Skip to comments.Ithaca College, Cornell Rank High for Gay-Friendly Schools
Posted on 08/17/2010 8:40:11 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
Three Ithaca-area schools rank among the most gay-friendly colleges, according to a survey by a national nonprofit group focused on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) college students.
Ithaca College scored five out of five stars in the Campus Pride Climate Index. Cornell University scored 4.5 out of five. Binghamton University scored well, too - ranking four out of five stars.
The annual index has become a yardstick used in student and faculty research, campus organizing efforts and gauging LGBT student safety and inclusion.
Ithaca College high score - only 19 of more than 230 schools ranked five out of five - "reflects the exceptional commitment and contributions of students, staff and faculty who together have created a campus community that honors and values sexual and gender diversity," Lis Maurer, program director for the college's Center for LGBT Education, Outreach and Services.
In July, Ithaca was named the 14th gayest city in the U.S. by the Daily Beast. "Ithaca is a young and smart city, ranking eighth for the median age group (27.9) and third for the number of college graduates (55 percent). What's more, Ithaca is the least populated city among the top 20 (101,000)," the site explained.
If I was the parent of a gay child I would sure as hell think twice before handing him or her over to a “gay-friendly” college. Somehow I don’t think much learning goes on in such places.
By the same token, if I happened to be black, I sure as hell would not deliver my child up to a black college. I recall an article about one in The Atlantic a few years back and it sounded like an absolute sewer.
> Only 14th?
I don't think Ithaca is especially "gay". Weird, yes; liberal to a fault, yes; and gay-friendly, yes.
But "gay"? I don't think any more so than most places on the East Coast. Hell, there are only one or two gay bars for 20,000 townies and 30,000 students -- the Common Ground turned into "Oasis" and is not promoting itself as a gay bar the way the CG did. I don't think the Blue Angel has been in business for years, which is a shame because they had the best pool table in town, and no fights.
Anyway, who cares how "gay-friendly" the local colleges are? I try to avoid them... I live out in the country where that sort of stuff is frowned-upon, or at best, tolerated as long as you still drink beer, shoot straight, and keep your hands to yourself.
I guess that’s a benefit of having a veterinary school.
How exactly does one "honor" sexual diversity?
How frustrating that will be if OTHERS do the same. Who will they rape or indoctrinate if they only have humans already perverted?
I suspect it's "more honored in the breach than the observance".
Then again, maybe that should be "breech"....
Cornell Gay Friendly huh....no surprise...sounds too much like Cornhole....
we used to pick cherries and picnic on Cayuga lake.....those days are so long gone....
Gee, I don’t think that made it into the Newspeak annual rankings.
Yeah, just ignore it and it will all go away. (/sarc)
More like: If I ignore it I have more time to deal with more pressing and immediate problems.
There are things all over the country, and all over the world, that I don't agree with, that I think are ethically or morally wrong, that go against all that is right and good. I don't have enough lifetime to worry about them all; even 5% of them would take multiple lifetimes. A bunch of gay kids at a local college doesn't hit my threshold of worry, given the other things that are already above it.
I don't think homosexuality will "go away" -- it's been around for all of recorded history, and probably long before that, too. As far as I can tell it's at about the same level (plus-or-minus noise) in the population as it always has been. It's got a movement that is more vocal and annoying these days, that's what I see.
Since you are inclined to not ignore it, I encourage you to pay even more attention to it, to make up for me ignoring it. Thanks! :)
My daughter’s fiance graduated from Cornell. When she was graduating from Stanford, they discussed which of the graduation-related events they would attend. He’d never HEARD of a baccalaureate service. When told what it is, he said “well, Cornell is an atheist school.” They went to the baccalaureate.
They are the cultural spearhead of moral anarchy, and we ignore this at our own peril.
It's sorta like this...
Conservatives favor God, Guns, and Country Music. Liberals favor Sex, Drugs, and Rock-n-Roll. Libertarians favor all of the above, plus Porn. (Apologies to Garry Trudeau.)
So it's no wonder that the homosexual agenda doesn't concern you. You're in favor of sex, drugs, rock-n-roll and porn. Oh, now we get it.
Libertarians are just plain nuts, and many with that moniker are not true conservatives who believe in family values, and policies that support those beliefs. That includes being "pro-life" (in the womb and through the end of natural life), and resisting the homosexual agenda, as important examples.
We can't have 'absolute' freedom/liberty because of the necessary interactions and collisions our lives have with every other personality - anyone who tells you that we can is a fool. And we can't even experience the reasonable freedom we have without Christian morality. Hence, our laws, including many laws reflecting and defining community morality, which are proper and right. This is true conservatism, not the Randian, utilitarian 'conservatism' that immoralizes man as a law unto himself.
I’m like Ted Nugent. I fall into the “God, Guns, and Rock-n-Roll” category. I don’t believe that Rock-n-Roll is inherently anathema to conservatism and I’m sure many Freepers would agree. Oh, and sex isn’t either, as long as it’s in the proper context. ;)
I all in favor of “God, Guns, & Rock & Roll.”
It the abortion, porn, and homosexual agenda that we can live without... & which certain Libertarians seem to be willing to tolerate.
I’m all in favor ...
That was a joking reference to an old Doonesbury cartoon strip, that talked about the difference between Republicans and Democrats, and then threw in Libertarians (big-L).
(That's why the "apology to Trudeau" the Doonesbury cartoonist.)
Personally, I favor God, Guns, Country music, Sex (with my lady), and Rock-n-Roll. I do fine without Drugs or Porn. Or Gay folk, for that matter. You just won't see me running around the streets with anti-drug, anti-porn, or anti-gay placards. I work 12 hours a day, don't have time for such activities.
Sorry you didn't get the joke. So much for obscure literary references. :)
You just won't see me running around the streets with anti-drug, anti-porn, or anti-gay placards. I work 12 hours a day, don't have time for such activities.
Maybe it is also a joke about being too busy to be on the streets with placards on issues such as drugs, porn, homosexuality, but since you post here on Freerepublic, a conservative site, where do you stand on those issues?
I promise I won't laugh at your response.
1. Drugs. I believe that all psychoactive substances, whether currently legal or illegal, prescription or non-prescription, should be re-categorized according to their a) usefulness as medications, b) usefulness as a recreational intoxicant, c) safety in normal use, and d) potential for harm if used improperly. This includes everything from alcohol to pot to anti-depressants to heroin to LSD to sedatives to painkillers. Our current categorization is grossly inaccurate and leads to gruesome accidents, deaths, etc. and inconsistent social effects.
I think that many drugs that are legal should be more closely controlled, and some drugs that are illegal could be decriminalized with overall net improvement in society. I do not agree with the large-L Libertarian position that all drugs should be legal; I think that's unwise.
Personally I have an occasional beer or shot of tequila (typically once or twice a month). I don't smoke pot or take any other recreational drugs, just my blood pressure meds (hardly recreational) and the occasional aspirin.
2. Porn. It either disgusts or bores me, frankly. I do enjoy pictures of pretty women in both dressed and undressed states, but I'm talking things like pinups or classic "erotic" paintings or photos, not pornographic shots. I am of the opinion that porn has a minimal effect on a person's core beliefs, and does not constitute a significant danger to society given that we face much larger dangers as a nation from treason and the introduction of Sharia.
I don't think nudie pictures should be or have to be outlawed to protect society; that sort of prohibition doesn't work anyway. Existing laws on assault, rape, and other violent crimes cover most of what I would outlaw in extreme/hardcore porn -- it's not the picture or the video, it's the behavior that I find objectionable.
3. Homosexuality. I'm unequivocally heterosexual, never had the slightest romantic or sexual interest in other men. So I don't really understand gay men's attraction for each other. I'm willing to grant that tastes differ, and I don't claim to understand love, so I try to allow for a certain range of attractions. But I find the thought of gay male sex distasteful, unnatural, somewhat disgusting. Something just ain't right there.
Lesbians, well, that makes a bit more sense to me, since I find women attractive, so I can understand a woman finding women attractive, but sexually it's still obviously not what Nature intended. Something ain't right there either.
I don't think homosexuality should be illegal -- I believe it's irrelevant to the government's proper functions. That sort of thing is best dealt with on the local social or interpersonal level.
Obviously, I'm not a full-blooded Social Conservative, because I'm not going to carry placards around with anti-drug, anti-porn, anti-gay slogans on them. But I seem to fall quite short of your idea of a drug-addled, porn-lapping, gay-loving Libertarian, too.
How's that? :)
As for me:
drugs --I'm opposed to legalization of recreational drugs (including marijuana) because they already cause enough trauma, especially among the young. Their psychological impact urges restrictions and enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels of government.
porn -- it is a shameful scourge on society and the internet has raised its dangers to a higher level X 1,000. It exploits women and borderline 18 YO's and often children. It isn't victimless. Today, there are few restrictions, and there ought to be. The first step should be to have regulations that put all porn sites into an xxx.sex category so they can be discerned and blocked by those who choose to restrict them in their homes.
homosexuality -- the militancy of the agenda is a direct threat to the family structure that is the foundation of our rapidly deteriorating Judeo-Christian society. The activists have already moved their agenda into public schools across the country and corrupting innocent five to seven year old youngsters. Their behavior isn't normal, according to God's law and natural law. I oppose government sanctioned "homosexual" marriage and anything else that moves their agenda forward.
Other issues that personally compel me: "right to life" from conception to natural death, 2nd Amendment rights, 1st Amendment freedoms, illegal immigration, and privacy rights -- a very real and looming threat these days with photo recognition technology, credit card and financial tracking, etc. You can't hide these days, and "thought control" as envisioned in 1984 is here, pervasive, and today.
Vigilance and activism by conservative and "right minded" citizens is necessary to protect our freedoms, and our values. For too long, many conservatives have conceded their positions or kept quiet while liberals have dominated the public policy arena. And the result is far-left activist judges, a school system in shambles, government out of control, and an Obama administration and Congress virtually unbridled. The 2010 silent majority should speak up, vote and be politically active, and carry placards when necessary -- or we will lose even further.
Again, thanks for the exchange.
Likewise. I found your description similarly thoughtful and thought-provoking. Thanks!
I mostly find the "big-L" Libertarian Party a waste of time. They're just too "out there" and don't represent my views well, if at all. The "small-l" libertarian label is closer, yet still doesn't really cover it... Like you said, these are somewhat complex issues.
Incidentally, since you mentioned the ".xxx" gTLD (internet domain) for porn sites... That has been approved, and we'll see it roll out fairly soon. As one who has been active on the web since its inception, I look forward (in the sense of a spectator at a racetrack, anticipating a pileup) to the endless battles. The small ones will be about the porn sites' existing ".com" names -- the sites won't give them up, since the .xxx is voluntary. Then there are the larger arguments about what is porn and non-porn (nudity, erotica, etc.). The pursuit of the gray, fuzzy line will be in the courts for decades, I think, and it's gonna be a hoot. And as always, the lawyers figure out how to come up ahead of everybody else.
Now, I'll just spend a little time cleaning my guns, and gazing at the big Old Glory waving by the front door. I've got the Gadsden Flag indoors on the wall, but maybe it's time to run that up outside too... :)
Best of the evening to you, vox_freedom, and God Bless.
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.