http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/02/06/stunning-hypocrisy-from-the-princeton-administration/ An intellectual climate favorable to marriage Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:17:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/02/06/stunning-hypocrisy-from-the-princeton-administration/#comment-949 Jennifer Roback Morse Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:56:08 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1399#comment-949 nerdy girl, you are not really very well-informed about what is actually going on at Princeton. the point of the article was the blatant imbalance between the admin's claims to neutrality, when the Anscombe Society kids wanted support, and the admin's support of the LGBT Center's open advocacy of promiscuity and pornography. do you really not see that they hide behind "neutrality" when they want to suppress something? The Anscombe Society kids are really very nice, very friendly and respectful of others. where do you get off saying or assuming otherwise? nerdy girl, you are not really very well-informed about what is actually going on at Princeton. the point of the article was the blatant imbalance between the admin’s claims to neutrality, when the Anscombe Society kids wanted support, and the admin’s support of the LGBT Center’s open advocacy of promiscuity and pornography. do you really not see that they hide behind “neutrality” when they want to suppress something? The Anscombe Society kids are really very nice, very friendly and respectful of others. where do you get off saying or assuming otherwise?

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/02/06/stunning-hypocrisy-from-the-princeton-administration/#comment-934 nerdygirl Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:39:40 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1399#comment-934 I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at with the "ones desires automatically justifies ones actions" statement. That's extremely broad. If one desires ice cream, then why should I care if they eat a bowl of ice cream? As far as sex goes, why should I care if it's between two consenting adults? If it's completely consensual, and everyones being safe about it, there really isn't a difference between two men having sex behind closed doors and a married couple having sex behind closed doors. As far as being born that way, they are. One of the main arguments against homosexuality is that it's not natural, if it were, animals would do it, right? Well, animals do do it. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm and the 10 year research of Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas as evidence that homosexual behavior is natural. <a href="#comment-929" rel="nofollow">@Robert Easter </a> I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to get at with the “ones desires automatically justifies ones actions” statement. That’s extremely broad. If one desires ice cream, then why should I care if they eat a bowl of ice cream? As far as sex goes, why should I care if it’s between two consenting adults? If it’s completely consensual, and everyones being safe about it, there really isn’t a difference between two men having sex behind closed doors and a married couple having sex behind closed doors. As far as being born that way, they are. One of the main arguments against homosexuality is that it’s not natural, if it were, animals would do it, right? Well, animals do do it. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm and the 10 year research of Bruce Bagemihl, whose book Biological Exuberance was cited in the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas as evidence that homosexual behavior is natural. @Robert Easter

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/02/06/stunning-hypocrisy-from-the-princeton-administration/#comment-933 nerdygirl Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:19:16 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1399#comment-933 Oh please, I'm merely pointing out that they can't abstain from sex before marriage, because they legally can not get married. I've known a few monogamous lesbians, most of whom would love to get married, but can't because the state doesn't recognize their relationship as real. <a href="#comment-923" rel="nofollow">@Leland </a> Oh please, I’m merely pointing out that they can’t abstain from sex before marriage, because they legally can not get married. I’ve known a few monogamous lesbians, most of whom would love to get married, but can’t because the state doesn’t recognize their relationship as real. @Leland

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/02/06/stunning-hypocrisy-from-the-princeton-administration/#comment-932 How would the legalization of same-sex marriage affect your liberty? « Wintery Knight Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:01:33 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1399#comment-932 [...] You can already see it happening in many places. Just this week Dr. J blogged about how Princeton University promotes or sponsors LGBT speakers who advocate for open marriage, but they won”t promote or support a student group that favors abstinence. [...] [...] You can already see it happening in many places. Just this week Dr. J blogged about how Princeton University promotes or sponsors LGBT speakers who advocate for open marriage, but they won”t promote or support a student group that favors abstinence. [...]

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/02/06/stunning-hypocrisy-from-the-princeton-administration/#comment-929 Robert Easter Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:22:23 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1399#comment-929 Nerdygirl, your tag suggests an intellectual, and your post seems to presume that certain people are "born that way" and, further, that one's desires automatically justify one's actions. Can you find any hard evidence of the first, or legal or societal justification for either? Nerdygirl, your tag suggests an intellectual, and your post seems to presume that certain people are “born that way” and, further, that one’s desires automatically justify one’s actions. Can you find any hard evidence of the first, or legal or societal justification for either?

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/02/06/stunning-hypocrisy-from-the-princeton-administration/#comment-925 State of Affairs » Stunning Hypocrisy from the Princeton Administration Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:51:02 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1399#comment-925 [...] The article first appeared on the Ruth Institute Blog. [...] [...] The article first appeared on the Ruth Institute Blog. [...]

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/02/06/stunning-hypocrisy-from-the-princeton-administration/#comment-924 nerdygirl Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:41:07 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1399#comment-924 Do you have to blatantly promote abstinence and monogamy? I think abstinence is a valid lifestyle choice. If that is what's best for you, then power on. Sadly, the abstinent movement maintains that it's the best way for *everyone*, thats kinda pushy, and disrespectful of others needs. The LGBT center isn't saying everyone should be LGBT, just tolerant of them as equal human beings. Perhaps if abstinence were to take a more friendly approach, one that encouraged exploring ones feelings and still being respectful of other lifestyle choices, it would be better accepted. Do you have to blatantly promote abstinence and monogamy? I think abstinence is a valid lifestyle choice. If that is what’s best for you, then power on. Sadly, the abstinent movement maintains that it’s the best way for *everyone*, thats kinda pushy, and disrespectful of others needs. The LGBT center isn’t saying everyone should be LGBT, just tolerant of them as equal human beings. Perhaps if abstinence were to take a more friendly approach, one that encouraged exploring ones feelings and still being respectful of other lifestyle choices, it would be better accepted.

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/02/06/stunning-hypocrisy-from-the-princeton-administration/#comment-923 Leland Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:23:55 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1399#comment-923 nerdygirl: Is it only unmarried lesbians and gays that "you can’t really expect... to remain abstinent", or is that absurdly immature standard of behavior supposed to apply to all of us unmarried folk regardless of our sexual orientation? You're not seriously suggesting that LGBT people are uniquely incapable of living a non-promiscuous life, are you? nerdygirl: Is it only unmarried lesbians and gays that “you can’t really expect… to remain abstinent”, or is that absurdly immature standard of behavior supposed to apply to all of us unmarried folk regardless of our sexual orientation? You’re not seriously suggesting that LGBT people are uniquely incapable of living a non-promiscuous life, are you?

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/02/06/stunning-hypocrisy-from-the-princeton-administration/#comment-917 Jennifer Roback Morse Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:42:36 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1399#comment-917 Perhaps, but do they have to blantantly promote promiscuity and pornography, as they did in this instance? This speaker was sponsored by the LGBT Center, with the tacit support of the university. Perhaps, but do they have to blantantly promote promiscuity and pornography, as they did in this instance? This speaker was sponsored by the LGBT Center, with the tacit support of the university.

]]> http://www.ruthblog.org/2010/02/06/stunning-hypocrisy-from-the-princeton-administration/#comment-916 nerdygirl Sun, 07 Feb 2010 02:30:48 +0000 http://www.ruthblog.org/?p=1399#comment-916 Well, until lesbians and gays gain the right to marry, you can't really expect them to remain abstinent, can you? Well, until lesbians and gays gain the right to marry, you can’t really expect them to remain abstinent, can you?

]]>