Posted on 06/22/2009 4:45:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
Dear UNC-Wilmington Students: It’s getting close to time to start another semester. That means that it’s time to lay down the rules for all of my classes. I’m going to continue to use all the rules I’ve used before, which can be found in my syllabus. But, starting this semester, I’m adding three more rules. Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgendered students (GILBERTS) need to pay especially close attention.
First of all, GILBERTS will not be allowed to mention their status as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or trans-gendered. A few semesters ago, a gay student in one of my classes said – right in the middle of class, mind you – “I’m gay.” It offended me when he said that. That is why I am banning such statements for the duration of the semester. The simple awareness of the presence of gays in my classes offends me. No other reason need be offered. Just shut up and comply with the rule.
Second of all, GILBERTS will not be allowed to offer even mild criticisms of those who disagree with them. Last semester, a gay student was talking to one of his female friends – probably one of those fag hags - when he said “I want to marry my boyfriend some day if the bigots will let me.” Since I oppose gay marriage, for obvious religious reasons, it offended me when he made that statement. That is why I am banning any such statements for the duration of the semester. Even mild criticism of my beliefs offends me. No other reason need be offered. Just shut up and comply with the rule.
Finally, GILBERTS will not be allowed to state their beliefs concerning the origins of human rights. Last semester, a gay student said he supported gay marriage because he felt in his soul that it was the right thing to do. It offended me when he said that. That is why I am banning such statements for the duration of the semester. I’m simply offended when people discuss their beliefs about the origins of human rights, especially when it entails discussing their feelings. No other reason need be offered. Just shut up and comply with the rule.
Hopefully, by now, most of you realize you are reading political satire. But that crucial fact - and the larger point of the satire - was lost on countless GILBERTS across the nation. After reading only two paragraphs of this letter, which was posted in its entirety on DrAdams.org, they began to fire off letters to the UNC-Wilmington administration demanding that I be fired.
Had the GILBERTS taken the time to read this far they would have understood that a real letter of complaint was filed against me in January simply for a) mentioning my Christianity, b) offering very mild criticism of one assertion of Darwinism, and c) revealing a basic belief about the origins of human rights; namely, that they are endowed by a Creator.
It is sad that a college student would lack the maturity needed to hear someone say “I’m an outspoken Christian professor” without having an emotional breakdown. It is also sad that he was arrogant enough to write a letter of complaint to my Marxist chairwoman. I am simply not intimidated by anti-Christian bigots. Nothing short of a bullet in the head will keep me from professing my Christian beliefs. And most anti-Christian bigots don’t own guns.
It is also sad that the administration failed to reprimand the narrow-minded Marxist who expressed disappointment that the student’s letter would not result in a formal complaint. This is unmitigated bigotry, plain and simple. If I were not an adult, I would ague that it’s hate speech.
Of course, while sad, none of this is too surprising. This is an administration that removed the word “Christmas” from the tree and “Good Friday” from the university calendar. They even once tried to force faculty and staff to remove Bible verses from their university email signatures.
Nor is it surprising that GILBERTS express outrage at satire more often than Christians express outrage at real persecution. That is because most GILBERTS love their sexuality more than most Christians love Christ. And that’s the saddest thing of all.
“Just because they say they own guns, you believe it?”
Several of my friends on the left hunt with me and go target shooting on occasion. They own guns and very expensive ones at that. They will be the first to tell you if someone breaks into their home, they know their toy chihuaha won’t stop the intruder, but their glock will.
The problem with them is they are for gun control as long as their guns aren’t being taken from them. When drinking one night we had this discussion. Their comments? “Hey, Stalin hunted.”
When the SHTF, will they turn on you, or will they wake up and join the resistance? You need to know, and have a plan for the most awful of contingencies.
I’m supposed to be impressed by a Master’s? Congratulations, you went to school for a long time.
Let’s distilled it:
1. Christians are basically conservatives of convenience.
2. Christians have, in the past, jettisoned otherwise conservatives candidates if there is another option. Heath Schuler and Mike Huckabee immediately come to mind.
3. African-American Christians voted against gay marriage, voted for Obama. See point 2.
How’s that for starters? Hope that’s enough, because that’s all I need to say on this subject.
LOL. From “The love that dare not speak its name” to “The love that will not shut up” in just 200 years.
“When the SHTF, will they turn on you, or will they wake up and join the resistance? You need to know, and have a plan for the most awful of contingencies.”
For the most part they are Conservative. They hate the Palis, believe in a strong national defense, are pro-life and believe in traditional marriage under the eyes of the lord.
They are just into money and power. They would neither join a resistance nor turn anyone in.
Yeah, but I think Tom Wolfe uses the term “giblets” to
mean ones sexual organs.....
http://www.dradams.org/
I think the best suggestion for an acronym for the g-b-l-t people comes from a previous post: GBILETSGDS. Spelled one way, pronounced a different way like most acronyms.
As in, “The GBILETSGDS community is outraged at the Boy Scout organization for its lack of inclusiveness.”
Or, “At the weekly March Against Hatred rally in San Francisco earlier today, one GBILETSGDS demonstrator suffered severe makeup damage and mascara displacement when he was....., etc.”
(I’m home on sick leave today and there’s nothing else to do. Really.)
;^)
I like Pie even though everyone says I should be liking cake, but you don’t see me marching in the streets forcing everyone to acknowledge that I like pie.
Instead I use that energy to actually go out and procure some warm tasty pie. And you won’t see me eating pie because I prefer to eat Pie in my own damned house which I own!
Some people like to eat cake and they want to march around practically eating cake and/or pie in the streets and I think they help build a stigma against people with non traditional desert options instead of being a positive force for desert freedoms.
If I want to have pie or cake it is no one’s business except my own and there should be no government laws saying that I should not have cake or pie. The way to rights is through inherent rights and not the creation of laws. Instead they think that the way to freedom of desert choices is though the creation of more bloated laws and government oversight.
I have to extend my apologies. There was a bit of commotion going on in my home this morning while I made my post, so there probably was a lack of clarity on my original post.
I don’t mean to disrespect the religious sensitivities of anybody. I’m not a fan of gay marriage, it’s just I don’t believe the fortunes of the Republic are going to rise or fall on the question.
Abortion on the other hand can be addressed from an intellectual and human rights point of view, as well as the religious one. If properly framed, it’s a winner. To borrow a phrase, it’s a moral absolute.
In my mind, gay marriage, the “War on Drugs”, isolationism vs American interventionism and a few others are issues which can be debated within conservative circles.
Abortion, RKBA, State’s Rights, Immigration, Armed Services and others are the perimeter which must always defend.
Good to chat,
Deviants works. But I prefer the easier to say term, Queers.
I couldn’t get back to you quickly enough. I agree with the 100% with the title Civil Union instead of gay marriage.
Perhaps you should read what you wrote yourself: "As opposed to abortion, which is covered in the Constitution, gay marriage should no longer be used as a sop to the Christian “conservatives”.
What does this mean about abortion? Gay "marriage?" Very ambiguous. Perhaps you understood what you meant, but your intended message certainly didn't make it to your readers. But your deriding quotation marks describing Christians was abundantly clear.
"I lose my appetite at the thought of being next to a homosexual couple engaging in an intense tonsil hockey match. I am equally bothered by a heterosexual couple engaged in the same behavior. An open door to polygamy, polyandry, bestiality? Uh, yeah, let’s push the edge of ridiculousness."
The left poo-poo's this slippery slope argument as well, when there is every rational argument to support it. Robert Bork put it well in his book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah regarding official state recognition of homosexual relationships and its logical conclusion: "The point of this discussion is not that we are about to be overwhelmed by a tidal wave of pedophilia, but rather that the unimaginable becomes imaginable, and then actual, when some moral lines... weaken and become vulnerable."
The pit is bottomless when you obliterate these long-standing moral lines. There is no longer any rational basis to deny state recognition to just about any combination of humans that can be conjured up.
Let me address my second point first. Slouching Toward Gomorrah was quite influential to my growth as a conservative. Both sides engage in the slippery slope argument but it’s a more effective strategy for the left as they will enact legislation incrementally. Conservatives, generally, are all or nothing, as evidenced by the “Moral Absolutes” ping here on FR.
Gay marriage is nothing more than a semantic argument. Marriage, in the minds of most, is a religious contract, a Sacrament, bound by God. Gays, by using the religious terminology, seek to only tweak the noses of the establishment. Similar to the Black Mass or Black Sabbath of the Middle Ages.
If Conservatives refused to discuss the issue as gay marriage and only as civil unions. A civil union, which every state probably has the power to do, as easily as a corporation, it takes the gay joy out the equation and the desire to do so is minimized.
Gays have a child mentality. It is a psychological illness. If everybody ignored them, they would just go away. I believe that addresses the first part of my post, as well. Only fools argue semantics.
I don’t agree 100% with the pedophilia argument. Most people are repulsed by it. There are global arrests on the charge. I do agree the charges and punishments are gender specific, based upon women getting away with lighter sentences.
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.