College conservatives branded 'hate group' for refusing LGBT sensitivity training

[CarmelJerome]

foxnews.com/us/2015/03/09/college-conservatives-branded-hate-group-for-refusing-lgbt-sensitivity-training/?intcmp

A conservative student group at a Washington, DC, college has been branded a “hate group” and fears it could lose its funding for refusing to take part in gay, lesbian and transgender-oriented sensitivity training…

Allied in Pride, a campus LGBT group, told The College Fix Young America’s Foundation is guilty of “intolerance and a pattern of hate” for inviting former Sen. Rick Santorum, a conservative Republican, to speak. The group also stated the conservative club’s funding should be revoked.

A decade before I was born, William F. Buckley was targeted.as.a.danger for education for suggesting that alumni of Ivy League schools might withhold funding until they stopped teaching their students to be scoffers of the sacred and utopian in their economics. Apart from places like Hillsdale college, most colleges and universities went for the cash siphoned for paying tuitions with the results that tuitions are horrifically high and the mad pipers now call the tune. There's a bit of u lion in a conservative group complaining that their college won't fund their group - but this is an effect of the absurdity of the dyseducational megasauri that rule not only in the US but across the globe.

 

[epan]

If the majority can be convinced that homosexuality is indeed not a choice but simply the way you were born and a human freedom that ought to be championed, I think we are in trouble.

If this is believed to be true, then essentially this group is not different from other minorities that have been oppressed throughout history.

Uhmmm… Do you not know that the majority is already convinced of this?

 

[sallybutler]

Given this and what happened at OU, maybe all students need courses on Emily Post and basic politeness. While one may not be able to change how they think, maybe they can change their behaviour.

Some things are not acceptable in a polite society. And yes, it works both ways. If these students were serious about their position being understood, perhaps they could’ve gone to the class and engaged in discussions about how the training could’ve included their point of view.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

Given this and what happened at OU, maybe all students need courses on Emily Post and basic politeness. While one may not be able to change how they think, maybe they can change their behaviour.

Some things are not acceptable in a polite society. And yes, it works both ways. If these students were serious about their position being understood, perhaps they could’ve gone to the class and engaged in discussions about how the training could’ve included their point of view.

I’d like to believe that it is possible to meet these people halfway, but the truth is when you give an inch, they already took a mile. They already pegged the conservative group as hateful and committing violence if they don’t accept their preferred pronouns.

The point is, if you accept a politically correct mutation of the English language, then you accept the inherent ideas. What makes this gender-bender so ridiculous is they admit how fluid it might be depending on when you meet a person. In other words, the gender orientation may have been altered in the meantime and so you must address the person by the new set of pronouns.

Lesbians are notoriously changeable in their choice of partners. This puts the lie to “born that way”. If they want others to believe it, they should examine their own consciences if they REALLY believe their same sex attraction is congenital or the result of some skewed upbringing or trauma. Even Ellen, the queen of promoting this lifestyle, admitted her own abusive background.

The fallacy of demanding sensitivity for dysfunction when such characters demonize others is laughable if it were not so tragic. Also, you can’t make people polite any more you can make them moral. But the former is a function of the latter.

 

[Tigg]

They who can only accuse others of hate are exercising a pretense that has nothing to do with tolerance and everything to do with silencing morality and those who would prick their consciences. They mean to eradicate that which will not conform to their own standard. A tactic somewhat reminiscent of Stalin and Hitler.

 

[sallybutler]

They who can only accuse others of hate are exercising a pretense that has nothing to do with tolerance and everything to do with silencing morality and those who would prick their consciences. They mean to eradicate that which will not conform to their own standard. A tactic somewhat reminiscent of Stalin and Hitler.

And perhaps we are all guilty of this at one time or another.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Uhmmm… Do you not know that the majority is already convinced of this?

Unfortunately I do…and that is why the end game is actually quite troubling.

 

[epan]

Unfortunately I do…and that is why the end game is actually quite troubling.

It might not be as bad as you think it is. We are talking about a very small part of the population. In places where gay marriage has been legal the longest, none of the dire consequences predicted have occurred. It just may be one of “those tempests in a teapot.”

We live in a diverse world, which becomes more diverse in each locality with the increasing connectedness and ease of travel. If a same sex couple lives near you, it need not have any bearing on how you live your own life. But, the nature of the change that we are experiencing, is that learning to adapt to diversity, and to accept it, is a healthy response to enjoy life.

 

[JimG]

We just might all be required to have “sensitivity training.” Perhaps there will be a special section for CAF members.

On the other hand, the media is already providing the sensitivity training.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

It might not be as bad as you think it is. We are talking about a very small part of the population. In places where gay marriage has been legal the longest, none of the dire consequences predicted have occurred. It just may be one of “those tempests in a teapot.”

We live in a diverse world, which becomes more diverse in each locality with the increasing connectedness and ease of travel. If a same sex couple lives near you, it need not have any bearing on how you live your own life. But, the nature of the change that we are experiencing, is that learning to adapt to diversity, and to accept it, is a healthy response to enjoy life.

Sorry, there are dire consequences of this so-called diversity. Marriage and child rearing are the chief casualties. Children do best with their own biological parents, even if they are imperfect as most people are anyway. In the best of circumstances, same sex parenting already cuts out one of the mothers or fathers which is a great deprivation from the get go.

Same sex couples are notoriously open, most admit they are not monogamous. There are psychological reasons for this, starting with lack of complimentarity. Children around this dysfunction start life with a real burden and now having grown up are lamenting the lack of proper masculine or feminine modelling. They do worse in school, leave earlier. In quite a few cases, there is a very sinful environment with pornography, violence and even abuse. Children are encouraged to follow this lifestyle although it is ridden with STD’s and life expectancy is about 8 years less than heterosexuality or chastity.

The other ramifications are the whittling down of religious freedom, businesses having to close down due to blackmail from same sex couples who could go elsewhere for wedding cakes and flowers but want a scorched earth policy on the way to destroying social institutions just so they can in your own words, “enjoy life”.

Society is predicated on the greatest good for the greatest number. Children should not be sacrificed on the altars of narcissistic people parading their dysfunctional sexuality. If it were a matter of live and let live, which no one was really bothering them anyway for the past 50 years or so, what should be the problem? Instead they want to make society in their own selfish interest and this is astounding given the small percentage of them that you mentioned, which happens to be 1.5-2% of any population.

 

[epan]

Sorry, there are dire consequences of this so-called diversity. Marriage and child rearing are the chief casualties. Children do best with their own biological parents, even if they are imperfect as most people are anyway. In the best of circumstances, same sex parenting already cuts out one of the mothers or fathers which is a great deprivation from the get go.

Same sex couples are notoriously open, most admit they are not monogamous. There are psychological reasons for this, starting with lack of complimentarity. Children around this dysfunction start life with a real burden and now having grown up are lamenting the lack of proper masculine or feminine modelling. They do worse in school, leave earlier. In quite a few cases, there is a very sinful environment with pornography, violence and even abuse. Children are encouraged to follow this lifestyle although it is ridden with STD’s and life expectancy is about 8 years less than heterosexuality or chastity.

The other ramifications are the whittling down of religious freedom, businesses having to close down due to blackmail from same sex couples who could go elsewhere for wedding cakes and flowers but want a scorched earth policy on the way to destroying social institutions just so they can in your own words, “enjoy life”.

Society is predicated on the greatest good for the greatest number. Children should not be sacrificed on the altars of narcissistic people parading their dysfunctional sexuality. If it were a matter of live and let live, which no one was really bothering them anyway for the past 50 years or so, what should be the problem? Instead they want to make society in their own selfish interest and this is astounding given the small percentage of them that you mentioned, which happens to be 1.5-2% of any population.

I think that you are over reacting.

 

[ucfengr]

I wonder what exactly their problem was with the sensitivity training. I mean, did they think that learning to be sensitive to a gay person’s feelings was going to a) send them to hell or b) turn them gay? It’s utter nonsense. Kendra was right: we really shouldn’t need classes to teach us the golden rule.

The problem is that they know that “sensitivity training” is a politically correct euphemism for “reeducation camp”.

 

[mikekle]

This is only the tip of the iceberg…I think we are on the way to it being illegal to be a Christian in the US.

I know Jesus said times like this would come near the end of times, and we should not be worried but headlines like this are fairly scary.

I hope when the day comes, I will be strong enough to hold to my beliefs instead of giving in solely to protect my secular quality of life.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

I think that you are over reacting.

The Bible is very clear about homosexuality. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Same sex attraction does not come from genetics but from dysfunction, trauma or abuse. To enshrine it as a new normal is to pass on more dysfunction, trauma and abuse.

The slippery slope now has led to polyamory, sexualization of children and even acceptance of incest. Apart from sin, this is not good for society AT ALL.

An anthropoligist, Joseph Unwin, in the 1930’s who did not even set out to prove this thesis found a positive correlation between the cultural achievement of a people and the sexual restraint they observe. In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and 6 known civilizations through 5,000 years of history.According to Unwin, after a nation becomes prosperous it becomes increasingly liberal with regard to sexual morality and as a result loses it cohesion, its impetus and its purpose. The process, says the author, is irreversible:

“The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.”

The way things are going now, we are living in the twilight of the Roman Empire, except for those countries like Russia, parts of South America and Africa that are resisting free for all sexual immorality.

 

[SWolf]

The problem is that they know that “sensitivity training” is a politically correct euphemism for “reeducation camp”.

Yup.

Try to force sensitivity training for tolerance of Catholic belief and see how far you get. One will be quick to see sensitivity goes one way.

 

[Tigg]

The Bible is very clear about homosexuality. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Same sex attraction does not come from genetics but from dysfunction, trauma or abuse. To enshrine it as a new normal is to pass on more dysfunction, trauma and abuse.

This is exactly correct. And why accusations of hate are so ridiculous. God desires all to live in the truth and fullness of their humanity. He is the author of gender, not self, and only by the healing of that which has been tainted can wholeness and peace be a reality. Interestingly enough, the Church in her teaching seems to be the only one to understand this and true charity desires lies, pain and confusion to cease, not be justified or concealed.

Welcome to the forum, btw!

 

[AnnieHall]

I wonder what exactly their problem was with the sensitivity training. I mean, did they think that learning to be sensitive to a gay person’s feelings was going to a) send them to hell or b) turn them gay? It’s utter nonsense. Kendra was right: we really shouldn’t need classes to teach us the golden rule.

I do wonder what the content of the class included. I didn’t see any specific details in the article about what was included - I am curious though, if anyone has any more information about that.

To me, “sensitivity training” sounds more like learning about respect and how to avoid inadvertently offending someone due to ignorance, rather than insisting that no one has differing opinions. And of course, the Church teaches that all people are worthy of respect and dignity, even if we disagree/they go against Church teaching/etc.

As far as this particular campus group goes, I believe they’re affiliated with Young Americans for Freedom, a group I encountered on my own college campus, and I must say, their tactics left a bad taste in my mouth. I’m not sure how closely connected this group is with them, but they seemed to be fans of causing controversy just for the sake of causing controversy, and not necessarily to come across as approachable or welcoming to anyone with any opinions that weren’t totally in line with their own. Not that this is the case with this story - I don’t think we have enough information for me to even form an opinion based on more than a guess at this point.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

This is exactly correct. And why accusations of hate are so ridiculous. God desires all to live in the truth and fullness of their humanity. He is the author of gender, not self, and only by the healing of that which has been tainted can wholeness and peace be a reality. Interestingly enough, the Church in her teaching seems to be the only one to understand this and true charity desires lies, pain and confusion to cease, not be justified or concealed.

Welcome to the forum, btw!

Thanks for the welcome. I was thinking about this sensitivity training business and it suddenly occurred to me that in the natural order of things you get respect when you deserve it. The onus of proof is not on those browbeaten to submission but on those who need to convince they are not a threat to society. This particular group wants to shove the preferred pronouns down everyone’s throat otherwise they call it violence and hate! It’s actually the other way around. They are making unrealistic demands on the basis of unproven whims. Changing the English language in such a radical way is a time bomb.

I was reminded of the successive waves of immigration in the US and each group had to EARN respect. It didn’t come on a silver platter. If a certain group says they are a religion of peace, let them prove it! The same with the alphabet soup community. Show that you don’t threaten religious freedom or the option of parents to bring up their children according to their own values and morals.

 

[JimG]

The problem is that they know that “sensitivity training” is a politically correct euphemism for “reeducation camp”.

Yes, exactly so. I speak as one who has been required to attend similar sessions at the office. At least they didn’t send us to the gulag for the sessions, but the principle is the same.

 

[ucfengr]

To me, “sensitivity training” sounds more like learning about respect and how to avoid inadvertently offending someone due to ignorance, rather than insisting that no one has differing opinions. And of course, the Church teaches that all people are worthy of respect and dignity, even if we disagree/they go against Church teaching/etc.

Which is why they call it “sensitivity training” rather than “reeducation” or, the even more accurate, “political indoctrination”.