While I am not sure that I see the relevance of the "choice" argument presenting in this op ed, I do think it's important to clarify:

I could not "wake up tomorrow and not be gay".

I did spend several desperate decades of my life trying.

But sexual orientation, for most people, remains as fixed as race or eye color or height.

I don't know why I am gay.

I do not --with certainty-- that I didn't "choose" to be gay, and that it's a trait as fixed as any that I have.

Sorry for the typos. It's too early to be posting!

;-)

(E.g., "I do not" should be "I do know").

Star Parker must have an automatic typewriter. You plug it in and it spews 500 words that make some sort of syntactical sense. There of course isn't a lick of real sense in anything her typewriter types. I'm sure there are sentient beings who could write a better column for less money than you're paying here for this drivel.

I read Crystal Dixon's op-ed. I read the op-ed she was responding to. I encourage everyone to read both. The original op-ed written by an editor, Michael Miller, at the Toledo Free Press was a thoughtful account of some of the legal difficulties and disparities homosexuals face as they struggle to have families.

Ms. Dixon's article barely mentioned any of Miller's points, except some technicality about benefits after the merger of two Ohio schools.

Instead, Ms. Dixon made bogus arguments about the supernatural and an unclear argument about the income of homosexuals.

One could read Dixon's piece and conclude it is not a hate-filled rant. Maybe, maybe not. But to me it's an insulting rant.

So-called people of faith demean people when they try to evaluate humanity based on entirely unproven beliefs in god and the supernatural.

It would be like a Mormon (prior to 1978), with love and compassion to be sure, saying Ms. Dixon, a black woman, is a descendant of Cain.

... but that said, Ms. Dixon should not have been fired.

This is a memo from the Political Correctness Police.

Rants that do not praise diversity will not be tolerated. Only PRO-Diversity opinions are valid. Any thoughts, comments, opinions, etc that do not praise diversity as the only solution to our world's problems should not be expressed and absolutly should not be published (If you want to succeed in your career in the media).

Ms. Parker hit another grand slam today. The PC Police are out in force. Homosexuality is an immoral and unnatural choice of behavior.

The whole point of this article was not about homosexuality; it was about the silencing of opinion which differ from the establishment.

There are those who promote free speech outwardly, but then try to shut down the speech of anyone who believes differently, (i.e. the so-called 'fairness doctrine').

This is an example of the intolerance of the diversity of opinion that exists in our politically correct world.

How tragic, Ms. Dixon was fired. My daughter is a junior in a university, the group think is frightening to behold. My daughter is just keeping her head down, nodding appropriately and waiting to collect her degree before she speaks freely.

I remember when Professor Jeffrey Nielsen was fired from BYU for writing what I felt was a respectful, true, and articulate article that included words about this same subject.

BYU promptly fired him. Too bad our colleges and universities can't allow people to have their own opinions without fear of being fired.

BYU is a private university with a widely known, publicly stated mission to promote the values and beliefs of the LDS Church. As such, the university leaders are within their rights to fire professors and other employees whose public statements contradict those values and beliefs. I have not been able to ascertain whether the University of Toledo is a private or a public university from the various accounts I have read of Ms. Dixon's firing. The difference is critical - a private university has the right to uphold it's viewpoint even to the extent of firing dissenting employees, whereas a public (taxpayer-funded) university must tolerate all viewpoints - from employees, staff, and students.

I thought Prof. Neilsen's contract was simply not renewed. Quite different than being "promptly fired".

There is another important point regarding this matter.

The conditions for employment at BYU, a private university with very precise and clear employment requirements, are quite different from those at the University of Toledo, one of 13 state universities in Ohio.

As a private institution, BYU may regulate expression according to its own principles. As a publicly funded institution however, The University of Toledo is obliged to permit a much wider latitude of expression. Consequently, if Crystal Dixon chooses to fight her termination legally, she will probably win. Which, as a big proponent of freedom of thought and speech, I think she should.

How was your free speech compromised? Nobody stopped you from saying what you thought. The right to free speech doesn't mean everyone must go along with what you say.

It's a new day people.
It's a new dawn.
The nasty, judgemental neocons are being exposed for what they are.
We are headed for utopia where someday people will mind their own (blanking) business.

I think Star Parker struck out on this one.
In my opinion, Christianity is immoral and unnatural choice of behavior.

The tenor of these comments simply proves Miss Parker's point. Thos who dare to question the conventional wisdom are condemned and attacked. Same as the whole global warming debate.

My free speech was not compromised. But I was not fired from a public university for expressing my opinion in a newspaper. That is what happened here.

I agree that not everyone has to agree with me in order to print comments. If so, it would be boring, I enjoy the debate. But to try to shut up only one side of the debate is what we are talking about.

Ms Parker would do well to read the California Supreme Court opinion before misrepresenting it so badly. The legislature had already passed domestic partnership legislation which granted the same rights as a married couple. The only difference was the lack of the term "marriage." The court said that if the rights were already granted, the term "marriage" should be as well.

BTW, this court is primarily made up of Reagan appointees, not a bunch of lefties.

I am a liberal, an agnostic, an ACLU member, and fervent supporter of gay rights, but no one should ever be fired from a university for disagreeing with me.

More mounting evidence of how far our society has gone into the depths of authoritarianism.

Opposition to the article seems to be an emotional response. Buster and other comments don't give a good reason for their dissent. It is scary the thought police have reigned in control throughout the country. Your judgement is good judgement, if you agree with my judgement...Lionheart I hope your daughter makes it...So sad that's what a "liberal education" gets you. I discovered this problem myself even in the early 90's. I saw the hypocrisy at the university. So-called open minded folks willing to expose themselves to pornography in the human sexuality class (no joke, a porn movie) and other "free-minded" thoughts, opinions etc. But when you walked down Mill Avenue on the weekends and saw the street preacher he always got shouted down and ridiculed by the students. I never agreed with the street preacher myself, but to see a so-called open minded student body accept anything and everything academia presented to them, then fail to apply that open mindedness in the real world failed to compute with me. The hypocrisy is astounding at the universities.

Now that we have to accept homosexuality, we now have to accept plural marriage. Since it is now considered a right, or whatever you want to call it, for any two people to be married, how is that different that 3, 4, or more people to form a marriage.

If you say that gays are born that way, and that they can't help being attracted to someone of the same gender, you also would have to say that some people are attracted to multiple partners at the same time. Since being attracted to someone, through the forces of nature or genetics, is the main requirement to be married then you have to accept plural marriage.

The only difference is the number of people, where before, the difference was same gender attraction.

The article's author has made an important point. However, it isn't just that staff members at today's universities may lose their employment for expressing their views on current political or social issue. The problem goes much deeper. Professors and students alike in today's universities all too often are intolerant of those who express views that contradict their own. The social pressures to conform are enormous. It is clear that today's university is no longer a place for free expression of ideas.

Regarding whether homosexuality is "as fixed as race or eye color or height," as one comment asserts, consider, as only one example, the actress Anne Heche. For years in a sexual relationship with Ellen Degeneres, she later married a man, gave birth to a child, and is now in her second marriage (to a different man). Clearly, the issue is not as settled as many would have us believe.

Poor anti-gays. Suddenly they're expected to mind their manners when they hold positions of public trust. I suspect they'll get used to it soon enough, though.

YouGoFirst: I love it when anti-gays drag polygamy (and sometimes even incest and bestiality) into this long, imaginary list of all the scary things we'll "have to" legalize when gays and lesbians achieve a modicum of equality.

It means that society has progressed so that gay and lesbian families no longer scare people into submission. So the anti-gays have to resort to this made-up parade of horribles in order to achieve their desired effect.

Now, that's progress!

Note to "hey big al" no one ever said that everyone must go along with what Big Al, you or I say. It's the ability to actually say it without fear or retribution.

I understand that might be a huge obstacle for you to overcome in understanding the issue, but you need to put away your preconceived ideas and open up for a minute.

There is a huge movement nationwide to shut down anyone who contradicts what the "establishment" wants to be said. Usually it is conservatives being shut down. You don't want to believe it, just look at what happened to Ms. Dixon. She expressed a conservative viewpoint and was fired. There are examples of this shut down all over the country; see Columbia University as a perfect example.

You indicated that Big Al wasn't shut down on what he wanted to say. So, explain why Ms. Dixon was fired for what she wanted to say?

Sorry for speaking for you Big Al. I know you are more than capable.

Will the neocon name calling fool, please go to the corner for time-out and come back when you can act like an adult?

... the virtue of a man with no convictions. And why are the ones who preach tolerance the loudest always the least tolerant?

Kevin: You said, "Instead, Ms. Dixon made bogus arguments about the supernatural and an unclear argument about the income of homosexuals.
One could read Dixon's piece and conclude it is not a hate-filled rant. Maybe, maybe not. But to me it's an insulting rant."

But, even an insulting rant should not be ground for dismissal. As you also said, you agree that she should not have been dismissed, but we must remember that universities are places of learning, where any and all viewpoints deserve consideration, and those who hold views that differ from the norm deserve equal respect.

The problem with public universities today is that they are places where social pressure to accept certain views, such as those that deal with sexuality, are very strong, and those with differing views are not given an equal footing in the discussion. The phrase "thought police" fits nicely as a way to describe professors and administrators in today's university environment.

Thank you, Star Parker, for shining a light on the rank hypocrisy that apparently exists at the highest levels of adminstration at the University of Toledo. If Dr. Lloyd Jacobs truly cared about the University's "core values" of "diversity, integrity and teamwork" I doubt he would have gone to such an extreme to silence the "diverse" opinion expressed by Crystal Dixon. For the sake of protecting other UT staff members who might in future be courageous enough (or is it foolish enough?) to express a conservative (gasp!) point of view, perhaps we should make our feelings known directly to the office of the President of the University of Toledo (419-530-2211), lloyd.jacobs@utoledo.edu

I had no idea so many people in Utah hated gays.

It's interesting that Parker left out one very pertinent fact about Dixon's termination. Before she was let go, the University offered her another position outside the Human Resources department. She declined, therefore she was let go. It seems to me that she wasn't fired for her opinion but rather because she could no longer effectively carry out her duties as VP of Human Resources. Her publicly stated opinions were contrary to the mission and values of the department and institution she worked for. How could they possible allow her to continue knowing that her ability to remain objective when dealing with GLBT people and issues had been greatly compromised?

Anonymous:

Are you referring to the above comments when you say "I had no idea so many people in Utah hated gays"?

I have read all of them, and I don't sense a hatred for gays or anyone else in them. They show a disagreement with some views, but no hatred. Please understand, it's important to know the difference.

Although I may not agree with what the professor wrote about homosexuality, I also don't feel it right or correct to fire her because of what she said. As a gay man I have heard a lot worse and read a lot worse right here in Salt Lake and on this site. P.C. or not, the professor has a right to express her opinions and should be able to do so without fear of losing her job. The University messed this one up.

Roger -
You must be doing some selective post-reading.
Homophobia and its subsequent hatred for gays is alive and well and you and I both know it.

Anonymous:

But you first said, "I had no idea so many people in Utah hated gays", then changed that to "hatred for gays is alive and well and you and I both know it." Seems to me it must be one or the other, not both.

In any event, please point us to specific words in the above comments that justify such a mean-spirited allegation, or point to specific behavior or words elsewhere that give you such sure knowledge. Such a statement requires a credible explanation.

Roger -
I have to point out NOTHING to prove homophobia and hatred for those who choose to engage in same-sex activities exists to appease you.

as a right wing nut job I can honestly say that I have no problem with gays. I have a big problem with the "gay agenda" however. And let's be honest... they are completely different things. Why would sexual orientation have any bearing on politics? It has nothing to do with anything political e.g. military spending, soc security, medicare, etc etc. I would never disrespect someone because of their sexual orientation but I have to say I'm more fond of a"don't ask don't tell" way of life. Does it really have to be forced upon us with a blasphemy of a marriage?
I can't stand the "gay mafia" because their agenda is anti-American and I'm positive that many Gays agree with me.

Did society and morals and all that stuff really get debased by the California decision? Nah. If that's all it takes to knock it off its' base, it wasn't there very well to begin with. You've a religious agenda, and a religious base of readers, and the article was written to them. The choir was preached to.
But I don't for a minute believe the contentions of the article.

In response to: "...I would never disrespect someone because of their sexual orientation but I have to say I'm more fond of a "don't ask don't tell" way of life..."

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I say this respectfully.

You are invited to an office party, where family members are welcome. Most bring their spouses. Do you introduce your spouse to others as a stranger, a friend, or as your spouse? Or ask your spouse to remain home so that others won't know you have a spouse?

I go to the same office party.

How do I introduce the person with whom I have shared my life for almost 30 years? Or perhaps I should simply ask him to stay home, just so others won't feel I am "forcing my 'lifestyle'" upon them?

I could add to the list of "awkward" (I would claim, untenable) situations: neighbors, church, friends, family members, the Military, the hospital ICU...you name it.

It's a bit difficult to follow your "don't ask, don't tell" suggestion without negating the most important person in my life.

I certainly wouldn't ask that of you.

Would you really ask that of me?

Anonymous:

Homophobia and hatred for those who choose to engage in same-sex activities do not exist to appease me.

You refer to "same-sex activities", a phrase I am not familiar with. To me, they would consist of such things as basketball, football, and baseball. And you?

"Why would sexual orientation have any bearing on politics?"

Politics is about setting public policy.

Last week, my partner and I returned from Canada. We shared one suitcase. We live in the same house. We filled out one customs form. When we got up to the customs official, he pointed to my partner and said, "Who's this, then?"

I responded, "My partner."

"Separate lines", he snarled.

Meanwhile, we watched as numerous couples made their way up to customs officials, with no apparent demand that they behave as though they were strangers to one another.

Public policy determines who has to fill out customs forms, how taxes are paid, how deeds are transferred or filled out, even who is eligible for rights of survivorship or social security benefits.

Next time you are faced with a similar situation to the one I faced at customs, tell your spouse to go through separately. And do that each time you need to fill out forms.

Will you still think politics is irrelevant --part of some "agenda"?

Not so much an "agenda", as a desire for our society to treat people fairly and equally. That customs officer, after all, also works for me.

(Clarification} to Linguist: maybe I was a little vague but , no, I don't mind meeting your partner at a party and having them identified as "boy-friend or "girl-friend"- I wouldn't expect you to hide that part of your life. Just don't ask me to tell my children that you and your partner are "married" and put your relationship on an equal basis as a marriage between a man and woman.

"Just don't ask me to tell my children that you and your partner are 'married'..."

As a wiser person than I once said to me, "What you think of me is none of my business." ;-)

That is, think what you will of me and my relationship with my partner. We believe we are married, united by God. Whether you agree is really none of my business. ;-)

What matters, however, is how the state treats our relationship. My partner and I, despite many trips to the lawyer, remain complete and utter legal strangers to one another.

That is simply crazy. We have one mortgage, one house, one bank account. Our lives are every bit as intertwined as I assume yours is with your spouse. Society recognizes that you form a legal unit.

I simply find it weird that society feels it has to pretend that my partner and I share no binding relationship when the evidence is quite the opposite. Whether it's called "marriage" or not, it seems very counterproductive (and unnecessary) to pretend we aren't a couple when we are! I don't get why the law has to be blind to the reality of our lives.

well I feel bad for you because of the inconveniences you have to endure but look at the bright side. At least you weren't born in Iran - they have a different way of handling that situation at customs

"..I don't mind meeting your partner at a party and having them identified as "boy-friend or "girl-friend"..

Thanks but with respect, calling the person I've shared the bulk of my adult life with my "boyfriend" sounds rather demeaning. While he is my dearest friend, he is much more than that. Substantively, he is my life partner every bit as much as I assume you believe your spouse is yours.

I'll leave "boy friend" and "girl friend" to my teenage nieces. ;-)

What was originally complained about is a typical liberal point of view. They claim to accept anybody and any idea, unless it is contrary to what they believe. To prove my point, rather than give rational arguements, I will have people simply rant about how conservatives are evil, or something to that effect.

For my proof, I offer the many studies that have been published showing that college campuses typically have a majority of liberal professors. These professors often give out grades simply based on if you agree with their viewpoint, not what research and information that students can find to support an alternate viewpoint.

You go first--

I am afraid that what you are describing is a widespread human characteristic. It's hardly limited to "liberals".

Indeed, the reason for the scientific method is to counteract the inherent prejudice that ALL human beings bring to the investigative process.

And the good news is that the scientific method is available to ALL individuals, both liberal and conservative and those in-between.

Throughout history, we've seen examples of shutting down discussion by those in power. The examples include plenty by conservative religious institutions, extreme leftists, and those on the extreme right.

I see no evidence that only one political viewpoint is more prone to bias and abuse of power.

While I am one of those crazy ACLU liberals I do agree with the basic premise of Ms. Parker’s article that a person should not be fired for expressing an opinion as a private citizen. I do however take exception with the idea that BYU is some how sheltered from public criticism because they are a “private institution.” BYU has a right to make those decisions and we have a right to question them. So many people on this board seem to believe that anything that questions their viewpoint is somehow not allowing their point of view. Questioning someone’s point of view is not the same as not allowing it. The fact is we are your opinons are being posted and Ms Parkers piece is widely published.