-sex couples being recognized as "marriage" in a great many historical--and in a growing number of modern--societies. For example, from the African continent we know of the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Nuer, the Lovedu, the Zulu, the Sotho, the Kikuyu, the Nandi and the Azande peoples (just to name a few of the more well-known), all of whom have traditionally recognized same-sex marriages since ancient times. Closer to home, there are similar marriage arrangements that are historically associated with a number of Native American tribal groups, including the Mohave, the Lakota and the Zuni peoples. These Native American examples are particularly interesting, due to the wealth of sociological literature from the colonial era regarding the study of the "berdache." More examples include the Safavidi Dynasty (of the Middle-East), the Melaneians and Papua New Guineans (in the South Pacific), the people of the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties (historical China), and the Samurai who practiced Shudo (in Japan). These cultures also demonstred a wide-spread accepted same-sex marriages in their midst. And let's not forget the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The Spartans (for example) practiced same-sex military marriages, and the Emporer Nero publically entered into a marriage arrangement with his male lover, Sporus (and many other similar relationships are well documented in the historical records of the Empire). The simple fact is that the idea of accepting same-sex couples is neither a recent nor a particularly unusual societal affectation. On the contrary, when you step away from the always ego-centric myopia of Western judaeo-christianity and islam---and the often quite imaginary versions of redacted history that they tend to espouse--the rabid opposition same-sex couples and their relationships that we see today seems more than a little odd.
In a more modern context, there are literally dozens of countries that recognize some form of same-sex marriage or civil partnership. Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United States, Aruba, Israel, the Dutch Antilles, Andorra, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Wallis and Futuna, Argentina, Australia, Mexico and Venezuela all have at least limited recognition of same-sex unions, and NONE of these countries have experienced any particular negative consequence to their respective societies as a result of these recognitions.
If so? What happens to procreation?
Nothing happens to procreation. DUH! Gay people already exist, and have existed as best we can tell in a relatively stable population throughout all of recorded history, during which the human population of the world has steadily increased. This is true both in cultures that have embraced LGBT people and recognized their marriages, as well as in those that have not. Your getting out of the way or our marriages doesn't make us any more gay, or straight people any less straight. And, it is a complete red herring to link marriage to procreation in the U.S., anyway, since there is nothing in our jurisprudence that requires married couples to procreate, or even that they be able to procreate, and in fact we regularly allow couples who are INCAPABLE of procreating to marry. The very idea that gay marriage will destroy procreation is just silly.
In my opinion there is more going on here than just a fight for LGBT civil rights...much more.
Unfortunately, your opinion seems to lack any rational basis, and is rather built on nothing more than myth and bias.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
and thought reform refers to a broad range of psychological tactics thought to subvert an individual’s control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decision making.
The driving force for the movement, of course, is the recognition of full equality for LGBT people, and for that matter ALL people.
Homophobia is defined as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals", or individuals perceived to be homosexual; it is also defined as "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality", "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men", as well as "behavior based on such a feeling".
I fail to see how my or anyone else's concern for the LGBT's desires to want to teach "gay awareness" to 2nd grade school kids as being homophobic. Nor do I see how based on the above definition of homophobia how one's concern for children being raised in a same sex relationship environment makes them homophobic. The question has to be asked where is all of this leading?
The push for LGBT' s civil rights is commendable and encouraged, however the strong arm tactics and strategies being used raises some very serious questions.
The method employed by LGBT can best be described as coercive persuasion in an endeavor to transform a heterosexual society into a homosexual social order. There is clearly an establish pattern being employed.
The Gay rights movement is tremendously resourceful, well organized and very powerful. Its tentacles reaches deep into the political spectrum implanting fear into the hearts and minds of all politicians and public figures. The only obstacle that stands in its way of a societal takeover would be that of the ecclesiastical communities.
The strong will survive and the weak will perish and there is nothing weak about the LGBT machinery, whereas, on the other hand the heterosexual society has become mentally lethargic and complacent making us an easy prey for an eventual takeover and transformation to a predominately homosexual way of life.
There will be no further responses from me on this matter simply because I have revealed all that needed to be disclosed.
There will be no further responses from me on this matter simply because I have revealed all that needed to be disclosed.
So you're ending your argument the same way you've been making it: with what can best be described as paranoid ravings and conspiracy theories worthy of an email that will be forwarded so often it takes longer to scroll through the arrows and the previous recipients than it does to read the actual content.
You're not also one of those people who think President Obama wasn't born a US citizen, and was raised to be Muslim by his Atheist mother, are you?
I guess not all Kool-Aid is Barry-flavored.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Coercive persuasion...and thought reform refers to a broad range of psychological tactics thought to subvert an individual’s control of his or her own thinking, behavior, emotions, or decision making.
Bullshit. So far, the only ones using "coercive" tactics related to this issue are the administrators of Morehouse College, who have threatened to punish any students who do not conform to their administration's view of "appropriate" gender-identity expression. I have called the administrators of Morehouse College (and you) out for their hypocrisy and bigotry. Speaking the plain truth is only "coercive" in that it makes the roaches of intolerance uncomfortable to have their activities scrutinized in the light.
I fail to see how my or anyone else's concern for the LGBT's desires to want to teach "gay awareness" to 2nd grade school kids as being homophobic. Nor do I see how based on the above definition of homophobia how one's concern for children being raised in a same sex relationship environment makes them homophobic. The question has to be asked where is all of this leading?
You fail to see because you refuse to look very hard. If you felt that ANY discussion of diverse families was wrong for elementary students, then perhaps I could accept your failue to see as nothing more than honest confusion. If however your objection is as you have presented ONLY to the discussion of GAY families, then that objection is plainly hypocritical and homophobic. As for your "concern for children being raised in a same sex relationship environment," it is (like almost everything that you have said in this discussion) a baseless fear. Perhaps the link below can assist you in educating yourself, and alleviating your irrational fears.
The push for LGBT' s civil rights is commendable and encouraged, however the strong arm tactics and strategies being used raises some very serious questions.
I hate to keep re-using the same quotes, but as the late Dr. King once said...
I also think it takes a lot of gall for you to "[commend and encourage] the push for LGBT' s civil rights" when you have proved youself so willing to carve out exceptions to those rights whenever their expression makes you uncomfortable. Coupled with your perpetuation of ignorant myths about LGBT people, the hypocrisy of your statement is staggering.
And of course, I reject the notion that you (or Morehouse) has been "strong armed" to this point. This discussion has only forced ONE thing on you, and that is a confrontation with the TRUTH that Morehouse has instistuted a discriminatory policy which they admit was designed to target the gender expression of five of their students.
The Gay rights movement is tremendously resourceful, well organized and very powerful. Its tentacles reaches deep into the political spectrum implanting fear into the hearts and minds of all politicians and public figures. The only obstacle that stands in its way of a societal takeover would be that of the ecclesiastical communities.
This sentiment of course completely contradicts your previous assertion that, "the push for LGBT' s civil rights is commendable and encouraged," and reveals the double-speaking disingenuity of your positons. And, I'm not quite sure how you think that a small minority of the population could "take over" an entire society, but your mention of "ecclesiastical communities" is revealing. To whit, let me quote the Father of our Consitution, James Madison...
Using religion as an excuse discriminate is an old and tired tactic. As a former baptist seminary and as a school dedicated to the education of young African-American men, one would expect that Morehouse College would know better.*
* For those who don't know, one of the founding priciples of the Southern Baptist Convention was a pronouced support for the practice of slavery, for which the SBC finally acknowledged and apologized for in 1995 (LINK).
The strong will survive and the weak will perish and there is nothing weak about the LGBT machinery, whereas, on the other hand the heterosexual society has become mentally lethargic and complacent making us an easy prey for an eventual takeover and transformation to a predominately homosexual way of life.
This makes absolutely no sense, and after being presented with the facts about the stability of LGBT populations in numerous cultures, regardless of whether those cultures have been supportive or oppositional, one can only gasp and your willing clinging to this ignorant myth. Despite what you seem to imply, people don't stop being heterosexual just because a gay person stands up for his or her rights. Part of your problem is that you see "heterosexual society" and "homosexual society" as two different things. This is a fallacy. In the United States ALL of our citizens belong to the SAME society...gay, straight, black, white, brown, man, woman...its all the same thing and we need to learn how to get along with one another, and to respect each other's rights. To quote the late Dr. King one more time...
There will be no further responses from me on this matter simply because I have revealed all that needed to be disclosed.
Perhaps we have been reading different threads, but as I see it you have yet to provide us with even ONE substative point of rebuttal to support your orignial assetions. Simply restating the same myths over and over reveals ONLY that bigotry is stubborn. In any case, you may quite the field whenever you wish, and we will accept your concession accordingly.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
Erm... what society are you living in? I work in a hospital, and I can tell you that it is quite out of the norm for women in the hospital to wear skirts. And yet, I'm pretty sure all the health professionals in the hospital are taken seriously.
There is absolutely no reason a woman would not be taken seriously while wearing pants, unless the person judging her is of the mind that women still belong in the home.
Personally, I like wearing skirts because they make me feel more feminine... prettier. That doesn't mean that I can't act just as professional in pants (even pink pants, like I wore today) as I can in a skirt.
Frankly, your entire blog reeks of discrimination. I'm not against dress codes... if an all-girls private school requires that all the girls where skirts and blouses, then that's their perogative. If an all-men's school (of which there are very few left) wants their students to wear slacks, blouses, and a tie... fine. If a military school expects students to wear BDU's, ACU's, dress blues, or dress greens, then fine.
But it doesn't seem to me like Morehouse is of the same mind as those institutions. And your defense of their new dress code by saying things like 'every time someone takes a stand for heterosexuality...' is blatantly discriminating.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!