If you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, then you are a ‘heterosexist’, which is apparently akin to ‘racist’.
USDA gay-sensitivity training seeks larger audience
U.S. Department of Agriculture activists want to impose their intense brand of homosexual sensitivity training government wide, including a discussion that compares “heterosexism” – believing marriage can be between only one man and one woman – to racism.
If accepted by the Obama administration, that move could mean more sessions for military service members already undergoing gay-sensitivity indoctrination. Critics fear additional gay-oriented training would add an unnecessary burden for combat troops and encourage some to leave.
USDA officials have asked the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which oversees all federal employee policies, to impose its gay-awareness programs on all federal departments, according to an internal newsletter. The training includes a discussion of “heterosexism” and compares it to racism. It says people who view marriage as being between only one man and one woman are guilty of “heterosexism.”
The USDA’s senior training coordinator, Bill Scaggs, has developed a sensitivity program far more extensive than the Pentagon’s training for the anticipated lifting of the ban on open ho[JUMP]mosexuals in the ranks. His training program, which OPM calls “groundbreaking [and a] model for other agencies,” delves more into gay issues and terminology. It also justifies pro-homosexual political positions.
Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness and opposes the repeal of the military’s ban on acknowledged gays, said it would be a mistake for the administration of President Obama to impose the USDA sensitivity training program on the Pentagon.
“There are disturbing implications for national defense in the USDA’s development of a ‘groundbreaking’ training program that is to become a model for other federal agencies,” she told The Washington Times.
She predicted that, once the ban is lifted, “training programs similar to the USDA’s LGBT Special Emphasis Program will become a growth industry within the Department of Defense.”
“This would drive out thousands of experienced troops, starting with chaplains and people of faith who do not support LGBT ideology and activism,” she said.
Mr. Scaggs‘ briefing for USDA employees is titled “Including Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Diversity.”
Slides used for briefing presentations reveal topics such as “courageous conversations” and “What can I do to promote workplace diversity?”
The briefing defines “heterosexism” as an “’ism’ like sexism or racism, where one is considered better than others.” It gives as examples the ban on gays serving openly in the military and laws that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Agriculture Department spokesman Justin DeJong said gay diversity training is part of an overall program to correct past systemic discrimination at USDA.
What is a “pro-homosexual political position”? Seriously, I’ve no idea.
I don’t give two shits about what people do with other people in private, whether with the opposite sex, same sex or cloven footed beasts. But defining the belief of possibly half the country as an ‘ism’ like racism? Yes, I know. That’s one volley in one battle in an ongoing war. And for some reason I feel like they’re shooting at me.
Sigh.
26. June 2011 at 12:34 pm
The real problem “ism” in this country is SCHISM, which will exist as long as everybody keeps getting up in each others’ kool-aid about their personal lifestyle choices. Don’t want gays to marry? Who cares, fuck off. It ain’t your business.
Goddamn, people:
26. June 2011 at 12:34 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSeuDDzjIB8&feature=related
26. June 2011 at 6:27 pm
It’s sure as hell none of my business, but neither is it theirs to push their agenda on people.
How’s this? Separate restrooms for straight and gay males. Straight men aren’t allowed in women’s restrooms, why should gay males be allowed in straight men’s? And no, that wasn’t my idea.
Heard today that schools want to go ‘gender neutral’ and drop the ‘he, she’ and ‘her, his’, etc…
WTF? Let’s be gender, sexual, neuters. Impotent sheeples. Yeah, that’ll work.
26. June 2011 at 7:51 pm
Not sure how that speaks to what I was saying, I certainly don’t agree with the concept of heteroism, and I think I said as much.
26. June 2011 at 7:12 pm
I’m an out and proud proponent of hetero sex!!
What everyone else does is their business and I just don’t wanna hear about it.
And it all kinds of people wanna live together, I couldn’t care less. They wanna sign some sort of contract that says they love each other and share everything? Cool with me.
But if they want to suborn the authority and oversight of a religious sacrament, they’ve crossed a boundary that has nothing to do with their sexual preferences and everything to do with being bullies. That ANY religion bows to it instead of upholding the Sacrament of God’s Spirit, then they have put human concupiscence before godly order. Nothing good can come of that.
26. June 2011 at 7:28 pm
That’s exactly how I feel, Joan.
Civil unions are one thing, but the moment they expect a religious institution which considers same sex marriages a sin to marry them… as in the sacrament of marriage… totally different animal.
As more states approve their unions, pressure will be put on the churches to follow suit.
26. June 2011 at 7:46 pm
That ANY religion bows to it instead of upholding the Sacrament of God’s Spirit, then they have put human concupiscence before godly order. Nothing good can come of that.
WHOSE GOD? So you cornered the market on Jesus and God Almighty so that you can dictate that gay Christians can’t get married? That’s the problem – arrogance born of an idea that you alone have the right to dictate who can and can’t marry. ow does that dovetail with your professed not caring what others do?
It’s a fucking hypocritical and absurd attitude.
Sorry, Pam, but this sort of attitude is exactly where the problems lie.
26. June 2011 at 7:55 pm
Joan did not say that she owned God or a church or even a religion. She could start her own and others would doubtless follow, but no.
As I understood it -and agreed with it- was that religious institutions (and she wrote “ANY religion”) who have, since their inception, denied same sex marriage because it’s their canon, in their religious materials, whether it be the Christian Bible or otherwise… should they bow to popular opinion and allow same sex marriage in that church… that would be a bad thing.
Secular marriage is one thing; a religious union, whatever the sect, is something different. Some faiths accept gay marriages. Some don’t.
26. June 2011 at 8:04 pm
I’m out of this one in order to preserve friendship.
26. June 2011 at 8:18 pm
“We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are.”
I can only tell you how I feel, what I believe. You tell me I’m the problem? I’m the arrogant one who thinks she can dictate to people who they can and can’t marry?
I’m not the church who would stop them. I’m not the state who would stop them. I have no power anywhere over anyone or anything.
You want to stop talking or else… you’ll not be my friend anymore after years of friendship?
That’s your prerogative, but I wouldn’t love you any less for any of your opinions.
26. June 2011 at 8:25 pm
You want to stop talking or else… you’ll not be my friend anymore after years of friendship?
Naw, I’m afraid if I keep talking I will offend you to the point where you won’t be my friend anymore…
See?
I’m just tired and angry at my non-rent paying tenants and I’m afraid that anger is/may be being misdirected to no good end. Apologies to Joan as well.
26. June 2011 at 8:26 pm
Hope y’all get that sorted out. Freeloaders suck!
27. June 2011 at 2:03 pm
Your reply is so illogical as to make the whole room stupider. I’m sorry, but what gives anyone the right to force their private conscience on another group? Isn’t that the whole “gay” argument?
Religious beliefs have been historically and legally preserved in the terms of one’s “private conscience” and there is no law against the peaceful assembly of people who share that conscience. “Marriage” is and has been historically defined by religious consciences around the world who believe that God (or gods) have defined for them a sacred purpose for coming together in a physical and emotional intimacy that transcends simple co-habitation. They are allowed that human right: to approve certain behavior or eschew it.
Let’s make it less emotional: Mormons don’t believe in the consumption of caffeine. Let’s say I want to be “baptized” or received into their faith but believe that it is my right to eat or ingest anything under the sun. I take them to court. I bully them into accepting my conscience at the expense of theirs and to bless my baptism.
What is hard about this?
People want to live together? Fine by me. They want to call it “marriage” and force religious institutions to violate their conscience by making them perform a marriage ceremony? Might as well force people to convert at sword point. Damn “gay crusaders.”
27. June 2011 at 2:27 pm
You say it so much better than I; must be that college education.
Wish I’d listened to my parents!
27. June 2011 at 7:28 pm
Glad I made hole room stupider. I rescind my apology.
27. June 2011 at 8:38 pm
I wasn’t going weigh in but your religious views are no more important than anyone else’s. Marriage is a legal contract which is why it requires a marriage license issued by the county (excluding common law marriage which is recognized in a few jurisdictions). It is also why a court of law is required for a divorce. It is no longer the exclusive domain of the church.
As such, marriage should be entered into the way that any other contract: two consenting adults who understand the terms. That is why the dumb idea that a person can marry a goat is absurd. A goat cannot consent to a contract.
26. June 2011 at 8:23 pm
Uh…OH LOOK AT SQUIRREL!!!
26. June 2011 at 8:23 pm
Oops, supposed to say, “a squirrel.”
26. June 2011 at 8:25 pm
Nice one.
26. June 2011 at 8:26 pm
Woof!
26. June 2011 at 8:26 pm
A dog, too?
26. June 2011 at 9:25 pm
Insert tab A into slot B. Slot C is Switzerland.
26. June 2011 at 9:31 pm
Switzerland?
27. June 2011 at 1:29 am
It’s just more overly sensitive political correctness at work. Causes endless amounts of grief instead of making the world a better place. Fucktards.
27. June 2011 at 8:10 am
Right on, sister!