I am confused about how homosexuality could enter the realm of a protected religious belief. There have been many attempts to create a religion around a practice in order to gain first amendment protections. These are always troublesome problems for adjudication. If you are thinking of a religion organized around homosexuality that could break through the same sex marriage barrier, I strongly suspect it has been tried.

Religion does not get to trump the compelling state interest automatically. We are beginning to have a flow of cases involving Islamic people with multiple wives. Right now, they are in the regulatory courts concerning welfare issues. However, Denmark has recently taken the stance of requiring an Iraqi man to divorce is way down to one wife. As I recall, this man was an ally in Iraq and relocated to Denmark for his safety. He does not wish to comply. Similar cases have come to the fore in Canada and England. The US is currently dealing with an African man with three wives in a welfare case in NYC. When all is said and done, our system will not likely bend to the Islamic custom. Having said that, we have occasionally turned some parts of the law over to Rabbi council in one Hassidic Jewish community in New York.

You seem to touch on unsettled and, I might say, unsettling ground here.

The government can simply say the state has a compelling interest in placing such outside the sphere of religion, as it did with polygamy.

the question becomes what is the university’s policy on this sort of thing.

I am not one of these people who coddles backsliders and relapsers. I have always said, if there were a reason not to have same-sex relations AT ALL (i.e., not even in the context of a good relationship, monogamy, etc.), I would not have them. There simply isn’t such a logically valid reason. Even the supposed Biblical prohibition is only that – “supposed”. But, that’s a huge topic for another time.

You will see so many GayLeftLibs jumping to the pro-life cause that it will make Rosie O’Donnell’s fat head spin.

You mean like how many liberals are flocking to oppose radical Islam instead of blaming all troubles on the USA, the West in general and even Christianity? I suppose it’s possible and probably will change some minds, but many others are wed to the “choice” ideology come what may.

People are missing the (valid) distinction between orientation and behavior. Behavior is 100% chosen, for all people. Orientation mostly isn’t chosen.

Ah, thank you. I knew I didn’t explain my meaning clear enough.

anyone who has “kicked the habit” is in regression and a ticking timebomb

Indeed. The vast majority of “ex-gays” go on to find that they have only changed their behavior, not their inner configuration (i.e., orientation). They can be celibate, they can be heterosexually married, or whatever – but most remain gay inside, i.e., having a fundamental preference for and attraction to the same sex.

NOT that there is anything wrong with being celibate, heterosexually married, etc. Only that they’re behaviors – chosen, like all the alternative behaviors are chosen – either in accord with one’s basic orientation, or (depending on the person) going against one’s basic orientation.

Same with a straight guy who does homosexuality in prison, say. It doesn’t change his opposite-sex orientation. Eating a taco doesn’t make you Mexican. Doing it with someone of the same sex doesn’t make you gay, if your preference/need to begin with is honestly for the opposite sex. And doing it with someone of the opposite sex doesn’t make you straight, if your preference/need to begin with is for the same sex.

Meanwhile, if choice in sexual orientation is not settled science, then Crystal Dixson is being burned at the stake by the keepers of the theory.

I’m one of those people who believe that sexuality is a very fluid thing.
Some people are hard wired one way or the other, many are what we would call bi-sexual, and others actually do make a choice.

Why is it completely acceptable that a man can be married to the same woman for 30 years, and then discover his ‘true sexual’ orientation as a gay man – and no one blinks an eye.
On the other hand, a man can be completely immersed in the ‘gay lifestyle’ and for whatever reason – God, family whatever – decide to become an ex-gay. And suddenly that is unacceptable, must be a farce, he is covering up his true leanings.

My arguement with Ms. Dixon is that she only sees one facet of the gay lifestyle, but in many avenues of life, we all choose only one side of an issue.
Either way, as an American citizen she has the right to express her opinion in her local paper, regardless of how she pays her bills.

You will see so many GayLeftLibs jumping to the pro-life cause that it will make Rosie O’Donnell’s fat head spin.

Regards,
Peter H.

It is settled science that sexual orientation isn’t a matter of choice.

Well, then, anyone who has “kicked the habit” is in regression and a ticking timebomb, as it were, and this statement by Crystal Dixson is without foundation and a bald lie:

Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few.

However, I will take exception to your dictate that:

one who advocates a very minority opinion does have the burden of proof to overturn a scientific consensus…

The scientific method has not a thing to do with the majority opinion of scientists. The scientific method requires proof. The proof is testable by other folk who always reach the identical end point. At that point the proof becomes scientific fact and is settled science.

Many cosmologists are beginning to understand that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is extremely flawed and are embarking on testing new understandings to help find the scientific facts.

If sexual orientation is not a matter of choice, then you can cite the scientific data and facts that prove the point.

It is never the responsibility of the skeptic to disprove the theory. The scientific method is pure skepticism. It assumes the theory is flawed and it continually tests it.

As an aside, ID v Evolution parallels the nurture/nature debate over sexual orientation. Both are a battle of theories with scant scientific fact involved. However, the Evolution people consider the ID people to be Neanderthals as do the sexual orientation isn’t a matter of choice people consider their beliefs to be settled science.

Crystal Dixson was canned because she expressed a view within the scientific debate that displeased the powers that be. She has thought and spoken in a politically incorrect manner.

It should be a simple, slam-dunk case to prove that “it is settled science that sexual orientation isn’t a matter of choice.” Thereafter, Crystal Dixson is toast for having muddied the waters with her whack-a-doodle voo-doo.

Meanwhile, if choice in sexual orientation is not settled science, then Crystal Dixson is being burned at the stake by the keepers of the theory.

Bring on the settled science.

1. Her view appears to be that homosexuality itself is a choice, that one can either pray away the gay or have it disappear through therapy. There’s nothing to substantiate this view and it is one that most gays would take exception to. If her view were more like that advocated by the Catholic Church, for example, I would still disagree with her but at least it would be more defensible and not as offensive – except in matters of law.

2. No, it’s definitely not “settled science that homosexuality is entirely genetic”. It is settled science that sexual orientation isn’t a matter of choice. As for why some people are gay, the most anyone can tell right now is that biology and environment together somehow play are part of it. How much of each and to what degree is unknown.

3. I’m not sure what ID or evolution has to do with this.

4. Not unless one wishes to engage in logical fallacies to bolster their argument. That being said, one who advocates a very minority opinion does have the burden of proof to overturn a scientific consensus. If I advocated a geocentrist viewpoint contrary to what the overwhelming scientific consensus is, especially doing so from a religious perspective, would my opinion be just as valid or does the burden of proof fall upon me?

5. In some people’s eyes no doubt Ms. Dixon has, but that comes more from ideology rather than science. Yet what her view does appear to be comes from religious beliefs and not science. That’s fine but the two shouldn’t be conflated. She’s not alone in this, frankly I think many advocates (though not all even if I disagree with them) of GW theories are just as guilty.

First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one’s personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative.

So writes Crystal Dixson a few lines into her op-ed.

Is the concept of “choice” in homosexuality at the core of her problems? Is it settled science that homosexuality is entirely genetic? Are we dealing with an “Intelligent Design v Evolution” type issue here? Are we locking onto a “majority of scientists think” level of proof?

Has Crystal Dixson committed a science heresy that offends the Grand Inquisitors in control of current scientific theology?

John, you’re pretty much frothing and foaming at the mouth, at this point.

More tripe from some activists on both ends of the spectrum when discussing issues. Please, do continue validating what I said. Give it a moment and I’m sure some liberal will come in and do likewise so at least we’ll achieve “balance”.

I believe all state agencies should adopt nondiscrimination policies, hiring/firing on merit because we have no choice but to support them through our tax dollars.

Ok, then I apparently misunderstood your position. My apologies. One question though: why “policies” and not legislation?