Homosexuality Is Key to Some College Scholarships

CNSNews.com ^ | January 21, 2002 | Michael L. Betsch

[tdadams]

(CNSNews.com) - Need money for college tuition? A group of employees from telecommunications giant AT&T will help pay the bills of students who identify themselves as homosexuals.

Grades and extra-curricular activities don't count as much as sexual orientation for this type of financial help.

The scholarship comes from the AT&T Foundation's LEAGUE, which is an acronym for Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay & Transgendered United Employees.

LEAGUE is one of seven "Business Resource Groups" at AT&T, serving as a homosexual advocacy resource for the telecommunications giant, its customers, shareholders, colleagues, families and the global community.

For the past six years, LEAGUE at AT&T Foundation has awarded a handful of $1,500 academic scholarships to self-identified homosexual youth. LEAGUE Foundation spokesperson Charles Eader noted that applications have doubled every year since the fund was launched.

And for those homosexual students who have demonstrated leadership in promoting diversity and understanding in the community, the LEAGUE Foundation offers a $2,500 scholarship dedicated to the memory of Matthew Sheppard, whom it considers a model of courage.

Sheppard, who was homosexual, was tortured and beaten to death by two men on Dec. 28, 1998 in Wyoming. He was 21 at the time.

LEAGUE Foundation said it hopes Shepherd's memory will inspire lesbian, bisexual, gay & transgendered applicants and recipients of scholarships to persevere against anti-homosexual intimidation both in and out of the classroom.

According to Eader, applicants must be high school graduates; identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered; have achieved a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.0 on a 4.0 scale; be actively and substantially involved in community service; live in the United States; and have been accepted to attend an accredited college or university in the United States.

But conservatives are outraged by the notion that homosexuality is being rewarded by corporations such as AT&T.

"It's sad that teenagers are being deceived about sexuality and recruited into a lifestyle that is unhealthy and immoral," said the Family Research Council's Kristin Hansen. "It's definitely evidence that homosexual activists are organized at many facets of society -- in the corporate world, in schools and in the media."

Eader noted that LEAGUE Foundation is funded wholly by donations and does not receive any financial support from the AT&T corporation. AT&T allows LEAGUE Foundation to conduct its communication and planning activities -- including phone calls, faxes, and emails -- on corporate premises. However, Eader noted that LEAGUE and LEAGUE at AT&T Foundation "are 2 different and distinct, even though related, organizations."

Membership in the AT&T Business Resource Group LEAGUE is reserved solely for AT&T employees. According to Eader, any homosexual advocacy group or its members may become part of the 501(c)3 LEAGUE at AT&T Foundation charity . This charity also "welcomes financial support from the larger LGBT community and its allies," according to the group's Web site, which is hosted by AT&T.

"The level of organization is not a surprise," Hansen said of LEAGUE's wide-open membership requirements and financial practices.

Eader said homosexual scholarship recipients who have been outspoken in their communities are encouraged to continue such activism when they get to college, but he said they have no obligation to do so. Eader added that the names of scholarship recipients remain anonymous, no matter what path they choose to follow.

But scholarship recipients are not discouraged from performing acts of "community service." In fact, Eader said LEAGUE and its supporters would benefit from having a fresh voice on campus promoting the homosexual issues and diversity.

Hansen said LEAGUE's scholarship offering is just another example of incentives encouraging behavior. "And if there's money available," she added, "it legitimizes a behavior."

[gjenkins]

"Look at how much they have costs us in medical expenses (AIDS), etc."

Why don't you simply oppose paying for those medical expenses? Then they would have to deal with the consequences of their behavior and live their life with full knowledge and the commitment to deal with those problems.

[gjenkins]

"are sending a signal to the youth of this country that it is an acceptable and legitimate lifestlye"

By making everything public and passing laws about it, we are sending the very clear message that the only thing that is really true is democracy ... if the majority thinks it is ok then it is ok. That message undercuts everything else you may or may not want to teach children.

[gjenkins]

"Laziness, losing your sexual inhibitions, gluttony are vices, not virtues."

Smoking pot is a miniscule factor in the level of those vices in modern America.

[OWK]

but I'm not in favor of of removing the stigmatism from two men performing anal sex with one another.

You are perfectly free to stigmatize it, protest against it, refuse to associate with those who engage in it, preach against the dangers of it, or do anything else which does not violate rights.

But you are not free (nor is the state) to restrain the private sexuality of consenting adults.

[tdadams]

I'm not in favor of of removing the stigmatism from two men performing anal sex with one another.

There was a time when a majority of people didn't want to remove the stigmatism of interracial marriage. Many would probably still like to see it outlawed. That doesn't make it right.

You're trying to de-humanize homosexuals by focusing on one sex act, mitigating the fact that many can and do live in committed and loving relationships.

I'm sure you don't define your marriage by what sex acts you and your wife perform.

[NittanyLion]

There is a freedom to commit sodomy? Odd...I don't recall reading that in the Federalist Papers.

So you would say our only freedoms are those explicitly stated by our Founding Fathers? That's an odd way of looking at things.

[NittanyLion]

I say jail all openly homosexuals if they refuse to go back to normal moral lifestyle.

Would you jail all heterosexuals who commit sexual acts other than normal intercourse?

[JMJ333]

But you are not free (nor is the state) to restrain the private sexuality of consenting adults.

Show me where I endorsed that?

[JMJ333]

There was a time when a majority of people didn't want to remove the stigmatism of interracial marriage. Many would probably still like to see it outlawed. That doesn't make it right.

You're comparing a heterosexual married relationship between people of mixed races, to homosexual behavior? The two aren't even close to being comparable.

You're trying to de-humanize homosexuals by focusing on one sex act, mitigating the fact that many can and do live in committed and loving relationships.

It is not me who seeks to define myself by my sexual behavior. The homosexual community insists that we shall accept their lifestyle, now matter how "de-humanizing" it is. They degrade themselves and insist that I close my eyes and pretend it isn;t what it is.

I'm sure you don't define your marriage by what sex acts you and your wife perform.

I'm a woman. Sex act??? What happened to love?

[OWK]

Show me where I endorsed that?

I didn't suggest that you did.

I was restating a position I agreed with, for emphasis.

[Protagoras]

ATT is a sick and immoral corporation. We keep being told that it is a behind the door issue. I say jail all openly homosexuals if they refuse to go back to normal moral lifestyle.

That statement, if not made in jest, is the sign of a sick and immoral person.

[tdadams]

You're comparing a heterosexual married relationship between people of mixed races, to homosexual behavior? The two aren't even close to being comparable.

I'm alluding to societal attitudes toward each, which are remarkably similar.

I'm a woman. Sex act??? What happened to love?

My apologies for assuming you're male. But let me remind you that you're the one that reduced this conversation to focus on a sex act (with your reference to anal sex), so I don't see where you have grounds to be getting righteously indignant.

[Protagoras]

I beg to differ, we are not free to do anything we like because it feels good. Show me that in our Constitution.

You seem to be confused about the nature of the constitution. Perhaps you should study it before you make inane staements like that.

[Protagoras]

That is an invented phrase used by the left to drive religion out of America.

Who on the left invented it? Time for a history check.

[Protagoras]

The right to practice religion freely was never intended to be freedom from any religion.

Where do you get this stuff? You have a vivid imagination.

Does WWJDN mean what I think it does? Please explain what those letters stand for.

[tdadams]

Maybe my comments about the origin of that phrase could have been misinterpreted. The phrase was coined by your namesake Thomas, but the secular left has taken it as their gospel and have tried to supplant the meaning of the 1st Amendment with it.

[Protagoras]

The phrase was coined by your namesake Thomas, but the secular left has taken it as their gospel and have tried to supplant the meaning of the 1st Amendment with it.

I agree. People can be relyed upon to twist things to their own meanings. They do it with the constitution all the time, the right as well as the left.

[JMJ333]

I'm alluding to societal attitudes toward each, which are remarkably similar.

So? Concrete truths exist. Can you name one benefit our society if we normalize homosexual behavior?

My apologies for assuming you're male. But let me remind you that you're the one that reduced this conversation to focus on a sex act (with your reference to anal sex), so I don't see where you have grounds to be getting righteously indignant.

Actually, I wasn't the first one on the thread to bring up this subject...

There is a freedom to commit sodomy? Odd...I don't recall reading that in the Federalist Papers.

Have you ever comitted sodomy? I'd bet serious money that you have. 38 posted on 1/24/02 6:03 AM Pacific by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I'm not righeously indignant. I asked you a question. Do you have an answer?

[Cu Roi]

Would you jail all heterosexuals who commit sexual acts other than normal intercourse?

Don't expect a response any time soon...

[wwjdn]

I see you are back to name calling again. Hitler was homsexual,a dn he tried to kill all Jews becuase they were Christian.... you seem to support his ideas more than me.