U. of North Carolina to Investigate Christian Singing Group’s Dismissal of Gay Student

No doubt, you would consider yourself one of God’s Gentle People.

But what you truly are, Mr. Lopez, is a bigot.  Just as people have treated YOU as less than human for being hispanic, you turn around and do it to others?

Were you born straight?  Of course you were.  Just as I was born gay.  I knew at 6 years old I was gay.  I knew it just as easily as I knew my A, B, C’s.  And nothing you say will ever change that or ever make your statement anything other than raw, vile, bigotry carried out in the name of God.

You should take heed that God will surely judge you for your words, thoughts and deeds and stop hiding behind him to justify your character flaws.

Why?

  Please don’t feed the trolls.

Do you understand how hypocritical that statment is, in light of the arti le itself?

If you believe that a person’s sexuality is mutable, then how is that different than granting non-discriminatory protection based on someone’s theological code or religion?

Can you prove that theology or religion is immutable?

I certainly have changed my religious & theological membership.  And I am clearly not the only member of my church who has walked away from the religion environment that their parents tried to raise them under.

Can anyone prove what theology or religion legally covers me, at my birth?  

Unfortunately, USA court system have not promulgated any rules that tell us how to adjudicate situations when counterclaims of differing types of discrimination are simultaneously at odds with each other.

Who wants to conceive the a cappella singing baby at the UNC-Chapel Hill campus for Solomon to split in half?

I’m intrigued by your suggestion that when a gay person openly defines themselves as such then by so doing they somehow undermine their own free will. If you believe in the concept of free will, then wouldn’t such a self affirmation exemplify it ? After all, doesn’t having free will include being able to freely choose what to do with it…?

On a different tack, perhaps you could also help us understand how the theory of free will exists for victims of rape, of flood or of famine, of disease, or of murder. Does the idea of free will suggest these billions therefore freely chose their fates ? If free will doesn’t exist in every moment, for every thing, then how can it be said to exist at all ? (And same thus, by extension, for the god chap who supposedly invented it for us ?)

Gee, Robert, so you’re saying that people should ignore reality and lie if it works for them politically to do so. That’s a standard Republican tactic. What about the truth, Robert?

It is always good to remember that one of the first mentions of homosexuality in the Old Testament, ranks it right in there with the sins of eating shellfish, wearing linen with wool, and planting more than one kind of seed in one hole.  I don’t see anyone getting upset with those who these other sins.  Well some might with wearing wool and linen together.

Guys, you are an a cappela group; you’re by definition supposed to embrace the gayness. Just sayin’.

To all the heterosexual men who believe that homosexuality is a choice, please take the Dan Savage Challenge:

1) Find a gay man.
2) Choose to have sex with with the gay man.
3) Make sure the sex act is filmed.
4) Upload the video to the Internet.
5) Email the video URL to everyone you know with the message, “I’m a straight man, and in this video, I CHOOSE to have gay sex.  See?  Being gay is a choice!”

If you can’t do that, then you must admit that sexual orientation isn’t a choice.

I’ll bet there is a lot of cringing at CSUN whenever he posts one of these doozies. 

He’s an English professor. When he makes comments about the basis for sexual orientation he is speaking as an amateur and his English scholarship is irrelevant. I’m a psychologist and if I were to make false comments about literature, I’d expect be dismissed as an amateur. As has been said before, Lopez is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. When someone bases his opinion on falsehoods, we are entitled to dismiss his opinion and the fact that he has an irrelevant Ph.D. (irrelevant to the science of sexuality) is, well, irrelevant.

All sides? Can my dog chime in too? We’re not talking politics here. We’re talking basic intellectual competence, let alone solid scholarhip. The guy is a charlatan and this is all about promoting his new “major book”, along with the pulp he publishes as “articles” for the internet.  
 
 

To NavyDad
I was responding to Professor Steinberg’s complaint that Robert Lopez is not “affiliated with
higher education” In fact Professor Lopez has an academic appointment at a major California university. Mr. Steinberg teaches online but no one is complaining that he should not be allowed to post on this topic.  When you agree with the person who is posting a response, then it really does not seem to matter about “intellectual competence.”  When you disagree, then the credentials of the writer really matter…This is pretty hypocritical NavyDad-
Go Army! 
We will be beating Navy this year in DC

Unfortuantely there is much more heat than light in these comments.

First of all, the group is a singing group. One’s opinion about sexuality, gender, race, etc., should be irrelevant since the stated purpose is singing.

Yes, it’s Christian singing, but since there are many many different opinions from self-described Christians concerning God or the Bible’s approval (or non-approval) of homosexuality, this group doesn’t get to force members to adhere to a particular doctrine.

I can understand a view/opinion litmus test for political groups (e.g. no misogynists in a women’s group) but there’s no excuse for this group’s behavior, if true.

To Dr. Lopez, your statements that

“Personally I think it will be good for gays to stop saying they were born gay and don’t have a choice what they do with their bodies. That’s a terrible way to define yourself because it undermines social accountability and free will.”

are totally untrue and moreover, uncool. Where do I start?

1. Saying you are born gay does not mean you don’t have a choice what to do with your bodies. Where do you get that? You always have a choice concerning what to do or not do. Perhaps you don’t have a choice when it comes to what you feel.

2. What about being born straight? Were you born straight?

3. What in the ^%$# does this have to do with a singing group at UNC?

For those of you who haven’t followed the ongoing saga of inner conflict and torment of Robert Oscar Lopez and coco_rico on other threads:

He says he’s bisexual, and says that he finds both men and women “hot.” Presumably, he has sex with other men, but he hasn’t said whether he’s a “bottom” or a “top” or both.

He’s in the military reserves, and he’s made reference to a wife from whom he must be away (presumably, because of military duty) for considerable periods of time.

He’s also politically quite conservative (see his “The Colorful Conservative” blog) and has a particular tic about political correctness, a rubric under which gay rights falls. He wants to hang with conservatives, a good many of whom (almost all, save the libertarians) think that homosexuality (OK, homosexual behavior) is an “abomination before God.”

All of this causes him, in many of his posted comments, to turn himself inside out and back again to try to reconcile everything.

This reconciling is particularly difficult in parsing out blame for events having to do with homosexuality. He said, for instance, that it was the fault of the people who were trying to overturn “Don’t ask, don’t tell” that a young gay soldier committed suicide. If they’d just gone one letting the kid feel good about skating by because nobody happened to ask and him not having to tell, everything would have been fine.

With this contorted rationalization, Prof. Lopez gets to have his cake (“I’m a conservative and don’t want out queers in the military”) and eat it, too (“I’m a bisexual myself, and not a homophobe, and don’t want a pogrom in the military to find and discharge homosexuals”).

Now, the kerfuffle over the dismissal of the gay student from a Christian singing group is the fault of the gay movement for insisting that homosexuality is a biologically immutable character trait, like race. If homosexuality were instead “a sexual behavior…which people can choose to engage in, or not,” then the club would be OK because the gay student would be deliberately violating Christian tenets against homosexuality.

With this contorted rationalization, Prof. Lopez gets to have his cake (“I’m a conservative and don’t think Christians should have to consort with homosexuals if they don’t want to”) and eat
it, too (“I’m a bisexual myself, and not a homophobe, and only ask of homosexuals that they admit that they’re *choosing* to do these sexual acts”).

The nasty little sleight-of-hand that runs through his posts on this particular thread is that gays’ “choosing” to do homosexual things in bed is somehow more divorced from any innate sexual orientation than heterosexuals “choosing” to do heterosexual things in bed. Hets’ having crushes at twelve, heavy petting at fifteen, intercourse starting somewhere between 16 and 20 (OK, I’m old-fashioned), and then cohabitation is somehow at one with the flow of nature (and it is, to the extent that civilization and nature flow in the same channel), but homosexuals’ doing much the same thing is most definitely *not.*

If coco_rico weren’t so conflicted–if he’d either get right with God, give up rubbing up against naked men, and go 100 percent “Yay!!” (he likes that expression) with Perry and Bachmann, or realize that he’s an anathema to his political cohort and stop “fighting the left” (see his blog)–his posts wouldn’t be so agonized.

I used to have a kind of pity for the guy, but his acting out in “Brainstorm” comments too often involves blaming victims.

BTW, Prof. Lopez’s “major book” is forthcoming from the University Press of America. It might not be a vani…..(oops! Don’t want to get sued now, do we?) but…well, go look it up.

It’s interesting that higher educators here will defend the University’s right to control association here, while in the same issue of the Chronicle we hear how “Britain’s Effort to Monitor Extremism on Campuses Draws Opposition”.

Looking forward to hearing how those can be reconciled….(http://chronicle.com/blogs/global/britains-effort-to-monitor-extremism-on-campuses-draws-opposition/30718?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en)

What’s the “double standard” (in calgrad’s comment on the news item from Britain)?

a) There’s no single entity involved in both these situations, and therefore no “double standard” by it. b) Both CHE stories are news stories, not op-ed pieces, so the CHE isn’t evidencing any “double standard. c) So far, calgrad’s is the only comment on the story from Britain, so if he’s waiting to play “gotcha!” with somebody who favors the investigating the gay student’s dismissal in the U.S. while opposing an investigation into an entirely different matter in Britain, he still needs somebody to ambush.  

Isn’t the freedom of expression more important than the right to restrict membership? How is a group allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation at the institution? The student should be allowed to hold a different point of view. What happened the Biblical principal of “love thy neighbor”? Would a gay student be dismissed from a gay oriented group for expressing a positive opinion of straight people? I think not!

Um, they just said he was dismissed for his VIEWS on homosexuality.  According to this, a straight person (me) could simply say, “I think it’s okay for people to be gay” and be dismissed from the group.  I understand this is a Christian group, but who decides what is right for all Christians to believe?  I could be a Christian (accept the divinity of Christ) and still believe it’s okay for some people to be gay. 

If this person were a hater of Christianity, very vocal against Christianity in his views, words and manner, the group would have a point that this person’s presence in the group would cause constant friction.  But he is not. 

Let me be clearer.  

This news item & thread is about an institution of higher education injecting itself into a matter of private association with religious overtones. Some people are opposed to that because of an overriding social interest, others think the religious aspect is most important. That pretty much mirrors the discussion on my old campus on similar issues, where it’s considered a left-right split.

Yet items like “Britain’s Effort to Monitor Extremism…” are treated asymmetrically.  Even the headlines (which AFAIK are chosen by Chronicle staff) are asymmetric:  ”Christian Singing Group”, but no mention of religious association in the headline on the article about Britain asking about Muslim groups.  Nobody seems exercised that members of the higher-education community are protesting the government’s (British in this case, but there have been similar article about US institutions) attempts to inject itself into a matter of private association with religious overtones in that case.  Do the people who want to defend the right of Christians to religiously select their associates not think Muslims should be able to do that?  Are the people who think the government has priorities that override religion not want to assert that in the case of Muslims?  _Neither_ side seems to engage, and that’s interesting.

It’s even more interesting that the mere act of noting the difference is somehow being perceived as an attack that’s worthy of attack in return, rather than reasoned discussion.  Perhaps that’s because this thread is already overheated, but it’s a reaction I’ve seen in other contexts too.

I’m not particularly interested in ambushing anybody.  That’s why I cross-posted the links to the articles, because I’m both personally and academically interested in the difference between the reactions to the two news items. (And it’s “she”, not “he”; have to watch those assumptions of superiority!)

Seriously? quit feeding the trolls. Chronicle readers are suckers for a pointless debate

It is also worth noting that the word “homosexual” is a 19th century invented word and appears no where in the Bible.  No one was condemned for being homosexual–the condemnation was about pagan worship rites where a god-priest dressed as a woman (not dressing according to one’s gender).  Furthermore, Lot offered his daughters to the “people of Sodom” (not the men) and later committed incest with both and made both daughters pregnant. David loved Jonathan “with a love surpassing the love of a woman” and was never condemned, and the “Star” of David was never a star but a shield to protect against the “words of false prophets.”  Lopez’ linguistic skills are as weak as his theological and psychological understanding. If he teaches anywhere, I feel storry for his students, even if they are in a church school. What Lopez writes is not factual, but hate-filled demigoguery.

Robert Oscar Lopez’ official biography claims that he ”has degrees in Classics, Political Science, and English” but doesn’t state from what school (Marcus Bachmann claims he has a PhD in psychology, but studied online with Union College in Cincinnati that offered a PsyD that was not accredited until 2005).  He claims he is a member of the Tea Party as a Latino conservative (the latter is irrelevant, but the membership in the Tea Party is relative since it denies basic science [endorsing “Intelligent Design” over the repeatedly proven theory of evolution, advocates theocracy led by the NAR that has anointed Rick Perry, etc), and yet, with a degree in classics, shows no linquisitic abilities in classics such as either the Hebrew (Torah) or Greek bibles–neither of which in the scrolls or fragments condemns homosexuality.  He taught (past tense) at SUNY but does not state at what level, in what subject, and so forth, nor why he left. I currently teach English as a foreign language as well as translation and interpretation (and use Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Arabic, etc in my articles, books, and lessons that can be found on line).  My education is in my profile. I find no justification for Lopez’ antiquated ideas except that he most likely is a born-again evangelical and thinks his god wrote the bible in a contempoary language (probably English) yet most of it is plagiarized from far older sources: Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian, etc.

I find it absurd when “Christian” groups condemn homosexuality when so many of their televangelists engage in homosexuality, bisexuality, multiple sexulaity etc.  Did Lopez forget Pastor Haggard, Jimmy Bakker, etc? 

The ancient christian community not only ordained women as priests and bishops, but its clergy married homosexual couples–but then, it seems, Lopez reads neither Greek or Latin, but selects what texts he reads–but if he truly studied classics, he would note that even Plato recognized homosexuality as a “gentle love.” If Lopez would study the ancient Greeks, he would note that for Plato, the only type of real love is the love between two men, and he has dedicated two of his dialogues to that subject: the Symposium and the Phaedrus: After all, homo-erotic love is related to education and gaining knowledge, and this makes it superior to other types of love in the classical world.  I also teach and write on the classics, and I find no objection to gay love (it is even accepted in the Bible: David with Jonathan, and Jesus with John).

In order to have a “major” book the author must either (1) have written “minor” works, or (2) is ground breaking in a field of study.  Lopez has done neither.

I agree with your comment, except the word “homosexual” does not appear in any of the ancient languages of the Old Testament. The word that is wrongly translated as “homosexual” actually is “effeminate”.

Let me say it for you, in your well written and researched comment, Univeristy Press of America is not a highly reputable nor respected press that was founded in 1975.   It acquired Rowman & Littlefield in 1988 and took the Rowman & Littlefield name for the parent company to give it respectability that it was lacking.  On its website, University of America Press, admits it is author-subsidized: “Authors have come to appreciate UPA’s ability to streamline the publishing process: Once the camera-ready copy is submitted and the pre-publication order has been placed, a UPA title is published within five months. If you are unable to prepare camera-ready copy, UPA will typeset your manuscript at a minimal cost per page. Please see our in-house typesetting guidelines.”  It does charge “at a minimal cost per page” to typeset the book but offers no editorial services, has no peer review, and is a sham.  Its webpage is at http://www.univpress.com/aboutus/index.shtml.

To come back to the article, the crux of the matter is not that the singing group at the public North Carolina university is Christian or whatever.  What matters here is that the group is an organization recognized by the university and is thus receiving funds from all students’ fees, including of course gay students. 

This group could sing their heart’s content in a church or on the sidewalk or in a private house or pool their own money and rent a hall.  They could then be free to discriminate as much as they want.  But as a university club, they have to follow the rules that apply to all  clubs receiving funds from students’ fees.

If a Christian group was sincerely Christian, it wouldn’t matter to them where they were singing, right?  They wouldn’t demand public funds and public universitys’ facilities to sing…. (of course, if they were sincerely Christian they wouldn’t kick out gay singers  from their midst) 

The whole issue is a power trip to try to force people to go through the superficial rituals of religion.  I’m digressing, but what comes to mind is an organization in my town which generously provides meals for the homeless but make them participate in prayers before the meal.  Since a forced prayer is not a prayer but the result of a power trip, this reminds me of the insincerity of the a-capella group, not to mention of our purported “Robert Oscar Lopez”

I fully agree with Katisumas comment–and those self-proclaimed “Christians” are the most dangerous as seen in the Christian mass-murderer Anders Behring Brevik of Norway, Timothy McVey of Oklahoma, and only one who does little to no research would deny that Adolf Hitler defended all of his atrocities with the claim he was defending Jesus.

When anyone gives himself/herself a title of distinction it is because that individual is attempting to justify wrong behaviour and an impossible dream.  Thus the demented monk Martin Luther called on the German nobility to restrain the church when parishoners stayed away from confession that reaped rewards financial to the church, and went after the Jews and ordered their synagogues and Torahs burnt for not agreeing with his message, and even attacked Muslims who were nowhere near Germany.  Gott mit unus is common around the world and the Crusades for Christ is not reserved to 1095′s Papal conclave at Claremont but has reared its ugly head in Dallas, TX and spread like a disease around the world–an infection that has galvanized the New Apostolic Reformation of C. Peter Wagner and his appointed Rick Perry to serve his god who will ride out of the sky like Muhammad to wage a universal Armageddon to bring all to the submission/slavery of Christianity.  I was once a Christianity, but I cannot defend the hatred of groups like the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod any more than the American Family Association, or similar organizations that promote hatred and back the long rejected “reparative therapcy” of Marcus Bachmann and his mouthpiece Michele who would serve as his voice if she wins the presidency.  But then, too, there is the issue of what is right, with Sara Palin have witches cast out of her community while being blessed by the self-appoint bishop Muthree of Kenya while condemning Obama as being Kenya born.  It is mere hypocrisy.

I strongly disagree with you and others.  The issue is not that of credentials and not even that of “intellectual competence”. The  issue is an ethical one.  The issue is the advocating of hatred.  The issue in this particular discussion having been set by the person calling himself (herself?) “Robert Oscar Lopez” is that the victims of hate crimes are the ones who are to blame for those crimes.  Basically “Lopez” claims gays are causing their own persecution by coming out of the closet, by daring to form long lasting relationships, by daring to marry.

There is no link in history or in the present between a person’s university credentials and a person’s ethical behavior in the face of political circumstances.  You don’t need to think of the extreme example of Heidegger’s support of the Nazis even before Hitler came to power and the membership in the Nazi party he kept till 1945.  Persecution in all its forms has always garnered the same share of support of university educated people as of the rest of the population.   A PhD is in no way predictive of behavior when murderous hatred takes over a society.  And of course history also shows us that some of the most illiterate individuals know that such persecution is wrong and will risk their lives to assist the persecuted.

Wow. This fits so many discussions I have had regarding the internet’s power for soapboxing rather than discussion, weighing of ideas, and as a place of information. What point is there for any dissent when this is how a person is ‘answered’? Since when do only the Profs in a particular field get to decide what is theirs and not another’s area of knowledge? So much for reducing Silos in education, so much for diversity, so much for collaboration. Who gets to label all people in a group as evil? I thought this was discriminatory? As a Christian, I recognize that we all make choices. We all have differing beliefs. These beliefs necessarily alter how we view the world, what we think is ethically/morally acceptable, and how we “should” then live. These beliefs do not protect me from living in ways contrary to my own beliefs. Far from it, actually. At least as a Christian, and I don’t know about how you see this (but based on this diatribe, I’m sure you’ll let me know in no uncertain terms), I recognize that there is a disconnect, often, from what I believe I should do, and what I actually do. Christians call this sin, and I am guilty of it. I don’t know any Christian, personally, that wouldn’t also assent to this fault. I also know that those Christians I know also deplore those infamous “christians” named herein. We cringe to think that what we struggle with daily, what we work to address in our lives, what we pray for with humility and fear are sometimes those things which others use their “christianity” to cover up; however, that does not make them, due to their status or perceived power, paragons of this faith. Rather, it makes them liars, at best. It disparages those of us who really do believe in peace, hope, and love to be labeled by those here as Nazis, mass murderers, and bigots.

But then… maybe I have no right to speak, because I’m a Christian. Maybe you should put us in camps, because that seems to be how this train of logic is running. Diversity in your eyes is nothing more than a shift of power from those who didn’t, or shouldn’t have, sought it (Christians) to those who want to quel any and all dissent.

I cannot apologize for the actions of others who wield the “banner” of Christianity as a bludgeoning weapon to cover their greed and own sense of inferiority. I humbly disagree with many of you. I don’t think that gives me the right to disparage you.

Now, I’ll wait to see what happens, and hope for the best for each of you.

You’re quite right, however the bible doesn’t mention homosexuality as a category.  There is only the mention in Leviticus that “a man laying with another man” is what has been  translated as an “abomination” though the translation is disputed.  It’s supposed to actually mean that it’s gross, which is a different thing alltogether. 

And don’t you find it telling that so many so called fundamentalist preachers refer to the Old Testament, particularly Leviticus, than to the New?  If you have the time and patience, listen to one of those preachers on TV.  Have a piece of paper with two columns and put a mark in each one whenever the preacher mentions the Old or the New Testament.   I  guarantee that whn you look at your marks in the end, you’ll  wonder why those preachers call themselves “Christian”. 

From Catholic.com – “Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.”
 
You can disagree.  You can dispute the bible says any such thing.  You can reject God altogether.  But to insist that those who believe homosexuality is a sin are so out of the mainstream that they and 13 animists somewhere in the Kentucky hill country are the only ones who believe so ignores the stated beliefs of 20% of the worlds population.  Include the other billions of Christians and Muslims who teach the same and it is those who preach acceptance who are out of the mainstream.  I know it’s a long trudge down from that ivory tower of sneering dismissal so maybe you ought to get started now.  We’ll meet you halfway. 

I am often surprised how vehemently so many assure us that “homosexuality is inborn.”  AFAIK, there is no disgnostic test that can be performed on two people to determine which is gay and which is straight.  Homosexuality is a self-identified expression of human nature.  One might as well proclaim that having a preference for the color blue is an “inborn trait.”  I am sure that, like many types of human behavior, there are likely genetic indicators or physiological factors that may make a person more likely to become homosexual (not unlike how genetic factors make children of alchoholics more susceptible to alchoholism), but it also seems very likely to me that there are many societal, emotional, and “nurture” issues working on the dynamic of who is gay or not.

As for the old “Jesus was gay” bit, do I really need to question judging the norms of interpersonal relationships in ancient Judea by modern concepts in America of what is “gay”?  If you read memoirs of US soldiers in WWII you will find many men writing about their foxhole buddies being closer than their wives, of holding each other as they slept, yet I’d hardly hazard to say all these soldiers were “gay” for it.

Finally, thank you “Dr.” for teaching me that every American has a basic civil and human right to sing in a Christian a capella choir.  Silly me, I thought that freedom of association was mentioned somewhere in the Constitution.

I gave a buddy of mine the blood test for gay-ness and he went home and blew his brains out when it came out positive. Talk about feelin’ uncomfortable at a wake. Then I found out the test was just some mumbo jumbo cooked up by some college professor who thought he knew a lot about stuff he had no business messin’ with. I messed him up. I’ve got five more years to go. I wonder if they tested some of the bigger guys in my cell block. They all have wives at home, but jeez, it’s all I can do to avoid being a “date” for one of them after the yard exercises. I keep tellin’ ‘em, look, sez I, it ain’t ethical playin’ ’round on yer woman. It’s like adultery. Yeh, they sez, but it ain’t the same, yer not a girl. No, sez I, but if I was, would you think it wrong? Sure, sez them. Now I’m goin’ thru the tests to get my sex changed. I sure hope they can change it back when I get outa here.

And you need to read some real studies on the “innate” gay gene that has evaded all attempts to locate it because it doesn’t exist.  It’s a completely learned behavior by those who are socially retarded and have difficulty forming relationships with the opposite sex.

And as for the “it’s not a mental illness” issue, the decision to remove it from the DSM was almost entirely a political decision by a bunch of activist psychologists (like the ones currently trying to “normalize” pedophilia).

The recourse to religion in this discussion is very distressing.  I find religious belief to be the most divisive and negative issue in our culture at this time.  To think that sexual orientation is subject to religious laws seems medieval at best and most certainly not suited to the modern world.  Homosexuality was removed from the list of behavioral disorders in the USA in 1973 and I do not believe that any college or university that accepts students’ tuition in the form of financial aid that has been supplied by tax monies, either state or federal, should not tolerate the bias of religious organizations that are organized on that campus.  A genuine spiritual life that supports the moral good and believes profoundly humanistic values remains private.  It does not parade its intolerance in the public square.  Colleges have lost their moral bearings when they allow students and religious leaders to violate the civil rights of any group of students.

Genetic? No. Congenital? Yes.

See Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35

The
fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male
direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing
nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this
hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of
belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are
programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in
the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes
place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of
the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes
can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in
trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at
birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the
degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that
social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or
sexual orientation.

Dr. Ide, I do not know if homosexuality “occurs among all species,” but I am willing to concede the point for now because I’m ignorant in that regard.  That said, there are some linguistic clarifications that should be made.  If natural is understood to mean, “it occurs among all species,” then perhaps homosexuality is natural, but if natural is defined as “the most common practice among all species,” then homosexuality is entirely unnatural.  Similarly, if normal is defined as “a regular recurring event/action,” then perhaps homosexuality is normal, but if normal is defined as, “the predominant way in which sexuality is expressed (i.e., the norm),” then, again, homosexuality is entirely unnatural.  As for your comment about the goodness of homosexuality, if you have rejected God, to what objective standard of goodness can you appeal to even enter a discussion on goodness?  Does not the fact that you think goodness can be known bear witness to the God you claim to have rejected?  If so, that radically changes the whole discussion, as we must acknowledge and submit to the fact that homosexuality has all ready been declared sinful by God.

To be clear, I am a Christian.  I do not hate gay people.  I love gay people.  I hate homosexuality, a sin with which I do not personally struggle.  I also hate lust and pride, two of the many sins with which I do struggle.  I do not believe homosexuality earns more or less of God’s wrath than my lust, pride and laundry list of other sins.  I believe homosexuality, lust, pride and every other sin equally result in the just wrath of the holy God.  I believe that I and every other human being need a shield from the wrath and judgment we have earned by rebelling against God in the act of cosmic treason.  I believe Jesus, being fully man (1) and having lived sinlessly (2), is the only one sufficiently able to serve as the substitute sacrifice.  I also believe that Jesus, being fully God, is the only one sufficiently powerful to absorb into Himself the infinite penalty of sin.  I believe that the person who hates sin and loves Jesus has the moral perfection of Christ imputed/credited to him as if he lived the life that Jesus lived.  I also believe that the person who hates sin and loves Jesus has his sins imputed/credited to Christ, so that Jesus is treated as if He lived the life the sinner lived.  The result is deliverance from both the temporal (3) and eternal power (4) of sin.  This is the Gospel according to Scripture, and it is unquestionably the most beautiful thing I’ve ever heard.

As for how I believe Christians should treat homosexuals, I’ve written an article on that subject, and I’d love your thoughts on it if you have time.

http://www.christsupreme.com/2011/03/03/a-biblical-perspective-on-homosexuality/

(1) man sinning means man had to die (Rom. 6:23).

(2) because Jesus was sinless, He personally had no need of deliverance from sin.

(3) though ebbing and flowing as life goes on, believers will generally grow in Christ-likeness ultimately because of the sovereignty of God, though in accord with the effort of believers, so that believers increasingly reflect Jesus to the world and find increasing satisfaction in Him.

(4) believers, by sheer grace, enter into heaven, having been covered by the blood of the Lamb, Jesus, and escape what we have earned: hell.

@cbizzle:disqus  and all saved Christians.  This reminds me of the old saying, “If you want to make the gods laugh, tell them your plans.”   I think a new version could be, “If you want to make Jesus laugh, tell Him you’re saved.”

@chronicle-104cfe248a0d64c7da3b5a05ef16a054:disqus What do you mean (i.e., your aim in saying that)?

Chad,

That is a ludicrous statement. Please educate yourself about the development of morality and ethics. In fact, if we want to talk about morality and ethics, your scriptures are hardly the place to start. Any god who commands that a rapist must pay his victim’s father money and then marry the victim, who commands that his followers kill their children to prove their loyalty, and who condemns people for eating shrimp, is hardly a reasonable source for morality.

In reply to Chad Barnes and others: Collins Dictionary (2009) defines “normal” as “a natural occurence” and homosexuality is a natural occurence. Natural is defined as “in or formed by nature.”  In both cases, when applied to homosexuality, the judgment is that homosexuality is both natural and normal.

As for “Christian” and “Bibical” definitions–(1) which set of Christians [chrestianos or christianos] and in which century since there was no Christian church before the pagan emperor Constantine I called his warring bishops to meet with him at Nicaea in 325 CE and then by imperial decree established the Christian Church.  There was no “Bible” before 380 when the same emperor commissioned his Arian (heretic) bishop Eusebius to write 50 copies to send to the Eastern churches that were fortresses for fighters.

If marriage was/is sacred, then why did Jesus never marry, let another man rest his head on his chest, live only with men (as far as the Bible tells its story) and was followed out of the garden by a naked young man? The only mention of Jesus at a wedding was to change water into wine–as it was a common custom to get drunk at a wedding, with the men in one house and the women in another house.  If Jesus was a man, internal evidence suggests he was gay; if Jesus was female, that would explain why she was around males and had John sleep on her breast.

While patriarchy was the alleged rule, Jesus’ dynasty is traced through his mother, not through Joseph.  We find tenderness for men as with Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha (who disappears after his resurrection–making way for the advent of John), but we find little tenderness for women–save for the woman who bathed his feet with her tears (and no, the Magdalene [meaning a person from the town of Madgala] was not a whore).  I used to be Christian, and an ordained theologian.  There is no place in the bible where homosexuality is condemned (the word does not exist until the 19th century), instead what is in Saul/Paul’s writings is an objection to effeminacy–similar to the mannerisms of Marcus Bachmann.

As for the existence of a Jesus–there was no concensus on that issue for the first 500 years, and it was “settled” only with bloodshed.  Sabellians, Arians, and others never recorded Jesus to be anything but a mortal.  Only with imperial decree was this “man” declared to be a son of god, much as was Lucifer/Satan in ancient Babylonian texts (cf. Job 2:1).  If there was (there was not) an objection to homosexuality it was because that was a form of temple prostitution as read in the quedash accounts, but then even the term Yahweh (from the Egyptian Yah) indicates sexuality as part of a worshipful rite.  I stopped being a Christian the more I learned about Christians–not a one I have met in life or on paper has ever understood Matthew 7:1 or Acts 10:24.  But I wish you well in your belief system; I do not share it, for I have studied it for over 50 years–and using the scrolls and other texts.

you are providing useful information thanks.
 
100 day loans scam?

@chronicle-0c41698cdd6c10a3373fbb4fc5e78670:disqus You said:

“That is a ludicrous statement. Please educate yourself about the development of morality and ethics. In fact, if we want to talk about morality and ethics, your scriptures are hardly the place to start. Any god who commands that a rapist must pay his victim’s father money and then marry the victim, who commands that his followers kill their children to prove their loyalty, and who condemns people for eating shrimp, is hardly a reasonable source for morality.”

These comments reflect an underlying presupposition that demands the existence of the deity you have denied.  

For example, who gets to determine what is ludicrous?  In a godless world in which differing opinions exist about what is and is not ludicrous, who gets to make the final determination?  What objective (i.e., universally true and binding) measuring rod exists against which ludicrousness can be determined?

You also presuppose that morality and ethics are objective, as you had no difficulty calling God’s character into question.  As such, against which objective (i.e., universally true and binding) moral standard did you measure God’s character?

Sam Harris asserts that evolutionary biology can explain the existence of morals and ethics, and, while I do not know from firsthand experience that biology may be able to determine which portions of the brain deal with morality and ethics, I do not at all find that difficult to believe.  The issue is that such an explanation does not solve the problem.  The existence of moral preferences within individuals does nothing to explain moral objectives for all of humanity.  Yet, you and Sam Harris both apparently believe that rape, for example, is objectively (i.e., universally true and binding) wrong.

The burden for the person who, 1) rejects God, and 2) believes in objective morality, is to provide (and prove) an objective measuring rod for morality. If such a measuring rod cannot be provided, then there is no foundation upon which any objective moral assertions may be made, so that all moral/ethical discussions may never truly leave the realm of personal preference. The result is that there is no grounds upon which to make the objective statement, “Rape is wrong,” but only the subjective statement, “Rape is wrong for me.”

As such, the removal of God actually removes the objective grounds you need in order to indict God the way you have.  C.S. Lewis, the well-known Christian philosopher and convert from atheism, said it this way:

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust?  A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.  What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust…?  Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own.  But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies.  Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense.  Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple.”

Of course, this conversation does not speak to the absurdity of arguing for morality and ethics when dealing with accidentally evolved bags of carbon and water (i.e., humans).

Yeah, but were you sexually molested before you were six?

So, this sounds like bad news to me. My small college was just negotiating with Moodlerooms, we have been trying to find an alternative to Blackboard, which is expensive, clunky, inflexible. Is Blackboard just buying up its competition? Since they have destroyed other competitors they have bought, should we really believe they won’t try to kill what is valuable about Moodlerooms? Will we have nowhere to turn now? 

A bad development that should immediately be voided or legal action taken. Open source means open source with its natural advantages, and stifling it should not be accepted. attorneys get ready.

Why is Blackboard allowed a monopoly?  Instead of improving their services, they buy up their competitors.  This should be illegal.  In fact, I thought it was.  

Unresponsive has not been our experience; we are actually quite  happy Blackboard customers.  As for clunky ad outdated, Google: Blackboard Learn Ocho

Well, it might not be a popular way to conduct business, but it is by no means unique to Blackboard. Microsoft, Google and Apple also come to mind when thinking of companies who figure reinventing the wheel just does not make good business sense. I think Blackboard has made some mistakes in the past in terms of trying to fold all of the other acquisitions into the core product, but I think those were lessons learned. The fact that they are allowing Angel to continue as a separate product is a good sign. Moodle will always be an option for those not happy with Blackboard and if the fact that they own Moodlerooms does not sit well with some, look for alternatives. There are many and sure more to come as a result of this announcement.

Take a look at Instructure Canvas

Yes, that’s one of those we’re testing:  it’s terrific.  But how long before BB buys it and puts it in the attic.

Contrary to the sensational statement in the article’s opening paragraph, Blackboard does not own Moodle or Sakai.  They bought two providers of Moodle support and contracted with an insightful and productive member of the Sakai community.  Let’s see where this takes us.  

Community is key to any project, not the date when development began.   Community source apps like Sakai evolve rapidly and keep pace with needs based on support from a dynamic, global community of stakeholders.  Higher education is blessed with choices for e-learning platforms, some mature and proven, some new and novel, all affecting each other in an ecosystem that needs to interoperate, not just compete.   Thank goodness there’s not one winner, or the market might stagnate.

LMS decisions will likely continue to be driven by cost models…..open source models work for learning communities of the future particularly those driven by increased enrollments and dwindling budget realities.

We recently switched to Canvas when BB took over WebCT. Our experience so far has been very encouraging. We certainly prefer it to BB.

Interesting.  While many will see this move as a shocking mashup of opposing software development philosophies, the participating systems have much in common.   It appears to me to be a consolidation of the old guard.  This move is akin to Daimler merging with Chrysler over a decade ago to fend off innovative disruptors like Toyota and Honda (think: Haiku LMS and Instructure’s Canvas). 

Going forward, Blackboard must maintain not one, but four products (not to mention the multiple versions of said products).  This is tremendous amount of code debt that can slow innovation even further.  Yes, I’m sure they will develop more “enterprise” features, improved cross-platform systems, and build walled-garden partnerships leading publishers.  Meanwhile: instructors, students, and forward-thinking institutions will be moving to platforms with intuitive user experiences, flexibility, that match the expectations of digital natives.

Chuck Severance, a thought leader in the Sakai community from the University of Michigan.   See Chuck’s blog at http://www.dr-chuck.com/csev-blog/2012/03/connecting-blackboard-sakai-and-open-source/

I agree with Ed Garay, here. We are in the process of migrating from eCollege to Blackboard, and it’s exciting to see the potential we have to integrate with other products. At this point, I see major benefits to our student support services like math tutoring and writing tutoring. If tutors and peer mentors can utilize Blackboard-like products without having to go through the red tape of creating new “official” classrooms, it could potentially improve the student experience by making it more unified and cut down on training time. 

Resistance to Blackborg has become one step more futile.

Why does this happen, and why does the entire LMS scene wreak of inept, hard-to-use, or only partially wrought solutions? Because the entire sector is serving academia – that’s why. For the most part, universities who deploy these solutions have been on a gravy train ride, until very recently. The administrators who have done diligence on and deployed LMS solutions have – as a group – largely failed to innovate within their organizational structures. If it “kind of works”, it’s OK (or it was, until very recently, when the bottom began to fall out of the gravy train that higher ed has been riding since the 60′s).

Blackboard is a corporate monolith that knows exactly what it’s doing – i.e. taking advantage of a discomboblulated educational enterprise sector that will simply continue to pay for insufficient solutions, because they don’t know any better, or can’t invent their own. Blackboard is to the Education sector what Oracle is to the commercial enterprise sector – both companies deploy fairly competent systems that require constant updating and a host of “consultants” to keep things running, and updated – thus, Oracle’s and Blackboard’s revenue models.

Of course, college administrators who live in their IT and administrative fiefdoms, unscathed by any threat of competition, have let this happen. So, it’s not Blackboard who is greedy; there is no “evil intention” involved; there is only feasting at the table of incompetence and backwards thinking that currently exists within educational enterprise, and enterprise that requires serious deconstruction, disintermediation, and re-invention.

BlackBorg only added Web 2.0 features when they saw Google Applications doing what they do for free. As with Microsoft, Bb will only innovate when it must. There’s nothing good in this news about a clunky and closed LMS that puts students and faculty into a gated community. It’s not the real Internet…just a monopoly with a bad and overpriced user interface.

I’m with Mark S on this one.  We looked at all the North American offerings and then asked ourselves one day why we were restricting our choices to the same old-same old. So, we looked at European and Asian LMS and chose http://www.itslearning.com. Bottom line is you get all the bells and whistles that you get with Bb or have to add-on to Open Source in one package and the cost is significantly better. And then there is that video-audio feature Mark talks about… now our test questions can be delivered and answered using a simple to use audio or video option. Just saying’….

I think it needs to be made clear that they own the some of the optional providers if you choose to host you Moodle install externally.

We have been hosting a fairly large Moodle install on our own network for years.  We’ve had is running on Apple and Linux hardware and not actually have it on two Apple Mini servers.  While Blackboard may be buy these companies they are not buying Moodle.

One could actually look at this as a sign that Blackboard needs to go this way to get Moodle related business because people are moving toward it as a cost-effective open-source solution.  Blackboard may provide custom solutions or integration hooks that they could charge for, but they can’t charge for the base Moodle code as outline in the licensing.

If you’re curious how we’ve been using Moodle or how we’ve dealt with managing our own servers for years I’ve been blogging about it here: http://www.williamstites.net/category/moodle/

I have to agree with the other responders on this one. We
currently use Bb 9 and it is not the best system. We were using version 8 prior
and it was wonderful. I am not sure if the goal was to deliver a more
sophisticated ’looking’ product but version 
9 does not have ease of use as one of its attractive features. Clunky
describes quite well.

 We provide quality moodle hosting at http://www.icampus21.com and have done so for over 10 years. Our customers support free eportfolios which we provide here http://www.portfoliocommunities.com

Do you post as “Mchasen” on Amplicate? That’s pretty funny. :)