Class On Homosexuality

[cmotherofpirl]

Family Advocate Criticizes University's 'How-to' Course on Homosexuality

By Jim Brown

August 8, 2003

(AgapePress) - As the University of Michigan reintroduces a class designed to study the role that initiation plays in bringing young men into the homosexual lifestyle, a pro-family leader in the state is calling the course "an outrageous and reckless abuse of tax dollars."

Back in 2000, a petition signed by 15,000 Michigan citizens demanded that the class "How to Be Gay: Male Homosexuality and Initiation" be cancelled. The American Family Association of Michigan was told by then-university president Lee Bollinger that the class was not likely to be offered again. But AFA-Michigan's Gary Glenn says unfortunately, the university's new president, Mary Sue Coleman, has decided to force taxpayers to fund the class.

Gary Glenn

"This is not only an abuse of taxpayers' dollars at a time when this state is facing a budget crunch, it is particularly reckless in light of medical research, which finds that college-aged men who engage in homosexual behavior will die up to 20 years younger than other men," Glenn says. "We're demanding that the governor, our legislators, and the university's president and board of regents step in to cancel this class."

The course is being taught by renowned homosexual activist David Halperin. Glenn says that Halperin's course puts to rest one significant argument in the greater homosexual debate.

"If you have to take a class on how to be gay and be initiated in that lifestyle, as the course description suggests, then clearly homosexual behavior is -- as we've always maintained -- a learned behavior [and] a matter of behavioral choice," he says. "I guess that's the only redeeming factor in the controversy over this entire class."

Glenn has launched a new online petition at mi.conservativepetitions.com, and says the university's new president should be more sensitive to the sentiments of Michigan residents who protested the class in 2000 and succeeded in getting it cancelled.

[Brother Adam]

And to think I live an hour a way from UofM and have many friends who attend there.

[FreeSoul]

I think it would be a good class for people to take regardless of how they felt about the issue. How can you counsel people you don't know?

I think the topic would also be beneficial in terms of understanding the global diversity that can be represented in the social ritual of male initiation across various cultures, im sure it's more than just the North American definition of same-sex binary attraction. It could go much deeper than that.

[Azriel]

And to think I live an hour a way from UofM and have many friends who attend there.

That's where my diploma is from, although it came from the Flint campus.

I wonder what the actual class is about .. hard to get much from a title.

[_bc]

It would be ridiculous if Universities had courses on how to become gay. As luck would have it, this is not such a course. This should be obvious to anyone who actually reads the course description (which is available here, by looking up English 317 Section 2).

It's a course on how 'cultural artifacts and activities' influence the social behavior of gay men. Say, how Marilyn Monroe movies or musicals influence the behavior and self identification of many gays.

So instead of being a source of information about some homosexual conspiracy in a university, the article is just a pretty good example of ostracism and chicanery that homosexuals face. Why should their cultural niche not be studied, just like those of 20th century Irish immigrants, anarchists or wilderness enthusiasts?

This is even more obviously ostracism and chicanery, because the comments made by Gary Glenn are not just irrelevant - they could only have been made by someone who either

1. has not read the course description or bothered to ask anyone who knows what the course is about,

2. is lacking in the capacity to understand a course description, or

3. is dishonestly making the course out to be something he knows it isn't.

I'm guessing 3.

Edited August 12, 2003 by _bc

[FreeSoul]

Well said bc. assumptions smell of elderberries.

Although we are celebrating the feast day of the Assumption coming up...that assumption doesn't smell of elderberries.

[hyperdulia again]

I don't get the why of this, it strikes me (and I hope this isn't insensitive) as being "damned tomfoolery", right up there with studying the effects of cartoons on transplanted Australian youth living in 1950's Greenland.

[cmotherofpirl]

Universities also have classes in basketweaving, cartoons, and comic strips. As long as it is not educational and PC, they will teach a class on it.

[hyperdulia again]

;)

Edited August 13, 2003 by hyperdulia again

[PedroX]

This is why I'm alll for Classical or Great Books education. Study the ideas, leave the over specified micro studies for Grad school. Just my two cents

peace...

[cmotherofpirl]

Sounds great. Except my sons are both going for engineering degrees.

I am trying to influence my daughter in that direction.

But they don't offer it at Steubenville.

[BullnaChinaShop]

This is why I'm alll for Classical or Great Books education.

That is the type of education my younger brother is getting. He attends Magdaline College in NH.

[mp15]

It would be ridiculous if Universities had courses on how to become gay. As luck would have it, this is not such a course. This should be obvious to anyone who actually reads the course description (which is available here, by looking up English 317 Section 2).

It's a course on how 'cultural artifacts and activities' influence the social behavior of gay men. Say, how Marilyn Monroe movies or musicals influence the behavior and self identification of many gays.

So instead of being a source of information about some homosexual conspiracy in a university, the article is just a pretty good example of ostracism and chicanery that homosexuals face. Why should their cultural niche not be studied, just like those of 20th century Irish immigrants, anarchists or wilderness enthusiasts?

This is even more obviously ostracism and chicanery, because the comments made by Gary Glenn are not just irrelevant - they could only have been made by someone who either

1. has not read the course description or bothered to ask anyone who knows what the course is about,

2. is lacking in the capacity to understand a course description, or

3. is dishonestly making the course out to be something he knows it isn't.

I'm guessing 3.

Ya, and we all know that coarses of this nature are followed to the letter. Would be interesting to know the background of the person teaching the class. I'm willing to bet you that there will be promotion of homosexuality going on in this class. Just as I'm willing to bet you that the coarse outline is a farse.

[_bc]

Ya, and we all know that coarses of this nature are followed to the letter. Would be interesting to know the background of the person teaching the class. I'm willing to bet you that there will be promotion of homosexuality going on in this class. Just as I'm willing to bet you that the coarse outline is a farse.

If I didn't know you to be a fair and open minded person who loves every person because they are made in God's image and precious to Him, I would almost think you didn't realize that it's possible to talk about homosexuals and issues relating to them without trying to make the listener either gay or straight.

Really, what do you expect them to be doing in this class? "OK, now everybody try to visualize some handsome naked men and get aroused. How are we doing people?"

[mp15]

Well, if that is what the class will truely be about then I would say that I don't have a problem with it. I however have my doubt's. If there is even a shred of homosexual promotion (or propaganda for that matter) going on in this class then I would be dead set against it. It would/should not be the responsiblity of the tax payers to fund such rubbish.

Edited August 13, 2003 by mp15

[Jake Huether]

"OK, now everybody try to visualize some handsome naked men and get aroused. How are we doing people?"

I have no doubt that they wouldn't be that blunt.

But there are "homosexual" issues that are less than moral, yet seemingly innocent on the outside world.

One topic I KNOW they would discuss would be AIDS (seems harmless enough). And how do you think they are going to persuade people to avoid AIDS? Do we honestly believe they are going to promote abstinance and chastity? Hah! Regular sex-ed doesn't even promote abstinance!

Since homosexuality is so intrecately related to ones sexuality (uh - duh), this class (in my humble opinion) will be nothing more (nothing less) than a sex-ed class for homosexuals. This is not a "good" thing.

[_bc]

One topic I KNOW they would discuss would be AIDS (seems harmless enough). And how do you think they are going to persuade people to avoid AIDS?

I don't think an advanced class in cultural studies is going to try in the least to persuade anyone to avoid AIDS. College seniors already know how to avoid AIDS, they don't need someone with a PhD in cultural studies to teach them that. It's just not what an academic education is about.

There are many other questions on AIDS academics can discuss and teach about: How did it affect the self identification of homosexual men? How did it affect their experiences with homophobia? How was the AIDS epidemic portrayed in gay literature or theatre? Did the movie 'Philadelphia', change perceptions of gay men by other people? How did public discussion of AIDS as a homosexual disease affect the coming out experiences of gay men? Their working lives? The experiences of their children?

I'm not saying these questions are going to be discussed in the course we're talking about, they are just examples of what an arts faculty can talk about concerning gays and AIDS without ever 'teaching the students to be gay'.

I still maintain that this is an advanced course at a serious university. Expecting it, out of nothing but prejudice, to be about sex-ed or a gay recruitment fair is ostracism, and certainly does not reflect the love we are called upon to have for our fellow men.

Since homosexuality is so intrecately related to ones sexuality (uh - duh), this class (in my humble opinion) will be nothing more (nothing less) than a sex-ed class for homosexuals.  This is not a "good" thing.

So are you saying it's impossible to talk about homosexuals without either promoting or condemning homosexual acts?

Is homosexuality nothing more than the act of sex between people of the same gender?

[hyperdulia again]

bc makes me wanna move just to take the class

[Jake Huether]

So are you saying it's impossible to talk about homosexuals without either promoting or condemning homosexual acts?

Yup. You can't seriously tell me that whoever teaches this class will simply present historical facts without interjecting their own bias or opinion. My dynamics teacher couldn't even do that. How is a "homosexual" different from a heterosexual when they DO NOT act on their passions? There is no difference. The class is based on the ACTS, because it is the ACTS that define a homosexual "culture".

Is homosexuality nothing more than the act of sex between people of the same gender?

No, but close. Homosexuality is nothing more than the tendancy to be attracted to someone of the same gender. Blip that out, and they're the exact same as a heterosexual. But you could cover that topic in less than a day. A complete semester on "homosexuality" is sure to cover the ACT of sex between people of the same gender. And like I said, it's the ACTS that define a "lifestyle" or "culture".

It isn't the same as, say, a class on femininity, or a class on African Americans. Gender and skin color do not lead, in and of themselves, to sinfull acts. They don't produce a "tendancy" toward something sinful. Homosexuality IN AND OF ITSELF leads to (not necessarily ends at) sinful acts. By studying the "tendancy" toward sin, they are more likely than not going to cover the sins (especially when considering that the person teaching will probably interject their personal opinions -and I doubt they will have a Catholic teach the course).

Would it be impossible to talk about alcoholism without either promoting or condemning drinking?

If not, then explain how they could cover the tendancy to drink without saying that becoming drunk is bad (or good).

Is alcoholism nothing more than the act of getting drunk all the time?

NO! It is the tendancy to get drunk all the time. You don't have a class on alcoholism, and then simply discuss the tendancy. It are the acts that define the "cultrue" of alcoholism. If individuals throughout history were able to controle their alcoholic tendancies, then there would be nothing to discuss.

If homosexuals throughout history were able to control their tendancies, then there would be no "gay culture" to study.

[Jake Huether]

There are many other questions on AIDS academics can discuss and teach about: How did it affect the self identification of homosexual men? How did it affect their experiences with homophobia? How was the AIDS epidemic portrayed in gay literature or theatre? Did the movie 'Philadelphia', change perceptions of gay men by other people? How did public discussion of AIDS as a homosexual disease affect the coming out experiences of gay men? Their working lives? The experiences of their children?

Will they not discuss how AIDS became widespread? How homosexuals throughout recent history attempted to overcome this epademic? Etc.

Be honest with yourself please.

Yes, they might cover the material that you are presenting. But do you really and truly think that they won't at least touch on some of the more controvercial issues (like gay adoption, gay marriage, gay sex, etc.). C'mon... You're fooling yourself if you don't think so. It isn't anti-homosexual to say, yes. It's just logical.