Comments

First off, I should make it clear from the outset that I do not condone or support the acts of violence or hateful name-calling (e.g. the Westboro Baptists) perpetrated against homosexuals by some of the more extremist segments of the conservative American culture. Such people so not truly represent the ideals embodied by conservative Christian America.

It is equally clear, however, that this article implies, however subtly, that anyone who does have a conservative Christian outlook on the homosexual lifestyle is effectively a bigot with no respect for homosexuals as human beings. This is both offensive and misleading.

I, for one, harbor no ill-feelings toward homosexuals as people, and nor, I daresay, do the majority of people with conservative views on homosexuality. Contrary perhaps to popular belief, it is possible to love a person as your fellow man and respect the God-given dignity that person possesses by virtue of their humanity, without condoning the lifestyle that he or she engages in. It's that whole concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin." Yet in today's society, such distinction is usually neglected, and instead, we equate "tolerance" of a person as a human being with tolerance of their culture and lifestyle choices. To "love" a person in modern secular terms means you must also accept what they believe in and how they live.

This is actually a very cruel definition of love when we really stop and think about it, because some lifestyles are unhealthy or dangerous either for the person living it, or to society at large, or both (e.g. the drunk alcoholic behind the wheel of a car, the jihadist who kills innocent Americans, to name a couple). The key point here is that we should not merely tolerate a lifestyle or culture simply for the sake of "diversity" - merely because it is different from our own. Not all differences are inherently good, and tolerance of all differences is not love.

I find it ironic that on issues like homosexuality and gay marriage, it's always the people who take a conservative view who are being intolerant and hateful. It's always the Christians who want to defend traditional marriage who need to be more "open-minded" and "accepting". Does it ever occur to anyone that it is possible to have "reverse intolerance" on the part of those who would seek to change our society's laws to suit their own personal lifestyles?

There's no such thing as a law or policy that doesn't impose some kind of morality on people. Nature abhors a vacuum. When you remove one kind of morality from civil policy, you are always replacing with it another morality - for better or for worse. So the question will always become, what kind of morality do we want incorporated into our society's laws? This is a topic that needs open and honest debate - not one that begins by assuming that those with a conservative religious perspective are automatically in the wrong.

@Mesocyclone

Let us take a look at your arguments:

A. PHASE 1: DENY ACCUSATIONS OF BIGOTRY

1. "this article implies (...) that anyone who does have a conservative Christian outlook on the homosexual lifestyle is effectively a bigot"
2. "I, for one, harbor no ill-feelings toward homosexuals as people"

B. PHASE 2: CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALS AND DIVERSITY

1. "it is possible to love a person (...) without condoning the lifestyle"
2. "some lifestyles are unhealthy or dangerous"
3. "we should not merely tolerate a lifestyle or culture simply for the sake of diversity"
4. "Not all differences are inherently good"
5. "what kind of morality do we want incorporated into our society's laws?"

So... to summarize your argument: conservative christians are not bigots but homosexuals are unhealthy, dangerous, wrong, immoral and against "nature".

You forgot two things:
1. You have to prove that homosexuals are unhealthy, dangerous, wrong, immoral and against "nature".
2. You have to show that conservative christians are not themselves unhealthy, dangerous, wrong, immoral and against "nature".

If you do that then you will have a point. And suggesting that homosexuality is akin to "the jihadist who kills innocent Americans" is absolutely retarded.

I think this op-ed could be better if it focused more on gender identity than sexual orientation, which is an issue closer to the focus of the actual resolution.

"The resolution would allow these students to live with others who are tolerant of them."

Fine, but what happens when there are enough “tolerant” people willing to have a gay roommate? Won’t anyone who fails to check the box be automatically labeled intolerant? Could the real outcome of this bill be to force straights to live with gays? To be fair should heterosexuals be allowed to share a room with the objects of their sexual orientation? Has any gay person ever had any problem as long as they kept the orientation to themselves?

“We are saddened it has come to this”
“But the need for this resolution shows that some students are not this open-minded.”
“We hope this tragedy will someday become completely eradicated.”

You have no right to such an expectation. Heterosexuals, like homosexuals, see their sexuality as something special. Heterosexuals cannot say that homosexuality is on the same level without diminishing heterosexuality; without saying that heterosexuality is no longer special. Homosexuals have no right to demand that heterosexuals
downgrade the value they place on heterosexuality.

Heterosexuals, for all intents and purposes, can be tolerant and non-discriminatory of gays, but in the final analysis, they must be allowed the right, in their hearts, to view homosexuality as strange and odd and something to which they ultimately cannot relate. After all they are, as heterosexuals, totally out of sync with homosexuality. Duh.

This resolution will lay the groundwork for punishing heterosexuals for their natural inability to be totally accepting of homosexuality. It will increase the animosity toward gays as it drives real intolerance and discriminatory acts underground.