Sing A Song Sunday - The Time Change Song (Fall)

Narrow-minds and Ethics

So, I have got myself into some trouble with the music therapy listserve again. I seem to do that quite a bit when I open my big fat mouth. I hate when people with opposing OPINIONS start to argue with each other. There is never a winner, especially when the opinions are contentious to begin with.

The music therapy listserve has been abuzz with comments about a book featuring a music therapist as the protagonist. The book also concerns a lesbian relationship, something that was not highlighted before the book was published. One MT asked for some opinions about the book, and another MT stated that she felt that marriage should be between one man and one woman, not a lesbian couple. This opened up the floodgates for calls to remand this MT under the code of ethics. She was told to seek supervision to assist her in removing her bias towards people who were in homosexual relationships.

I decided that some of these conversations were appropriate, but I started to get incensed when people started making ethical judgments about the behavior of the MT who stated an opinion different from their own. I happen not to care about the definition of marriage, feeling that all people should have equal rights regardless of any form of differences. I just find it unethical for some people to state that this person was unethical in not accepting the values, attitudes, and opinions of others as different from her own when they are guilty of the same behavior. She should not be censored for stating an opinion when they are not being censored for stating their opinions. The conversation strayed from the original intent of the post into a series of arguments about who was right - the GLBT community or the conservative Christian community.


I posted a comment that was intended to ask everyone to first maintain some professionalism when responding to comments, and to respect the opinions of others as opinions. This led to some pretty heated exchanges with a "music psychotherapist" who appears to think that I have been accusing her of unethical behavior (which, I kinda have since she called the other person unethical for expressing an opinion that has the potential to hurt others - personally, I think that some of her opinions have the same potential). I took the conversation off-list due to the initial personal nature of her response to me - she used my name in the email. She keeps reiterating that she will stand up for the GLBT community when no one else will. This was not my point with my comment - I don't care who anyone sleeps with - IT IS NOBODY'S BUSINESS - but she will not let it go.


I have decided to be the bigger person and leave the conversation. She will not concede that I have a point. I have conceded to her points many times. She apparently just wants to attack, and I am a convenient target. More power to her.


I will just add her name to the list of people that I do not value as colleagues and move on.


My question is, "why do we even have to go through this pointless exercise?" In my OPINION, two factions as divisive as these will NEVER accede that the other has a point. Why continue to try to persuade each other to the opposing point of view. Each is firmly rooted and will not budge. So agree to disagree and GET OVER IT!


There - that's my rant on my own private space. If you don't like it, tough! This is my opinion and that's all you need to know.