And the chances of another counselor being available seems slim - I read today that the student to counselor ratio in the US is 450:1. It's been many a year since I was in school and I don't know about the distribution of school sizes these days, but I suspect that means that most schools have at most one counselor. barfo
....lest you forget what was clinically diagnosed regarding homosexuality back in the day. As Dylan sang.....the times, they are a changin'.
That's obviously not the case with Miss Keeton though, it's not her personal beliefs and convictions that the faculty at ASU has enough of a problem with to stop her from becoming a counselor. It's the effect the far more qualified/closer to Ms Keeton faculty at ASU believe those personal views would have on her ability to perform the job in an ethical manner that's keeping her from the profession.
My 'back in the day' is like the late 90's early 00's, so I'm sure I don't know what you're referring to. What I was referring to was the common practice of homophobes and bigots equating the sexual practices of homosexuals with incest/bestiality/rape.
I was joking. Basically, saying that in the 70's homosexuality was deemed a sickness. Obviously, since that time, the scientific field has changed their collective stances. I was jesting that who's to say that won't someday happen with matters of incest. I mean, we're already changing sexes with no apparent sense of boundaries, right?
With incest, there is no debating that children born out of said relationship are going to have health problems. No amount of science is going to fix that.
No amount of current science can fix it, but in the future we'll likely be able to repair their DNA. And then we'll all be free to knock up our sisters. barfo
I am just going to leave this one alone but it is definitely a possibility. I would bet there is going to be some that advocate fixing DNA to cure homosexuality. ABM, of the 1-2% of kids facing homosexual issues, I would guess 100% are going to need help dealing with them. Parents are probably going to be unprepared and society IMO is not sending the right message. Miss Keeton could be in a great position to embrace these kids for who they are and put them on a productive path. Condemning them exposes them to alot of unhealthy influences.
Birth control can sidestep that problem, though. I'm not advocating sibling sex, though. Unless your sibling is really, really attractive. Just be responsible.
Replace "christian" with "muslim" and "gay" with "jew"...would you be saying the same thing? What about a fundamentalist christian who took the same attitude towards mormons and catholics?
Good point. If a student came to his counselor, despondent over bullying because he can't attend the Valentine's Day dance because he's a Jehovah's Witness, I would hope said counselor would not respond with, "Well, being a Jehovah's Witness is wrong anyway, so you need to convert to evangelicalism in order to be happy."
You know, that reminds me; I think it's discriminatory to deem schizophrenia a "sickness". My brother and uncle were both born schizophrenics--they didn't choose to be that way. Schizophrenics can't help that they hear/see things that others don't. And really, who's to say that the voices don't actually exist? How do we know that they're not just more sensitive to available stimuli than the rest of us are? I think it's unfair to the schizophrenic population to insist that they be medicated to suppress their natural characteristics--we should simply accept them the way they are and stop trying to change them. [/soapbox]
Sounds like you're agreeing with me. So at the point at which you know you're on the wrong side of an argument, you have two good options and a couple of bad one. For good options, you can make like Mike Tyson and fade of into Bolivian or you can admit that you've been moved to the other side on the issue at hand. For bad options, you can keep on making the argument that you've been making or you can shift the argument into something that has nothing to do with the previous discussion points of the week. Seems like you're taking both bad options.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/mar/03/a-vancouver-man-who-stabbed-his-sister-to-death-be/ I know you were probably joking, but not a good example PtldPlatypus. The victim was a very good player on my wife's softball team.
Yeah, but I had kinda changed your quote slightly. It's all fine, though, guys. It very much appears to be a debate that we'll have to agree to disagree. Certainly not the first time that's happened in these parts.
For those thinking Ms. Keeton is within her rights, what would you say to someone that refused to acknowledge any religion and wanted to become a school counselor? If a kid came to them and had issues that centered on their faith, the counselor would just tell them that no god exists and then try to convert them. The other alternative would be to pass the issue off to someone that did have knowledge, thus making the couselor worthless.
Interesting word choice. If she had been only a mediocre player, would it have been less of a tragedy? More to the point, why should a few exceptions be considered indicative of an entire group? There are thousands of schizophrenics in this country, the overwhelmingly vast majority of which do not commit violent crimes. I'm sorry that the actions of one impacted your family, but why should those in mine be impacted by him?
It would not have been any less of a tragedy. What I was basing my opinion on was a small sample size, but here is the quote from wikipedia: If a person is diagnosed with schizophrenia and does not fall into one of the grouping that are a danger to society, I agree that there is no reason for medication to supress their condition.
If Ms. Keeton worked for me and she condemned any child for any reason, that would be instant grounds for reprimandation...up to and including termination. That said, it appears that most of you are relating that, since Ms Keeton appears to be so intent and adamant on following her convictions, she won't be able to separate those feelings from acting in a professional manner. If that's truly the case (a big "if", as I'm still not totally sure that it is), then she would be unqualified in becoming a school counselor. I get that.
I've said this before, but I'm too lazy to find it, so I'll just type it again. Her highly educated, well-trained, and experienced faculty are saying that she's unqualified. We're just agreeing. And please don't try editing my post to be cute.
