[ManituIKOL]

Teaches a valuable lesson though if a person is paying attention. Taught me a valuable lesson about "zealotry" and the importance of seeking to remain grounded when you pursue philosophical endeavors, especially religion.

I thought the leason was that homosexuality is a viable option when your society only has one female.

[avaicavum]

Stupid religion, if you make it taboo it becomes all the more fun to do.

There was a time when "Banned in Boston" would ensure a best selling book.

[discountviagraman]

There was a time when "Banned in Boston" would ensure a best selling book.

I love Boston, even though it has had a really stupid past.

[glagoliska]

I thought the leason was that homosexuality is a viable option when your society only has one female.

I guess it could be interpreted that way, but unless we make some advances in science, I'd think our society would be pretty near doomed in that scenario.

[wmirkru]

If she indeed tried to get a client help from a more amenable councelor, good for her, but if I was her employer, why would I keep someone on my staff who couldn't do their job?

I'm not sure what the code of ethics is for the ACA, I'm not that familiar with them, but I would imagin that its along the lines of not letting personal beliefs interfer with your professional judgment. So yeah, screw her. If your job is to help people and you only want to help certain people, don't be surprised when you're shit canned.

I'm not saying what she did was right but at least she didn't just leave them hanging w/o any help. She should probably go work at some Christian counseling center or something honestly.

[gvataler]

Pawning the student off on someone else is not helping them. The best way she could help was to remove herself from that situation.

But she did remover herself from it - by finding someone who would be willing to help the client or whoever. And she did remove herself from the situation by not counseling the person. But at the same time, I agree that why be a counselor if you only want to help certain people.

[WepKeyday]

For the record, I know you got harped on for just saying "Christians", but you really might as well. They're the only religion making complete asses of themselves... at least as far as America is concerned.

Sure Muslims hate gays, apostates, etc, but AMERICAN Muslims are mostly liberal. Same goes for Jews. You have crazy Zionists in Israel who think everyone else should just die (only after signing over all their land to Israel)... AMERICAN Jews are pretty liberal.

As for the American Christians... they burn Harry Potter books because it teaches kids witchcraft. Which causes more publicity causing more kids to read Harry Potter, and everybody laughs at the stupid Christians. Logic Fail.

There are some pretty relaxed Christians though. They aren't all like the extremists you hear about on TV. That's usually the minority but the minority gets the most attention. My parents are Christian but they go to the Methodist church. They don't judge people and they don't judge me for not believing the way they do. So you can't say that "all Christians" make an ass of themselves.

I understand why DarkHeart just lumps them all together because that is easier to say. But every religion has their whackos who take things waaay to literally.

[ensuppono]

I'm a christian and dont care if you're gay. My church has even said they dont agree with the life style, but you're welcome in thier church. You're gay not contagious.

[diegogo]

Pursuit of accuracy, not really harping. Your last part is correct “at least as far as America is concerned.” As I stated, because the overwhelming majority of Americans are Christian.

Are we speaking of religious groups officially or individuals of a particular faith? If it is individuals of a particular faith, see my earlier remarks regarding numbers. If we are speaking of groups, not so much. The official Muslim groups condemn the practice. Jewish groups are of mixed opinions, divided along the lines they most often are (conservative, orthodox, reform and Reconstructionist. Christian groups are divided as well.

Your claim is not backed, actually contradicted, by your own link. With the exception of Orthodox (Conservative) Jews, they seem to be in general agreement that it is up to the individual rabbi to make the decision whether or not to wed a couple.

With Islam, your link doesn't discuss American Muslims at all, but judging from the source cited here:
http://www.irfi.org/articles/article...marriage_i.htm

The writer of this, a Muslim, seems to have a pretty neutral viewpoint, or at least presented the issue of gay marriage in a neutral fashion. To be honest, that's more than I've ever seen a Christian do.

Zionism is more of a political movement than a religious one but I think I get your meaning. Speaking of Israel, you can’t even marry there unless you are Jewish. That is to say, a Jew can’t marry anyone but a Jew. You're right that not all Jews living in Israel are Zionists (Hence the reason I said "Zionists", specifically)
There are an estimated 300 thousand American Jews who live at least part of the year in Israel. In America Jews are usually liberal. Not true in Israel. Your sentence contradicts itself, so clearly you are either mistaken, or are missing a factor.

[QUOTE]
That has got to be a pretty rare event. In fact I can only readily find two instances in the media (2002 in NM and 2003 in MI). Wouldn’t surprise me if more had occurred.

Tip of the iceberg. While you're correct the Christian Taliban RARELY go so far as to burn Harry Potter, many of them hate it for the reasons cited. Also bear in mind it is difficult to get permission from the city (Feminists trying to burn their bras had the same problem), generally not worth the hassle unless you're a truly hardcore believer.

I believe there have been cases of bestiality in the US too but I am not about to cite that US citizens like to bang sheep. Only the ones who live in the South or the Midwest.

Republicans fear homosexuals... yet many of them are closet gays. Using the same logic, Republicans fear beastiality...

Puts things in context next time you hear a Republican say "We let fags marry, next step is to let people and animals marry..." For Christ's sake the guy is probably screwing his sheep, but is ashamed of it.

[ONLINEPHARMACYCHEAPILLS]

Funny how judgmental a lot of people on this forum are. The woman clearly saw that due to her personal, religious beliefs she was not qualified to deal with this persons "issue" and asked for guidance from her superior (Professor) who told her to refer the patient to another counselor. Happens all the time for various reasons. Would you prefer she "fake the funk" and give the client less than quality advice? She did nothing wrong and slamming her for her personal views/beliefs makes a hypocrite of you all. This case will wind up in her favor. The school can no more discriminate against her for having religious beliefs than they can refuse treatment to homosexuals (which they did not do). The bottom line is the patient was seen by a counselor better equipped to deal with their problem/issue. The school should have let it be but now they are running the risk of a pay day for the counselor and egg on their face. Discrimination is a double edged sword.

[Markdogas]

Think of it from the employer's point of view. I'm an employee who refuses to deal with customers who wear glasses. That by definition makes me a less qualified employee than someone else who has no problem helping customers with glasses.

[Meenepek]

But she did remover herself from it - by finding someone who would be willing to help the client or whoever. And she did remove herself from the situation by not counseling the person. But at the same time, I agree that why be a counselor if you only want to help certain people.

So, if you were a counselor who had been abused as a child and had a client who was a convicted pedophile would you have any "issues" counseling them? Would you counsel them or refer them to someone else?

[Illirmpipse]

That's an absurd comparison. Being gay is not a crime, and in no way hurts anyone else.

[polleroy]

Funny how judgmental a lot of people on this forum are. The woman clearly saw that due to her personal, religious beliefs she was not qualified to deal with this persons "issue" and asked for guidance from her superior (Professor) who told her to refer the patient to another counselor. Happens all the time for various reasons. Would you prefer she "fake the funk" and give the client less than quality advice? She did nothing wrong and slamming her for her personal views/beliefs makes a hypocrite of you all. This case will wind up in her favor. The school can no more discriminate against her for having religious beliefs than they can refuse treatment to homosexuals (which they did not do). The bottom line is the patient was seen by a counselor better equipped to deal with their problem/issue. The school should have let it be but now they are running the risk of a pay day for the counselor and egg on their face. Discrimination is a double edged sword.

She knew when she was hired that she had to treat every student and the school had a non-descrimination policy. Granted she did the right thing by still getting the student help, but why should the school keep someone on their payroll who will only see certain students and not others. Her religious beliefs don't even really come into it. She refused to do her job and got someone else to do it for her, she's a shitty employee.

[Joircarm]

So, if you were a counselor who had been abused as a child and had a client who was a convicted pedophile would you have any "issues" counseling them? Would you counsel them or refer them to someone else?

Idiotic comparisons aside, as a counselor it's your job to help people despite personal prejudice. If you can't do that you shouldn't be in the job.

[valentinesdayyy]

Stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen... this same issue will be coming to a military base near you. The day when same-sex marriage becomes federally recognized probably isn't going to be much further away.

I'm sure that when this happens, we're going to see plenty of cases where Soldiers, Airmen, Saliors, and Marines who are assigned to the personnel offices and commands throughout the military are getting the boot - and FIGHTING it - for refusing to add same-sex spouses to the dependancy forms, processing BAH w/ dependants for them, or adding same-sex spouses to the member's SGLI.

[artenotreah]

Stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen... this same issue will be coming to a military base near you. The day when same-sex marriage becomes federally recognized probably isn't going to be much further away.

I'm sure that when this happens, we're going to see plenty of cases where Soldiers, Airmen, Saliors, and Marines who are assigned to the personnel offices and commands throughout the military are getting the boot - and FIGHTING it - for refusing to add same-sex spouses to the dependancy forms, processing BAH w/ dependants for them, or adding same-sex spouses to the member's SGLI.

So? That's dereliction of duty. I don't know if you've noticed but military employment doesn't work the same way as civilian employment.

[derty]

So? That's dereliction of duty. I don't know if you've noticed but military employment doesn't work the same way as civilian employment.

I did 11 years active duty, and just separated last February. I'm currently a federal civilian. I KNOW the differences.

However, what you're saying... it isn't that simple. People do stupid things in the military, and fight them all the time. They lose most of the time (key word "most") but, regardless, it still makes the papers... including, and especially, the Military Times papers.

[KongoSan]

The quotes in your original message were hosed so bear with me here.

Joe Bonham: Your claim is not backed, actually contradicted, by your own link. With the exception of Orthodox (Conservative) Jews, they seem to be in general agreement that it is up to the individual rabbi to make the decision whether or not to wed a couple. END QUOTE

What part of my statement “Jewish groups are of mixed opinions, divided along the lines they most often are (conservative, orthodox, reform and Reconstructionist” is contradicted, by....?

“…While the Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish movements support gay and lesbian rights, including same-sex marriage, they allow individual rabbis to choose not to officiate at the weddings of gay and lesbian couples. The Conservative movement, which as a whole does not sanctify gay marriage, allows individual rabbis to choose to recognize same-sex unions. Orthodox Judaism does not accept same-sex marriage. After the Conservative movement gave rabbis permission to conduct same-sex unions in 2006, several Orthodox organizations issued a joint statement criticizing this decision, saying it violated Jewish law. “

Reform and Reconstructionist support same-sex marriage but don’t force their rabbanim to perform the ceremony. Conservative movement does not sanctify same-sex marriage but allows their rabbanim to perform the ceremony if they choose. Orthodox Jews don’t recognize it or allow it. That sounds EXACTLY what I said....” Jewish groups are of mixed opinions, divided along the lines they most often are (conservative, orthodox, reform and Reconstructionist”

BTW…Conservative and Orthodox are two separate sects of Judism.

Finally….The main point I was getting at and made was that your statement “…They're the only religion making complete asses of themselves... at least as far as America is concerned.” was false (hyperbole) because as usual you choose to paint large groups based on the actions and words of a minority.

Joe Bonham: With Islam, your link doesn't discuss American Muslims at all, but judging from the source cited here: http://www.irfi.org/articles/article...marriage_i.htm

The writer of this, a Muslim, seems to have a pretty neutral viewpoint, or at least presented the issue of gay marriage in a neutral fashion. To be honest, that's more than I've ever seen a Christian do. END QUOTE

Once again, if we are discussing the opinions of individuals this thread it going to get very busy because for every individual of a group who expresses an opinion of one sort I will find another of the group to assert the opposite opinion. Seems more honest if you are going to paint a group you should cite their official position. Here is an opinion by the head of the North American Fiqh Council (the Islamic religious authority in the US) regarding homosexuality. He seems pretty clear.

Joe Bonham: You're right that not all Jews living in Israel are Zionists (Hence the reason I said "Zionists", specifically) END QUOTE

You referenced Zionists as if they were a sect of Judaism. This is incorrect. If this was not your intent then never mind. I will ignore the reference to Zionists.

Joe Bonham: Your sentence contradicts itself, so clearly you are either mistaken, or are missing a factor. END QUOTE

You state that American Jews are liberal. I pointed out that on issues in America they tend to be but in Israel they are usually on the far right and there is a great deal of Americans in Israel. How does my sentence contradict itself? How am I mistaken? What factor am I missing? Perhaps it would be clearer if I said “In America Jews are usually liberal. Not true while they are in Israel.”

Joe Bonham: Tip of the iceberg. While you're correct the Christian Taliban RARELY go so far as to burn Harry Potter, many of them hate it for the reasons cited. Also bear in mind it is difficult to get permission from the city (Feminists trying to burn their bras had the same problem), generally not worth the hassle unless you're a truly hardcore believer. END QUOTE

I am confused. Should I take you seriously when you use the term Christian Taliban? Who are you referring to? Christians in general or the vocal minority that many of the rest of us have cited?
So your assertion is that there are millions(?) of frustrated Christians who would be burning books if they could get permission? (Hint: Say your answer out loud in front of a mirror before you post it)

Joe Bonham: Only the ones who live in the South or the Midwest.

Republicans fear homosexuals... yet many of them are closet gays. Using the same logic, Republicans fear beastiality...

Puts things in context next time you hear a Republican say "We let fags marry, next step is to let people and animals marry..." For Christ's sake the guy is probably screwing his sheep, but is ashamed of it. END QUOTE

This last part should be appear whenever someone googles “strawman”. Oh wait; you used a smiley face...so you were kidding. Right.

[foI3fKWv]

I did 11 years active duty, and just separated last February. I'm currently a federal civilian. I KNOW the differences.

However, what you're saying... it isn't that simple. People do stupid things in the military, and fight them all the time. They lose most of the time (key word "most") but, regardless, it still makes the papers... including, and especially, the Military Times papers.

My bad, I read your post with a bit more cynisism than nessesary.

You are correct, this would be exactly the kind of non event that the Military Times would write a story about.