U of M Provost Paul Courant says there is nothing wrong with the course and it DOES NOT teach people to be gay. Obviously delirious from the sounds of Cher and Barry Maniblow being piped into his office, Courant had this to say about the class....
"is similar to literature courses taught at many other universities in our state and across our country."
HUH?!? Teaching someone to be gay is similar to literature courses??? It appears the "militant little mo" that will be teaching the course does not feel the same way as Provost Courant. It does not sound like Dr. Halprin will be talking too much about Shakespeare, well maybe a naked one....
"the course itself will constitute an experiment in the very process of initiation that it hopes to understand."
"I still find the possibility of an open, uncensored, honest, and sexually explicit gay male literature thrilling, and I expected my students to do the same…"
The masking of this class by calling it a literature course is the spin I refer to when talking about the Radical Gay Agenda. This Radical Gay Agenda (RGA) is being forced on our country by a select group of radical & hateful homosexuals, the MSM and liberal educators who are trying to indoctrinate our children and country with this garbage using our tax dollars.
In what the fine Provost describes as literature being taught at many universities across our country, the dainty doctor is very clear about they type of class he will be teaching and its' intended purpose.
From WND --
"Let there be no mistake about it: lesbian and gay studies, as it is currently practiced in the U.S., expresses an uncompromising political militancy," he wrote.
"Just because you happen to be a gay man doesn't mean that you don't have to learn how to become one," he writes in the University of Michigan course description. "Gay men do some of that learning on their own, but often we learn how to be gay from others, either because we look to them for instruction or because they simply tell us what they think we need to know, whether we ask for their advice or not."
Further, he advises potential students, "the course itself will constitute an experiment in the very process of initiation that it hopes to understand." More....
No RGA? Here's a few posts that will dispel any misguided liberal thoughts you may have -
CA banning use of words Mom & Dad from school books and studies deeming them- offensive!
MD school teaching children - Anal sex is OK
NJ school shows same-sex video to third graders
How's that for no Radical Gay Agenda in school studies - Mom & Dad bad, anal sex good!
First of all- your reference comes from WorldNetDaily- so it's hardly credible. They are even more anti-gay than you- if that's possible.
ReplyDeleteSecond- this is 2007, man... There is nothing "radical" about people who have a pro-gay-rights agenda.
I'm not gay- but still you'd classify me as 'radical' because I think that everyone deserves the same rights regardless of what they choose to do in the bedroom.
The only people I see acting 'radical & hateful' are the worldnetdaily folks (and sometimes you, King) because you guys believe that gay people should be considered second class citizens. You want to take away their right to marry, have a family, and serve in the military because you find them icky.
You claim to be pro-military/pro-security yet you want to restrict military service to straight people? Don't you think we need to have the very best people available to help protect our nation?
Joseph, Joseph Joseph....
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would say WND is easily more credible that, Move On.org, Progress OH
Second, it is 2008 and THERE IS a subset of radical homo's trying to force the Radical Gay Agenda down the throats of this country.
Even though you doubt WND's credibility, if you read the article you would see there are some gay groups in MI that are against this course moving forward.
Joseph, you are wrong about how i would classify you. This is the one big misconception many on the left have about us so called Homo Haters.
I do not feel YOU or others with your beliefs are part of the RGA. Though we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on our beliefs, you have the right to your opinion, as do I.
I do not believe, and I may be wrong, that you guys would support same sex videos being shown to third graders, that Mom & Dad should be considered offensive, FORCING children to believe anal sex is OK, etc..... This is where the disconnect comes in.
I do not hate gay people. I just do not believe in what they do. I have several buddies that are light in the loafers. In fact I was with two of them one night this week. We had a blast! You can be sure the bathroom humor of being gay and/or straight is flying after about the third drink.
My problem with some of the gays is that they have to FORCE their beliefs on people. Many of the radical gays and you guys on the left feel that if some us do not belive gay is OK we are homophobes, queer haters, etc...
I have to ask why is this? Why can you guys have your belief this behavior is OK and others cannot disagree with you? WHy do I have to accept and think it is OK for two men or ugly women (i'm a hypocrite) to be together?
Depending on the job, I don't think being gay should be a reason to not hire or be fired from a job. If you are able to do your job and not offend people I could care a less if you lead a parade of gays in tip toeing through the tulips naked as a Jay Bird - after work.
I pretty much feel this way on every issue with gays. I just get upset and speak out when people try to FORCE this stuff on children or others as acceptable behavior.
Nobody should be treated as second class citizens and nobody, at least not me, is trying to classify them as second class. It is their lifestyle, that I do not accept. It is theirs, not mine so don't force it on me.
As for marriage, same sex benefits, family, etc....
I believe marriage is between man & women.
Offering same-sex benefits should be up to the company and not mandated by the government.
Adoption/Family - showing love, tenderness and caring behavior to a child is the ultimate gift we can give, be it from man or women. But I do not believe two men or two women should be allowed to adopt children.
(I grew up with a kid who's dad had a boyfriend living with him - it really screwed my friend up!)
But Joseph the radical gays and you guys on the left treat straight people that do not accept the radical gay agenda as second class citizens.
As for gay in the military - my initial feeling is no. But as I have never been in the service - I would defer to the people who have been.
Weazel served in the USMC for 17 yrs, she had no problem with gay working alon side her. In fact she said - "I could give a shit if they are gay, the job just needs to get done." So maybe in non combat roles they could be allowed.
There have been cases where our soldiers knew a guy was gay in their platoon, patrol and could care a less about it. So for combat, I again defer to the people that would have to serve with anyone that is gay.
I always feel the best person for the job - should get the job! I also do not think anyone should be given a leg up or a black mark because of race, sexual orientation, etc... unless it is not compatible with the job they seek. Which would not make them the best candidate for the job - e.g. gay guy should not be considered for job as towel boy in mens locker room, white guy should not be considered for top spot of NAACP - hope you get my point.
Anyways, thanks for commenting - I am going back in my cave!
I'm assuming a class titled "how to be gay" is a sociological reference to the cultural constructs surrounding homosexuality and acceptance within that community. Don't take it literally.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many things I want to say to educate you right now--I could deconstruct your arguments and logically rebut you point by point--but I don't think it would be worth the time, because ultimately, your mind is made up.
All I can say is this: I have a dream that in 40 years the vast majority of Americans will read posts like yours as an example of prejudice and feel disgusted, much as we can now read racist texts from 40 years ago and feel relieved the world has changed. And if that makes me part of the Radical Gay Agenda, then I'll join the ranks proudly.
Hi Meg - thanks for reading my post and leaving a comment.
ReplyDeleteYour first mistake is that you ASSUMED the class would be about -" cultural constructs surrounding homosexuality and acceptance within that community. Don't take it literally."
My first reaction was pretty much the same as yours - don't take it literally. As I linked to the story I figured it would be along the lines of a "History" of homosexuals, current and past events moments of their trials and tribulations, etc...
Something maybe that a hetro person could take and maybe be more educated about the lifestyle, etc...
Reading more about it and learning more about the dainty professor, I learned otherwise.
As for you educating me and your rebuttal point by point - please do!
In fact, I would be happy to give you more than enough room to dispute any and all of my posts dealing with the Radical Gay Agenda. Click the Homo Alert tag and you will find them all.
If you wish I have no problem making you a contributor to post what you want or I can repost your unedited rebuttal in a style that you choose.
Please do not be mistaken that my mind is made up. Well, it is made up that I will never be gay. Even though I stand firmly behind my beliefs and convictions, I would love to hear your argument.
You are assuming that because of this post, I believe all gay people should be executed like they are in Iran or other Arab countries - on this you are wrong! Dead Wrong!!!
I believe it is a small percentage of the Radical Gay's that are trying to force their "agenda," just like with the small percentage of far left & right wing nuts that try to force theirs.
The far right 'Evangelinuts" are just as bad as the "Fruit Loops" when they protest funerals of dead soldiers claiming- our troops are dying because we 'allow' homosexuals in our country.
The links I have listed in the above post will lead you to a story about Michael Glatze, founding editor of Young Gay America magazine - http://kingsrightsite.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-gay-rights-leader-became-straight.html
For those of you reading this comment, Glatze is no longer gay and is quoted in the story saying -
"Homosexuality took almost 16 years of my life and compromised them with one lie or another, perpetuated through national media targeted at children."
So Megan how would you educate and rebut this guy's statement? He was one of the LEADERS of the RGA.
Pretty funny huh? You want people in the future to be disgusted about my remarks now, when some of your own are disgusted with some of you now!
Before I trot back to my cave with my knuckles dragging, I need to ask you a serious question....
You used the word 'rebut', is that what gay guys call getting a new boyfriend?