Boatswain2PA Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4455706 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACdan Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Dan - At least you are being accurate about what he said. Most intolerant leftists want him strung up because they think he equated homosexuality with bestiality, which he did NOT do. As you said, he discussed the slippery slope of changing the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to.....something else. If we allow two men, or two women, to marry, then what is to stop three people from marrying? Or four? Polygamy, whether among heterosexuals or homosexuals is not a common or accepted social norm in the United States. In other cultures, it is. Values and norms change with time, i.e. interracial marriage being against the laws a short 50 years ago. But in my lowly personal opinion, if two, consenting adults want to enter into the minefield of marriage (based on US divorce rates), I think that their biological sex should not matter in the least. 31 states and the majority of Americans agree. The standards of our time are now, not 50 or 500 years ago. This is the nature of life, we are not fixed to one point in time, unchanging. I try to live by one simple principle; preserve life & love unconditionally. I am weak, and feeble, I anger, and I stray; but in trying to live by this, I am a better human being. I don't hate Dr. Carson for his views or anyone with them. I wish that they saw a different side, understood what it means to so many gay couples that just want the ability to NOT be different. To share not only their bond of love, but also the rights of insurance, medical and legal decision making, and other spousal benefits that many couples take for granted. We cannot lose if we love, it is a constructive force. But hate is always destructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 You are adding a bunch of stuff that Dr. Carson did NOT say. He talked about the slippery slope, and like the (leftist) article I offered shows, we have already started even further down that slope.Notice I also have not offered my views on homosexuality, or gay marriage, on these boards, but I've been referred to as a "hater" as well.We used to be a society where we could disagree without trying to silence opposing voiced, this let people actually hear, and listen to, opposing positions. But intolerant leftists now aggressively work to silent conservative voices by using tactics like calling them "bigots" or "haters", or even worse, going after their jobs or careers.Dr. Carson received the Paragon award because he and his PA exemplified the SP/PA role. AAPA silenced him simply for political correctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_pavnp Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance, it's morality. Anti-gay is over, we're just waiting for enough of the baby boomers to die off to make it official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Correct, Intolerance of intolerance is NOT intolerance. So, how does not wanting to change the definition of marriage (which has near a universally meant one man + one woman for centuries) equal intolerance? Dont extrapolate to spousal rights, inheritance rights, or medical/insurance rights as these can be fixed with any number of other things. Sorry to derail this thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACdan Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 We used to be a society where we could disagree without trying to silence opposing voiced, this let people actually hear, and listen to, opposing positions. But intolerant leftists now aggressively work to silent conservative voices by using tactics like calling them "bigots" or "haters", or even worse, going after their jobs or careers. Dr. Carson received the Paragon award because he and his PA exemplified the SP/PA role. AAPA silenced him simply for political correctness. No, they rescinded his invitation to speak because he made comments that many considered to be inappropriate. He was a guest, he didn't have an inalienable right to speak at the AAPA conference. Like a company that drops an athlete or celebrity as a spokesperson because they make comments that are considered to be inappropriate, they have a right to protect their brand. Giving the honor of a platform to speak to someone IS a prima facie endorsement of their views to the lay audience. He stepped down as Johns Hopkins University's commencement speaker, as students were circulating a petition to have him removed, and their president called his comments "inconsistent with the values of their institution". Think of it this way, the vast majority of opinions from AAPA members I saw, from PAs, didn't want him to speak there. The AAPA simply listened to a majority of it's constituency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 That could be Dan...or perhaps it was a vocal minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACdan Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 That could be Dan...or perhaps it was a vocal minority. Well, I guess then the opposition wasn't there OR they weren't willing support their opposition. Either way, the majority that cared to participate didn't want him there and that's how a democracy works... only those that bother to go to the polls get their votes counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 And no problem with that Dan. But Dont go around demonizing (intolerant! Racist! Bigot!!!) those who disagree with you. A person can be against gay marriage without being a bigot, against affirmative action without being a racist, and for traditional values without being intolerant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACdan Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 And no problem with that Dan. But Dont go around demonizing (intolerant! Racist! Bigot!!!) those who disagree with you. A person can be against gay marriage without being a bigot, against affirmative action without being a racist, and for traditional values without being intolerant. Hey now, I never called him racist and I never used all those exclamations. :) But my view on some of his...qualities...are not favorable. And I've met the man, he spoke at my undergrad school and I conversed with him briefly. We discussed none of those issues, so it isn't relevant beyond this: His speech consisted of lots of common sense parables, cliches about purpose, and "praise god", all delivered with relatively flat affect. My cohorts and I were nonplussed. We had expected better. Based on my experience, y'all didn't miss out on much by not having him speak. YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinntsp Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 ^^^^^ Here is your hater. The AAPA does not represent me because of their hatred towards Dr. Carson and their anti-american approach to take away his freedom of speech by shunning him. they will not see a penny of my hard earned cash until they make a formal apology. we the PAs do not need them for representation, they need us and should act accordingly. Please. Anti-American? Freedom of speech doesn't equate to zero consequences for the stuff one says. I'm sure the AAPA is weeping over the loss of your $275 instead of the money potentially lost if coming across as an anti-gay organization. If we allow two men, or two women, to marry, then what is to stop three people from marrying? Or four? Why should we even care? What is it about social conservatives that makes them feel they have the right to dictate how others choose to live their lives? Is a homosexual marriage inflicting on anyone else's personal rights and freedoms? No, it just puts a sour taste in the mouth of the conservatives/religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LT_Oneal_PAC Posted October 19, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 19, 2014 Please. Anti-American? Freedom of speech doesn't equate to zero consequences for the stuff one says. I'm sure the AAPA is weeping over the loss of your $275 instead of the money potentially lost if coming across as an anti-gay organization. Why should we even care? What is it about social conservatives that makes them feel they have the right to dictate how others choose to live their lives? Is a homosexual marriage inflicting on anyone else's personal rights and freedoms? No, it just puts a sour taste in the mouth of the conservatives/religious. Not even the religious so much anymore! Pope Francis called on Catholics and priests to be more accepting of homosexuals just this week. And you won't hear conservatives talk about it around midterm elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted October 19, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 19, 2014 I'm not catholic but I really like the new pope. I think he is taking the church in the right direction. he's profoundly humble, kinder, gentler, and more accepting of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Please. Anti-American? Freedom of speech doesn't equate to zero consequences for the stuff one says. I'm sure the AAPA is weeping over the loss of your $275 instead of the money potentially lost if coming across as an anti-gay organization. Why should we even care? What is it about social conservatives that makes them feel they have the right to dictate how others choose to live their lives? Is a homosexual marriage inflicting on anyone else's personal rights and freedoms? No, it just puts a sour taste in the mouth of the conservatives/religious. I think the social conservatives are concerned about the social liberals who feel they have the right to dictate how others choose to live their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JMPA Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 And no problem with that Dan. But Dont go around demonizing (intolerant! Racist! Bigot!!!) those who disagree with you. A person can be against gay marriage without being a bigot, against affirmative action without being a racist, and for traditional values without being intolerant. couldn't be better said, unfortunately most liberals are to narrow minded to understand why tradition has come to be and the way it holds society together. sodom and gamorrha (hope i spelled it right) are a perfect example of liberal society. contrary to the liberal dilusion the majority of people remain conservative. The AAPA needs to change its image or it will continue to detertiorate by loss of members and lack of funds. By bullying Dr. Carson because of his personal beliefs they have lost many members and would be members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_pavnp Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Please quantify "lost many members and would be members" since new PA's are overwhelmingly young and the young are overwhelmingly "liberal" aka anti-anti-gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACdan Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 couldn't be better said, unfortunately most liberals are to narrow minded to understand why tradition has come to be and the way it holds society together. sodom and gamorrha (hope i spelled it right) are a perfect example of liberal society. contrary to the liberal dilusion the majority of people remain conservative. The AAPA needs to change its image or it will continue to detertiorate by loss of members and lack of funds. By bullying Dr. Carson because of his personal beliefs they have lost many members and would be members. I like that you bring up Sodom and Gomorrah. In the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, from which the Christian Old Testament is derived, Sodom is destroyed by God because the residents are beyond cruel. They let those who wander into the city starve because they deem their material wealth of paramount importance and lack all hospitality. They were greedy, gluttonous, adulterous, lied and some would forcibly rape travelers. They were not a liberal nor a homosexual society. They were just terrible, evil people. Not a sermon, just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 ^^^^And a good lesson for God's grace, mercy and justice. He spared the righteous people with Abraham's pleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinntsp Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 couldn't be better said, unfortunately most liberals are to narrow minded to understand why tradition has come to be and the way it holds society together. sodom and gamorrha (hope i spelled it right) are a perfect example of liberal society. C'mon man...this is 2014. We can't keep letting works of fiction be an excuse to impart oppression. Live and let live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Live and let live....unless you express any conservative beliefs. People who do that need to be shunned, removed from public display, fired from their job (like the CEO of Mozilla), and publicly shamed. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Even if you are one of the best neurosurgeons in the world, and you work hard to advance the PA profession in one of the best hospitals in the world....if you utter a conservative thought you should be silenced....right?Intolerant illiberal leftists dont allow live and let live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PACdan Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Plenty of people, both "liberal" and "conservative" are attacked for their views. We have setup such a divisive two part system in the US, where we label each other as one or the other. Maybe we should take a more human approach and not let that system of thought rule us and our interactions. I'm sure that everyone here wants the best for the PA profession. We can all work together to better it. We are not the enemies of each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbrothers98 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 The arguments over the last several pages are illustrative of the many differences within our profession concerning the society we live in and our perspective we individually have. I would want to direct this back on track. Arguing over ideologies, social changes and personal beliefs can be continued off forum using the chat feature. If you dont desire to support the national organization for whatever reason, consider supporting state, regional and specialty organizations for PAs. Bottom line, we are behind the curve in comparison to NPs in some areas we should be ahead. Compensation and practice environments will be affected in the future if the PA voice is not heard and accounted for. No need to resolve your differences or alter your opinions. Just leave those off the table when considering the overall improvement of the profession which is not reliant on individual interpretations of social values and mores but on our place in a billion dollar business in a trillion dollar economy. This is about money and influence with lawmakers of all political stripes, state and federal, to overall improve the conditions for the profession in general. Relying on good faith or agreement with certain social beliefs to pursue an agenda is naive and will not be productive. G Brothers PA-C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derbingle Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Wish I could write like G Brothers........We need common Professional goals with standards we hold to in the prafticing field. So, PAs can become known for xyz. (Diversity, reliability, ability) Where do we want it to go? Personal goals seprately but not to the point that individual goals result in choices that beenfit the individual to the detriment of PAs. My favorite for example, taking a job you know you dont want, knowing you will leave as soon as the next thing comes along. Makes us as a profession seem flaky and hard on new grads. Thats just my one offerring, that I wish new PAs would stick to a Min of 1yr. No matter what. That first year should be solid committment. Performing as a profession is a great foundation. Just my two cents. Written less well. Is "less well" a gramatical error? Or an oxymoron? Ha! Just a little humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrsmurf Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.