Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

UCLA Chair in Sexual Orientation Law — That’s Okay; UCLA Chair in Intelligent Design — No Way

William Dembski
February 26, 2007
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

How much more difficult will it be to get an endowed ID chair at a major state university?

Thanks to a more than $1-million donation from a gay male couple who hope one day to marry in California, UCLA’s law school is planning to establish what is described as the nation’s first endowed academic chair in sexual orientation law.

The cash gift from John McDonald and Rob Wright will help fund the research of a still-to-be-named professor at UCLA Law School’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy. That 5-year-old think tank investigates such topics as anti-homosexual discrimination, the impact of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies and the demographics of same-sex couples who have adopted children.

SOURCE: go here.

Comments
... [Trackback] [...] Informations on that Topic: uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ucla-chair-in-sexual-orientation-law-thats-okay-ucla-chair-in-intelligent-design-no-way/ [...]http://britlock.com.au
November 23, 2016
November
11
Nov
23
23
2016
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PST
... [Trackback] [...] Read More here: uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ucla-chair-in-sexual-orientation-law-thats-okay-ucla-chair-in-intelligent-design-no-way/ [...]http://www.mckenzieandwillis.co.nz/
November 22, 2016
November
11
Nov
22
22
2016
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PST
... [Trackback] [...] Read More: uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/ucla-chair-in-sexual-orientation-law-thats-okay-ucla-chair-in-intelligent-design-no-way/ [...]My Homepage
November 15, 2016
November
11
Nov
15
15
2016
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PST
Barret1 Decent people are sympathetic to the feelings of others and this is a very good thing. When someone crys loudly enough that he wants something there is an inclination to give it to him. But if what that person wants has a fair possibility of causing harm to another (or himself) it is imperative to say "no". Further, it is also a good thing to ask questions about what is being sought. If the response to those questions are accusations of bigotry or if it appears the answers to them are not honest, then that shows for a certainty it was right to ask the questions and the suspicions on which those questions are based are founded.tribune7
March 3, 2007
March
03
Mar
3
03
2007
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PST
By the way, you are both right. As strange as it may seem.Barrett1
March 3, 2007
March
03
Mar
3
03
2007
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PST
jmcd, you are wasting your time. It's not that you are wrong, but Tribune will never, ever see anything close to what you see. I found this out a few months ago discussing the influence of Darwin on the persecution of Jews in Europe. He won. Believe me. It's best for all of us.Barrett1
March 3, 2007
March
03
Mar
3
03
2007
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PST
Should we round up all the children of single mothers or single fathers as they certainly are not being role models for the institution of marriage. I'm not going to take you literally but simply guess at what I think you mean. Single parenthood is not a desired state. A single person seeking to adopt a child ought to be rejected as a general rule don't you agree?tribune7
March 3, 2007
March
03
Mar
3
03
2007
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PST
I did not at all imply that there were no gay people that matched those stereotypes. Well you didn't have a problem putting words in my mouth did you? My point was that those stereotypes are not representative of the gay population Which gets us to the issue at hand namely that it's not about "orientation" but behavior and the ability to control one's urges. If there is a male homosexual that does not see males as sex objects -- i.e. shows he can restrain any urge he may have to have sex with males -- that person may be someone who is not automatically disqualified as an adoptive parent. Is this possible? The Catholic Church thought not so long ago that orientation was not a disqualifying factor in ordaining priests. They've changed their position, as I understand it. Regardless, this is a question for objective study but I don't think the endowed chair at UCLA is capable of doing such. I think they would reject any evidence that goes against their bias regardless of how well founded which was a point in my first post (#5). Concerning lesbians, I think it is fair to express a concern that they do not understand nor particularly like males and masculinity. Would they make a young boy play quietly like a young girl? Would they be able to discipline a male teenager? Are these fair questions? Can we expect honest answers from UCLA? I doubt that we can.tribune7
March 3, 2007
March
03
Mar
3
03
2007
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PST
Dave This whole thing was started when tribune expressed frustration witht the idea of giving tax breaks to gay couples that would not rear any children. I became interested in if it would be okay to give tax breaks to only to couples with children including gay couples however they may come about having children. I just do not understand why not having two successful heterosexual role models would be an unexceptable or even unusual burden on a child. Should we round up all the children of single mothers or single fathers as they certainly are not being role models for the institution of marriage. Perhaps we should also remove children from unhappy couples that provide very poor lessons to their children for what a healthy heterosexual relationship should be. I suppose in some idealized world where marriages were always happy and always lasted an argument could be made that children deserve nothing short of the ideal. The fact is that the ideal is not at all the rule and to hold gay people to that standard and automatically disqualify them despite any other merits seems a tad bit unfair. I also do not understand why having gay parents would disrupt a child's interaction with a predominantly heterosexual world. Especially since the children would probably be heterosexual anyway. I certainly did not learn about heterosexual relationships from my parents. I learned from my own experience and the experiences of my peers. As far as I know that is a fairly typical thing. What would prevent these kids from going through similar experiences? The bottom line is what a child needs is a loving, supporting, and nurturing home. As long as they have that they will be well equipped to develop themselves and decide what kind of life they want to lead. I was getting the feeling that some here thought that it was not possible for a gay couple to provide such an environment. Tribune I did not at all imply that there were no gay people that matched those stereotypes. My point was that those stereotypes are not representative of the gay population so to penalize the entire gay population because of the actions of a few would be grossly unfair.jmcd
March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PST
jmcd Well then what about artificial insemination and surrogate mothers? Should these practices be made illegal for gay couples? These are not adoptions. I'm only concerned with adoption and the state interest in placing the child in the best possible situation. Sixty or more years ago being sired by black parents assuredly put more of a burden on a child then being raised by responsible gay parents today. So what? That doesn't mean it's okay to unnecessarily burden adopted children. The only burden necessarily resulting from being raised by gay parents is the bigotry of other members of society. Not true. The child only has one gender for a parental role model and there is also no heterosexual role model. Given that society is predominantly heterosexual with equal proportions of both genders the child is deprived by role models unrepresentative of the adult society he or she will become part of. I consider those the greater burdens. Or is the right to be a bigot more important then the right to raise a child? The only child anyone has a right to raise is their own and that right can be taken away even from natural parents for negligence.DaveScot
March 2, 2007
March
03
Mar
2
02
2007
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PST
Of course what DaveScot suggests is reasonable, but it is reasonable only to those who want to choose the best of possible alternatives. DaveScot's solution would not be acceptable to homosexualists. Homosexualists want to alter the very premises that would lead to traditional values; they will stop at nothing less. It's not a matter of fairness, or a matter of respect for what is repugnant and foul; it is more. It is a fight to the finish in defense of no God, or a redefined God. In a very similar way the evolutionists want to do the very same thing; it is a fight to the finish. It is like Djihad. There are additional threats that demand sharp rebuke. Arguing (jmcd) on the side of the _bien-pensants_ is the argument that offers bloodless defeat, then subservience (and misery) under the victor. History shows it is the mainstream herd that destroys. And so it goes also on the evolution side. Alongside those basic premises goes the freedom of scientific inquiry. What is reasonable is not the only spoil of freedom against bondage.eebrom
March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PST
is the rights and best interests of the child. DITTO THATtribune7
March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PST
all female homosexuals are man haters and all male homosexuals are sex crazed man hounds? "All" is a loaded word just like "none." Are you saying no female homosexuals dislike (my word) males and that no male homosexuals "see other men as sex objects (my words)"? Frankly, I think the claim that "no male homosexuals see other men as sex objects" is laughable on its face, but that seems to be what you are implying. The anecdotal cases of homosexuals raising children that I am personally aware of indicate that it is certainly possible for two homosexuals to create a loving and supportive environment to raise a child in. It's not about the possible. It'as about taking unnecessary chances. Here's something that says homosexual adoption is an unnecessary chance. Anyway, it's not about what's comforting to those wanting to adopt -- it's entirely about what's best for the child.tribune7
March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PST
Well then what about artificial insemination and surrogate mothers? Should these practices be made illegal for gay couples? Sixty or more years ago being sired by black parents assuredly put more of a burden on a child then being raised by responsible gay parents today. The only burden necessarily resulting from being raised by gay parents is the bigotry of other members of society. In that case is being raised by gay parents the problem or is bigotry the problem? Or is the right to be a bigot more important then the right to raise a child?jmcd
March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PST
And as far as gay marriage goes I'm all for total non-discrimination by sexual preference in issuance of marriage licenses. And in fact, as far as I know, nobody even asks a couple wanting to get married what their their sexual preference is. Marriage is an approved institution between one man and one woman. If either the man or the woman or both are homosexuals they are free to marry so long as they meet the requirement of being opposite in gender, consenting adults, not closely related by blood, and not already married to someone else.DaveScot
March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PST
What seems to be overlooked here in all this talk about gay adoption is the rights and best interests of the child. The potential adoptive parents' best interests do not enter into the equation. They have no inalienable right to adopt and if for any reason their values and situation in life does not meet what society considers desireable for raising a child then they are denied. Western societies tolerate a more or less wide range of individual lifestyle choices for consenting adults but toleration doesn't equal encouragement or approval. If any person or couple's lifestyle choices impose an undue burden upon a child then disqualification for adoption is in the best interest of the child. Anyone who wants to adopt a child must not meet merely the tolerable and legal requirements of being responsible adults but also demonstrate the qualities society at large expects and desires and approves of in parents. It's all about what's fair for the child not what's fair to the person(s) wanting to adopt.DaveScot
March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PST
So tribune, all female homosexuals are man haters and all male homosexuals are sex crazed man hounds? I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying here because again you seem to be implying that as a rule homosexuals are unfit to raise a child. As far as the evolutionary sense of what is going on is concerned, well evolution has little to nothing to do with human society. Whether humans are still evolving in any significant way is hard to know. This is primarily because the time spans that significant changes would take dwarf the whole period of human civilization. What has kept lines of human genes passing down through the centuries has largely been a product of the success of that human's society. Perhaps we are past that if we are reaching the end of human wars of extermination. Personally I doubt this though. You could make a utilitarian argument that being gay is bad for society as gay people do not naturally reproduce. This argument of course would ignore the basic human rights, defined as inalienable by our Bill of Rights, of gay people, but sometimes certain human rights are a luxury society cannot afford. I think that someone would be hard pressed to make that argument in this case though. I would be far more receptive to only conferring tax advantages on couples rearing children. I would want to include gays in that though. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that are either ill equipped to provide a good home or are just plain bad people. Do we take away their right to procreation though? It would certainly be better, in a calculating pragmatic sense, for society if we did. But we do not because that would violate certain rights that we hold sacred and that despite the weaknesses they engender make us a much stronger people as a whole. The anecdotal cases of homosexuals raising children that I am personally aware of indicate that it is certainly possible for two homosexuals to create a loving and supportive environment to raise a child in. Raising a child for these people is part and parcel of a pursuit of happiness. The main challenges these children will face will not stem from their parents doing an inadequate job, if current experience is a predictor of future performance, but from social stigma from their children's peers.jmcd
March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PST
And jmcd, how the heck does gay marriage makes a whit of sense as per evolutionary theory anyway?tribune7
March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PST
1.There are plenty of DINK (dual income no kids)heterosexual marriages. That's true albeit traditionally there has been an assumption -- still not compleltely unfounded -- that they are planning/trying to have kids and continue the human race. Still, if you are taking the position we should restrict marriage priviliges to those with children rather than trying expand them to homosexual relations (and in reality, well, any relation) that would be far more rational. 2. Gay couples often would like to adopt children. Although I think I recall you thinking that gay couples wereunfit to raise children as a rule. I don't know if I ever expressed that view here but it would be epitome of cruelty to have a young boy raised by a couple of "aunts" with a notable dislike for males but for the fact that it would be worse to have him raised by a couple of "uncles" who see other men as sex objects.tribune7
March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PST
re23 1.There are plenty of DINK (dual income no kids)heterosexual marriages. 2. Gay couples often would like to adopt children. Although I think I recall you thinking that gay couples wereunfit to raise children as a rule.jmcd
March 1, 2007
March
03
Mar
1
01
2007
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PST
If you were a member of a gay union and seeking equal tax treatment as a married couple the field of sexual orientation law would not seem absurd in the least. And if you were a member of a married couple busting your butt raising kids with at least one partner sacrficing significant income you'd wonder why a couple who aren't capable of making the same sacrifices as you should get the the same privileges all the while INCREASING your tax burden along with the tax burden of everybody else in the community.tribune7
February 28, 2007
February
02
Feb
28
28
2007
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PST
Re: #18 "That’s sarcasm, right?" Sarcasm, lie, and truth could be compared with chance, necessity, and design. A mode of expression or explanation often appealed to in religion and science is the method of elimination. The idea is to eliminate what is not, in order to illuminate what is. Truth discloses truth, and sometimes answering a question is best left to the person asking. Ignorant, cheering spectators at the arena are often more caring and vicious than the perpetrators. Having ears to hear and eyes to see is only part of the disclosure. On a similar topic, one wonders just what part of sodomy is so attractive that it be defended so aggressively. One wonders what part of ID is so repulsive that it be denied any kind of fair hearing -- or mention. One also wonders why legitimatizing perversity and strangling knowledge often go hand in hand.eebrom
February 28, 2007
February
02
Feb
28
28
2007
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PST
This post is implying that a sexual orientation law chair at a university is at least a bit absurd. I can see why many people may take offense to this and justifiably so. If you were a member of a gay union and seeking equal tax treatment as a married couple the field of sexual orientation law would not seem absurd in the least. There are a host of equality issues that will keep sexual orientation law a reasonably lucrative field for some time. So objectively the notion is not absurd at all. It can then reasonably be inferred that the absurdity has nothing to do with the practical reasons for a chair but the lifestyle of the people who would be the chair's most natural supporters. If I were a member of that community I would probably take umbrage with the underlying message of this post. As a caring human being who has known too many gay people to think of them generally as a group of degenerates deserving at least mild scorn and legal descrimination, I do not see this post in a favorable light at all. People here generally don't like hearing words like fundies because of the negative connotation applied to like terms by a certain section of society, and I would agree that generalizing a large group in society like that is unfair. I would also agree that such generalizations are doomed to fail to meet reality and those that make are fairly small minded. Maybe people can see why the same would apply to those that have negative notions of homosexuals.jmcd
February 28, 2007
February
02
Feb
28
28
2007
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PST
I believe the Bass family out of Texas gave Yale $20mm to establish a chair on Western Civilization. It was later revoked because Yale killed the program and tried to reappropriate the funds to a different program. Actually, the Bass family wanted to endow a course of study in Western Civilization. Yale eventually rejected the grant because the Bass family's charitable organization wanted input in choosing faculty and defining the curriculum, and Yale has a very rigid rule against allowing outside groups to do things like this - all hiring and teaching choices must come from inside the university. The next year, Yale also used similar reasons to reject a donation from gay activist (and Yale alumnus) Larry Kramer to endow a chair in Gay and Lesbian Studies, so it's not mere ideological litmus testing.Alex
February 28, 2007
February
02
Feb
28
28
2007
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PST
Dr Dembski has a gay card? Can I get one? EBay? Amazon? Cards'r'Us? Wal-Mart?Joseph
February 28, 2007
February
02
Feb
28
28
2007
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PST
“Laws concerning” has nothing whatsoever to do with behaviour because what is done in or out of the closet is based on “what you’re born with” and does not have a moral component. That's sarcasm, right? The future, brother, may be murder and your private life may suddenly explode but one can still be overly obscure.tribune7
February 28, 2007
February
02
Feb
28
28
2007
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PST
How is Dr Dembski playing the gay card ? I mean I agree that until he offers them a $1 million dollar grant to set a chair of ID up the comment may be premature, but I would bet that his comment is accurate. If I had a spare million i'd happily pony the money up. Of course that would require have any million to start with. Maybe one day.Jason Rennie
February 28, 2007
February
02
Feb
28
28
2007
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PST
Wow, Pat Hayes! The fellow who called the universe a meaningless place! (Scroll down to the 9/8 entry.) I feel sooo sory for him. He obvously wants to say something realy smart but just doesn't know how, so he just says 'Ta hell with it' and throws fecal matter.crandaddy
February 28, 2007
February
02
Feb
28
28
2007
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PST
The homosexual community is taking umbrage at this. For instance, Pat Hayes of Kansas (who blogs as "Red State Rabble") accuses Bill Dembski of playing the gay card. I don't know if that's true or not but I'm going to defer to Pat Hayes' expertise when it comes to homosexuality, playing gay cards, and things of that nature.DaveScot
February 27, 2007
February
02
Feb
27
27
2007
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PST
Re: #12 No, no. "Laws concerning" has nothing whatsoever to do with behaviour because what is done in or out of the closet is based on "what you're born with" and does not have a moral component. You've never heard of a sextor? Now you have; there is more in it than meets the eye. For example, if you can have sexual orientation laws, surely you can have sexually explicit vectors. The closet is the clue. [PS. sorry, sometimes obscurity is necessary. In future years it will be a requirement for survival]eebrom
February 27, 2007
February
02
Feb
27
27
2007
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply