A University of Toledo (UT) employee was suspended last week following publication of a column she wrote opposing gay “marriage” in the local Toledo Free Press.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Education > Higher edu
University Employee Suspended Over 'Anti-Gay' Column
By
Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, May. 08 2008 10:31 AM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Prev1Next
Most Commented Articles
La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'
Obama Prying Loose Evangelicals from Republicans
Federal Marriage Amendment Re-introduced in Senate
Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin
Anglican Head Sees Risks in Conservative Proposals
Arizona Puts Marriage Amendment on Ballot - Again
Presbyterians Called to Face the Facts, Change
Featured Advertiser Links
Comments
"So if this woman supported gay marriage and gay lifestyle and worked at a Christian School it would be just fine with you if they fired her. Right?"
Yes, certainly. If she publicly expressed an opinion directly in conflict with the values of the her employer and it brought into question her ability to perform her employment duties then that is more than adequate grounds for dismissal in an "at-will" state.
"dbrydges said: 1) Ohio is an "at-will" state meaning employers can hire or fire employees for any reason that is not illegal.
2) Freedom of speech only guarantees the right to express yourself. It does NOT protect you from the consequences of exercising that freedom.
This woman should be fired."
So if this woman supported gay marriage and gay lifestyle and worked at a Christian School it would be just fine with you if they fired her. Right?
Great post dbrydges. Jar, when has dbrydges ever stated that he is an atheist? It seems like you equate equal rights for gay people with atheism. Is that true?
Drybridge: On the issue of God, let's just agree to disagree... and I've never seen a lobster taken from the sea but I know they come from the ocean...and you can tell God when you meet HIm how He doesnt exist...Peace
Jar, I think that we probably disagree on the very definition of homosexual. To me a person can have a sexual orientation without ever having had an intimate sexual experience. Just because a person decides not to or never has the opportunity to engage in certain activities does not mean they have no defined sexuality. I have been a heterosexual for far longer than I have been sexually active, just as most homosexuals find members of the same sex attractive before their first homosexual experience. I have even met a homosexual virgin, he's saving himself for the right man, but he is undoubtedly homosexual, just like many a heterosexual has saved themselves for their wedding night.
I don't think I've ever had a choice about who I found to be sexually appealing. I certainly have choices about how I deal with my sexual feelings, however I think it is the feelings of sexual attraction that define sexuality rather than the sex act itself. All this being said, I think there is nothing immoral about 2 consenting adults of the same sex deciding to engage in a sexual relationship with one another. there is no victim, no criminal intent, and no rational argument that does not appeal to the logical fallacy of an unprovable authority to declare it immoral.
DRYBR: I agree with what you said. ABout cognition, that is true about external perceptions we have no control over..but... in terms of personal awareness to say that with regard to personal character and hereditary traits that being aware logically will not lead to free will choice is wrong. I may be aware of a pre disposition to alcohol or other vice... the fact I am aware I have a character trait allows me the ability to decide... It is the whole basis for A.A. and N.A. Being aware leads to modifying behavior.
Update: Crystal Dixon is no longer employed at the University of Toledo, her employment was terminated on May 8th. While I'm sure many of you will be disapprove of this decision, I sincerely applaud it as another victory for minority rights over religious tyranny. I think I'll take my wife out to celebrate.
"For instance... the law of gravity states, what goes up must come down"
How colloquial, and wrong. There are both laws and theories of gravity. The laws of gravity apply to the mathematics of gravitation. For example we can calculate with a high degree of accuracy the gravitational pull between objects of known mass or density in space using the laws of gravity and the acceleration due to gravity that each body will experience, but the theory of gravity is an attempt to explain why or how gravity works. Current theories involve the ellusive Higgs Bosson which may or may not be disproven using the LHC. The same applies to the laws of inertia, "an object in motion tends to stay in motion." The laws apply to the mathematical model which has been proven through thorough experimentation to produce predictable and reproducabel results. The theory of inertia however is not mathematical model that is the law of inertia, it is currently theorized that sub-atomic particles exist that give matter mass. Science does not attempt to prove theories, in science theories are presented with supporting evidence and reasoning and considered are usually valid theories until they are disproven.
I'm not sure why you are restating what I already stated regarding consensus. You are right a consensus does not equate to scientific fact. Perhaps you over simplfied what you meant, but consensus is most definitely NOT the opposite of scientific fact. As you state the two are unrelated. Consensus among scientists simply means that a majority of those scientists BELIEVE that a particular theory has NOT been disproven, it does not equate to fact and never will.
You seem to misunderstand cognition. Cognition is knowledge through perception, awareness, reasoning, etc... nothing to do with free will. Awareness does not necessarly imply choice. I am aware it is cloudy, but I have no choice or free will in the matter. I am aware of gravity, I have no choice as to whether or not my body experience gravitational pull.
DRYBRIDGES: Umm wrong ... consensus has no role in science. The scientific method in order for it to be valid must be able to demonstrate through repeating the same experiment coming to the same finding. Science relies on process. DrBridge.. before you comment think about the extrension of your thinking. There are many laws in science. I.e. thermodynamics, gravity... Obtaining consistenly same results using the scientific method yields scientific law. For instance... the law of gravity states, what goes up must come down.... objects moving inmotion will tend to stay in motion uuntil an outward force is applied.....
And cognition is about awareness and awareness opens us up to free will choices... that is part of the findings of the APA Report as well. They also stated in the GENOME report that hereditary traits are not indicators of inevitable behavior..
* Theories are not facts
** True, but theories are supported by evidence. Most scientific discoveries are presented as theory, there are very few scientific laws. So what? There are also several religious theories, Christianity, Hinduism, etc... There are also theories that homosexuality is immoral. Theories are not facts.
* Science doesnt rely on consensus..
** Consensus is unrelated to scientific fact. However, if consensus were the opposite of scientific fact as tyou contend, then every scientific fact agreed on by a majority of scientists would be scientifically incorrect because the opposite would be true because of consensus. Nice try, all that consensus means is that a majority of those who looked at the data agreed, presumably those who are comming to this consensus are emminently more qualified to interprete the data than you or I.
*Cognitive means the ability to be aware and choose
** wrong, cognitive or cognition has to do with factual knowledge, knowing.. not deciding. I am cognitive of the fact it is raining, I do not need to decide if it is or not. Even if I decide that it is not raining, it may very well be. So a homosexual may decide that he or she is not gay, buy they may actually still be regardless of their choice.
* Homosexuality is not hardwired," concludes head of the Human Genome Project...
** Homosexuality may not be hardwired, however genetic pre-disposition is certainly a factor and this implies a lack of choice in the matter. For example a person may be genetically pre-disposed to cancer but it is doubtful that most people would choose to become cancer patients.
* They don't know
** No body knows, science isn't about solid facts, its about theories that are supported by current knowledge and data. scientific theories are created and discarded all of the time. This is the strength of science, bad science is quickly discarded. This position with caveats like "probably" is infinitely more honest than the religious right who stamp their feet and claim homosexuality is a choice, not based on any real exploration of the subject, but rather based on emotionally backed religious dogma.
* They really dont know
** The theory is that there may be many causes of homosexuality, this is far more honest than claiming to "know" that all homosexuals are that way because they choose to be. As though you or anyone can read the mind of all homosexuals.
It is a ludicrous and arrogant statement…
** Sorry but it is far more arrogant to think that you're conclusions are somehow more correct because you read it in the Bible or because your peers agree with you and you feel you're right.
FInally..I have said exactly what the APA said…
** As already discussed cognition and choice are not the same thing. Cognition is the act of knowing, not the act of deciding. Look it up, use a dictionary. The APA is correct when they say it is not a choice.
FOR DRYBRIDGES: Okay so it was your retor for the GENOME Study 200&:
Homosexuality is not hardwired," concludes head of the Human Genome Project...
Grateful acknowledgements to Dr. A. Dean Byrd and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) for granting www.tldm.org permission to reprint this article:
NARTH reported on March 8, 2007:
Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA research, concluded that "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits." However, he adds, "for virtually none of them, is heredity ever close to predictive."
In reviewing the heritability (i.e., influence of genetic factors) on personality traits, Dr. Collins referenced the research of Bochard and McGue for the estimated percentage of these traits that can be ascribed to heredity.
The heritability estimates for personality traits were varied: General Cognitive Ability (50%), Extroversion (54%), Agreeableness (42%), Conscientiousness (49%), Neuroticism (48%), Openness (57%), Aggression (38%) and Traditionalism (54%).
Such estimates of heritability are based upon unbiased, careful analyses of studies conducted with identical twins. The studies lead to the conclusion that heredity is important in many of these personality traits. It is important however, to note that even in such studies with identical twins, that heritability is not to be confused as inevitability.
FOR DRYBRIDGES: My challange to you.. Repost my cut/paste from the APA.. Look at my comments that I placed under each statement.. and objectively .. not subjectively but logcially respond to each of my comments.
In recent years the effectiveness of the EXODUS Program was ut under scrutiny. To establish the effectiveness of the program 100 volunteers from Exodus were monitored for 4 years.. The result? 24-30% of the volunteers successfully transitioned into a heterosexual lifestyle....
NOw for those inthe gay community let me stop you before you make your usual claims... IN order for a man to get an erection he needs to be excited. So if "transition" also incorporates the ability to be sexually aroused by a female... In my book.... that's good enough proof for me...
ANd we all know that gay men dont get excited over women.. right?
FOR DRYBRIDGES...I did no such thing..I simply addressed the CAUSES of homosexuality... I also took logic ... and logic 101 goes through the processes If "A" > "B".. YOu seemed to ignore that the "CAUSES" and the "EFFECTS" create a false paradigm. I said in my statment.. which you obviously did not read in full that the APA's conclusion based on causation was that orientation is not a choice when they clearly delineated that environment and cognition were the 2 predicated factors in determining orientation.. ergo If "A" then "B" if you remove or change the environment and reconsider your choice you can realign your orientation.
Porblem with this generation is you have been not taught how to critically think and challange. All you have been taught is that God is dead, accept what people say at face value and never look under the surface....
I'd call jars comments pseudo-psych because he is cherry picking the conclusions/theoriese of the APA that support his POV, not very honest of him to say the least. Let's look at what else the APA had to say.
Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.
Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's.
QED
FOR BLUE: By the way what you consider pseudo -psych? Guess where it came from? A militant gay member of this board tried to use it as his defense for his lifestyle.. the only thing i did was go to the link and copy and paste it.. SO I used the very data that a gay man used to support it... so if you consider that report pseudo psycho. then guess what...??? You just told that gay man that you believe the very science he is clinging to is false and not a basis for homosexuality. You have done in ignorance what I have been trying to do using the very facts that the gay community presents..
BLUE: The school yard is a tough place, and being harrassed or picked on is cruel. YOu obviously didn't read the resacrh from the APA and from the Genome Study. In 2007 the Genome Program declard that homosexuality is NOT genetic. And they also concluded that while heredity traits exist they are not indicators of predictive behaviors, rather that given a particular hereditary trait that the determinate factor is the FREE WILL to carry out that characteristic trait. That is raw science. Additionally the APA Report stated that the 2 top suspected causes for homosexuality is environmental and cognitive.. NOt my words but the left wing American Psychological Assoc.
it is just incredibly disappointing when people use either the bible or some pseudo-psychological 'answer' to back up their homophobic views, like Dixon. how can anyone speak for anyone else' sexual identity, more or less their salvation? and "willful behavior patterns which deviate from the norm." willful? seriously? are you telling me the people in this world who have suffered, even lost their lives, because they were gay were choosing to be persecuted? are you telling me that gay children who have been picked on in school and beaten up 'chose' to be harassed? are you really, really against orphans that go to live with two same-sex adults, who would otherwise grow up in an orphanage. no, people who define themselves as homosexuals deserve the same protection because it is obvious that many people in this country, like Dixon, will continue to look down upon human beings simply because of their sexual orientation.
jar: What part of sexual identity is behavior? Is it same-sex attraction? Is that behavior? Or is it only acting out on those same sex attractions?
And when you are talking about the founding fathers, are you talking about the same guys that legalized and legitmized slavery?
tamna: Actually that view is pretty popular considering that pretty much every state that has had a vote, has voted in favor of discrimination (against same-sex relationships, benefits and rights).
For BLUE: Wrong.. What a person does does not define who they are... Militant homosexuals define who they are by their behavior....CIvil Rights has nothing to do with special protections under the law for willful behavior patterns which deviate from the norm. Civil Rights has to do with
protecting classes based on inborn immutable factors which a person was born into like..ummm.. being black or asian....
If behavior were part of it Im sure the founding fathers would have wrote it into the constitution.
ifeelfine: Consequences???? Oh please. You actually feel that the University is justified in their actions???? The rationalization I've read from those who agree with the university is more akin to material I've read from third world banana republics. Maybe people who agree with the university would feel more at home in a country where people are silenced for unpoopular views.
it is INDEED a civil rights issue. when there are comments posted about the unwillingness to accept people for who they are, and the mean, ill-spirited rhetoric behind every homophobic, it becomes a rights issue because many people are denied work, homes, children, etc for their orientation.
Report from the APA:
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation;
* Theories are not facts
most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of
* Science doesnt rely on consensus.. Consensus is the opposite of scientific fact
a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive
* Environmental and Cognitive are the 2 primary suspected causes.
*Cognitive means the ability to be aware and choose
and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.
* Disavowed by the Genome 2007 Study
* Homosexuality is not hardwired," concludes head of the Human Genome Project...
In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation
* They don't know
and the reasons may be different for different people.
* They really dont know
Finally in all this, the report from the APA makes the statement that given everything they dont know, but suspect its both environmental and cogntivie that orientation is not a choice...
It is a ludicrous and arrogant statment given what they think the causes of.
FInally..I have said exactly what the APA said.. it is determined primarily by environment and choice.
Homosexuality is not hardwired," concludes head of the Human Genome Project...
ten:
"Homosexuals choose their orientation"
and your conclusion is based on...?
I am a heterosexual, but I did not choose to be, thats how I was made. I knew it at a very young age that I was attracted to the opposite sex. My homosexual friends knew at a very young age that they were not attracted to the opposite sex. It was not their choice, its how they were made. Please tell me about your data that supports your conclusion that sexual oreintation is a choice.
msnchris70:
".....these homosexuals are ruining our country with their immorality"
How so? Specifically, how are gay's ruining our country. Seems to me the large number of Christians that cheat on their spouses and break up families thru divorce has more to do with societal problems than influence of the relatively small number of gays.
For what its worth, I don't think she should have been fired anymore than if she said she hated black people or was against inter-racial marriage (irony is a funny thing, I know).
Tamna: Check out the SCOTUS case Schenck v. United States it basically states that there can be consequences to your free speech (Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a quote often attributed - wrong I might add - to this case).
Let us not forget that the issue here is NOT homosexuality - it is freedom of speech, pure and simple.
You may or may not like what Ms. Dixon wrote in a newspaper column, but she has a constitutional right to voice her opinion. No where in the Constitution does it state anything about freedom from being offended. If you want to take issue with Ms, Dixon's opinions then do so in the paper. The University is acting more like a third world dictatorship rather than a University in a supposed respresentative democracy.
And by the way, just where is the American Civil Liberties Union? This case is tailor made for the ACLU. Yeah, I know. I won't hold my breath.
ABOUT JUDGING: Scripture does not say not to judge..it says, remove the plank from your own eye before the splinter in your neighbors eye.. It says be warned..that the measure by which we judge we shall be judged. If we use the right measure (Scripture in Christ's example) then we are sure to receive the right measure. Scripture says if there is one in thbody who sins, approach that person.. if he refuses to listen bring a 2nd witness, then turn himm over the church and then if they still choose not to repent to put them out from the body (that reconciliation may take take)
ABOUT JUDGING:
ten10
"Scripture does not encourage witch hunts, "
Are you serious? what bible have you been reading? I can think of a few verses off hand from the OT which states wizards, witches and the like should be stoned to death and in numerous places. What, you think the midevil europeans just put witches to death for fun?
"uphold GOD's Law and out of love for the Law abiding see that the Law breaker deserving of death is put to death"
So, just to be clear here, according to you and your rhetoric we should put to death all those as described as in the bible, OT, NT and all then? So, death to witches, wizards, gays, kids who disobey their parents, adulteriers, people who work on the sabbath, people who divorce, and so on and so forth... wow, I am sure glad I don't live near you and your archaic view of how things are.
The Gay Lifestyle is disordered. Actively living in this lifestyle will bring damnation on you. As Christians we should not stone them, but as Christians these homosexuals are ruining our country with their immorality.
How do we beat the current trend; Pray, make more babies who will be Christian and vote morally conservative.
The reason why we have so many problems with our Government and our elected politiicians is because Christians have only a few more children by average than Secular Pagans. If we go back to non-Contraceptive marriages, then in 25 years we will outnumber all of the Pagans by a margin of 3 to 1 at least and we can vote out all the LIBERALS and moral Relativists.
In South Africa as some of you know will know we had Apartheid, which determined that black people were discriminated against. Well the homosexual lobby in our country are using the same arguments as the homosexual lobby in America to pass them selves off as the new oppressed class of people. And we poor stupid Christians who have a misguided understanding of GOD's love are being suckered into believing what these ungodly people are saying.
Homosexuals choose their orientation, just like an adulterer chooses to do adultery or not. Black people, Chinese people and white people cannot change their colour, and definitely not choose their colour. Sin is a choice!
ShuckCreations
Why would GOD repudiate a Law that required the death of His Son, a Law that is fully a reflection of His (GOD's) holy character? A Law that is/was perfectly kept by the Lord Jesus Christ, and of which the Apostle John rights is not difficult to keep "1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome."
Jesus upholds the death penalty for incorrigible children in Matthew 15:4 ""For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.', this opposed to the religous hypocrites of His day who taught that you could refuse assistance toyour parents if you adpromised the money to the church?
Scripture does not encourage witch hunts, but if homosexuals flaunt their perversity in the streets of our cities, we Christians should be electing Godly men who would have the guts and boldness to uphold GOD's Law and out of love for the Law abiding see that the Law breaker deserving of death is put to death. read what GOD says about Phineas in Numbers 25.
"...then according to Biblical standards they should be stoned to death. "
Umm, we live under a new covenant where such things aren't done anymore. We are called to love everyone not to judge and punish!
Wow.
She said Gay rights is not equivalent to Civil rights (which clearly is correct). Where exactly did she send the notion that the school did not accept homosexuals? If the University believes Gay rights are equivalent to that of the Civil rights, then they have a lot of problems they need to fix before taking actions like this.
Why don't you try that TerryH, it would be the Christian thing to do after all. Let me know how it works out for you. LOL
Dbrydges wrote,
2) Freedom of speech only guarantees the right to express yourself. It does NOT protect you from the consequences of exercising that freedom.
This woman should be fired.
Well if this principle is correct then on the other side if a homosexual speaks out about their lifestyle and is not protected from the consequences of their expressing themselves then according to Biblical standards they should be stoned to death.
ALright..instead of us blogging on this we all need to contact the Toledo Paper and support Ms. Dixon...
There is an important message here - THERE IS NO FREE PRESS IN TOLEDO!!! Crystal is correct - she is biologically and genetically a black woman. Homosexuality is a chosen behavior and a lifestyle - IT IS NOT A MATTER OF CIVIL RIGHTS!!! And to those who espouse it as such, you really need to research your material better. Crystal should have NEVER been suspended. Rather, she should be APPLAUDED!!!
REPENT, FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS AT HAND!!!!
Sexual orientation is what you are born with.
How you choose to use it and control it is what you live with.
If Christ is the head of your life, then your choice is based on what pleases God.
Homosexuality, Adultery, Fornication (and other sexual sins) do not please God.
Thanks, MuggleBorn :D
DiaryOfCross,
http://www.toledofreepress.com/?id=7609
By the way, anyone know where we can get the article Crystal Dixon wrote?
I'm glad I live in a country where free speech can be expressed =_=*
Hmm... let's see... what major things do we know that slandered groups of people...? Wait... I know the Da Vinci Code! That was COMPLETELY slandering the Catholic Church! BILLIONS SAW THE MOVIE! Did anyone get sued? No. Did the RCC see a penny? No. Was there even a disclaimer saying it was fictional at the beginning of the movie? No. Until Christians are protected by the law, why should homosexuals be? I don't know... they bring down my property values :P
I guess the Toledo 'Free Press' should consider a name change...
"Bisexuals don't change their orientation anymore than you do - it shows you don't know much about sexual orientation."
They switch between men and women right? That means sometimes they're heterosexual and sometimes they're homosexual depending on the relationship at the time. Sounds like changing to me.
Regarding whether or not someone can change their sexual orientation, a few people whose orientation may be a bit fluid MAY be able to change their behavior, but those are few and far between. To make general, sweeping statements that homosexuals can change their orientation is evidence of someone who probably does struggle with same-sex attractions but can function as a heterosexual.
It's important to keep in mind that everyone's sexuality is different.
This woman was really prejudiced (i.e. pre-judging) in writing this statement. I'm sure she would be offended if someone made generalities about particular races.
::begin quote::
Bisexuals don't change their orientation anymore than you do - it shows you don't know much about sexual orientation.
::end quote::
Some former homosexuals say they did indeed change their orientation. You say that it's not possible to change their orientation.
Why should we take your word over theirs?
Bisexuals don't change their orientation anymore than you do - it shows you don't know much about sexual orientation.
"Cheala - Can you change your sexual orientation? I can't change mine."
Bisexuals seem to change their orientation quite often....
(flagged myself for misspelling)
ifeelfine72, check the link below and scroll down to the Physical appearance section. Micheal Jackson didn't CHOOSE to change his appearance. I'd get your facts straight before you post things like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micheal_Jackson
To contact Toledo University to express outrage:
The University of Toledo - Main Campus
2801 W. Bancroft
Toledo, Ohio 43606-3390
419.530.INFO or 419.530.4636
1.800.5TOLEDO or 1.800.586.5336
It is important to note that she was not fired from "the paper", the paper appropriate published her article.
So lets not freak out at the paper, they were fair and gave her a voice.
Our anger should be directed at the University for punishing her for her opinion. This is a moment where the ACLJ or ADF should be contacted by this women.
Cheala - Can you change your sexual orientation? I can't change mine.
I don't know . . . it looks like Michael Jackson has chosen not to be black anymore.
1) Ohio is an "at-will" state meaning employers can hire or fire employees for any reason that is not illegal.
2) Freedom of speech only guarantees the right to express yourself. It does NOT protect you from the consequences of exercising that freedom.
This woman should be fired.
I totally disagree chicago24. She should not be fired or suspended for that statement. Her statement is actually factual. There are people leaving the homosexual lifestyle on a daily baises just as well as there people enteriing the lifestyle on a daily basis. yeah..you could argue the numerical number, but what is the point? Contrary to popular belief, Homosexuals do have a choice.
There is no way to compare the centuries of oppression of blacks to a perverted lifestyle of sexual tendencies in which one chooses engange. I am black and human by God's design. If you say a person is gay by design then in essence God is gay. If you read Genesis the bible states God made us in his image. In other words we, the human creation are to be the visible representation of him, but sin has distorted the God our intended purpose so much that it does not come into clear focus because doing wrong has become the norm and absolutes are absolutley absurd.
"I take great umbrage"
This is clearly a free speech issue. She should NOT be held to a different standard simply because she is employed by the university. This institution should be open enough for all views to be shared.
What I find incredulous is that someone in her position as assistant vice president of human resources would publish such inaccurate facts. "Daily, thousands of homosexuals make the decision to leave the gay lifestyle" is simply not true and a gross misstatement.
A university official SHOULD be suspended for that.
Wow, whatever happened to freedom of the press? This is ridiculous!