Another round in Oregon?

Tiassa

08-15-00, 06:17 PM

Bowser--

A couple of observations. To the other, if I'm standing way out on the polar end of this issue, it's because that's how the issue hits me. But ....

An interesting fact is that the Nazis used the SCHOOLS and MEDIA to popularize and unify German thinking.

Using the schools, you say? ;)

As a society, who has more right to influence social standards and to enact laws which govern the education of our children?

Seems like a simple question, at first, but I'm not so sure. The obvious answer is the parents, but Lysander Spooner reminds us that often parents keep their children in a state of ignorance or a state of fear in order to maintain a state of virtue.

The parents, obviously, have the right. And they choose, by proxy, to entrust a certain portion of that right to the schools. The alternative is a frightful lack of standardized education; perhaps we don't need the same textbooks from school to school, but some convention of reality is required. Should the schools, then, teach subjective "facts", or even downright incorrect facts (e.g.--the OCA's representatives to the public are big fans of reminding us that gay men are responsible for 95% of all child sexual abuses), simply because a majority of the public demands it?

Our government is charged with the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus our Bill of Rights, as the Constitution proper is intended to deal more with government than with citizens.

By what right do we go forward, in the name of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, by allowing the majority to prescribe lies and propaganda as genuine information? To mandate lies and propaganda as genuine information? How does this advance any portion of the culture?

Regarding Flash's question about teen suicides: given Mr Mabon's approach, and considering his past rhetoric that we need to protect kids from homosexuality because it causes them to kill themselves ... well, it gives the appearance of a classic "bad-Christian" approach of ignoring a "problem" until the problem literally dies out. In this sense: maybe if we deny gay people the ability to cope with themselves by purging ourselves of their resources; maybe if we deny gay people equality by reinforcing heterosexual marriage and creating tax laws to reward people for their heterosexuality; maybe if we deny gay people peace of mind by forcing our institutions to condemn them to their face ... maybe we can get rid of the "problem" of gay people by driving them beyond our borders or alienating them to self-destruction. That's what it reads like, that's what it smells like, that's what it acts like, and that's what it is.

A majority cannot deny the rights of any statistical minority on such subjective grounds. Otherwise we'd still have black slaves, we would have finished the job and killed the last 5% of the indigenous culture, and women would still be without the vote, without education, and barefoot and pregnant on your porch.

Once a majority hands the right of subjective disenfranchisement to its government, that principle cannot discriminate. Thus, a continuance of statistical crimes by religious persons would point to the dangers of allowing people to have religion. Thus, a statistical continuance of crime in poverty-stricken, racial minority neighborhoods would point toward the solution of putting the branks on minorities until they straighten up and fly right.

Spooner argued that no body of people can entrust to their government rights of which those people hitherto were not in possession. I remind all of Oregon's Measure 16, the right to die. Apparently not, by practical standards: we haven't the right to self-destruct as individuals.

Thus, how can we vote, as a majority, to implement the self-destruction of our nation? Whether it's gays, blacks, religious people, vegetarians, cigarette smokers, pot-heads, leftists, rightists, centrists, atheists, ad nauseum, how can we award to our government that which we will not ourselves accept?

I mean, most Americans seem tired of our government "protecting" the "rights of criminals". Yet are we tired enough, as a people, to amend the Constitution and throw out the 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Bowser

08-16-00, 06:10 AM

Tiassa,

That was a very passionate response, and a very interesting group of points. I also need to apologize because I haven't read the proposed initiative, and I'm not sure what it defines within its body. I'm afraid that I'm at the mercy of your speculation concerning its intent and its content. Maybe its full text is posted somewhere online?

The below quote is what I know of it:

"Northwest Cable News, our miniature CNN in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, reported earlier this week that the Oregon Citizens' Alliance has achieved enough signatures to place their latest ballot ambition before the public.

The present version of Lon Mabon's frankenstein is a ballot-measure which would prohibit public schools from promoting, endorsing, or encouraging homosexuality."

After reading your last post, I see a lot of evil being painted into a very simple statement: "...a ballot-measure which would prohibit public schools from promoting, endorsing, or encouraging homosexuality." Short of quoting each point in your last post, Tiassa, I'll say that you've done very well at defining one extreme of our society; but you have neglected to explore the other extreme. If this initiative passes, I doubt that, because of their sexual orientation, we will see teachers burned alive on the grounds of Oregon schools.

I think that most parents don't want public schools promoting, endorsing, or encouraging homosexuality. And I don't think it's a mental strain to understand why people think and feel this way. Quite simple, we think it's inappropriate to have this within our public schools. Homosexuality is about as dear to a parent's heart as heroine use.

What disturbs me the most about this thread is the apparent fear that has been displayed towards the possibility of a public vote on this issue.

Anyway, it's late and I'm very sleepy. Take care <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon6.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Flash

08-16-00, 02:32 PM

Bowser,

No, I'm not aware of the statistics. Is there a questionaire being passed out to the the victims after they die?

Was that suppose to be some sick attempt at humor? I do not take you for an idiot, Bowser..so please...

Tiassa brought up some great points...those which have been brought to your attention before. For some reason you close your mind and your eyes to these (pasted below)..why is that, Bowser?

Tiassa's quote:

A majority cannot deny the rights of any statistical minority on such subjective grounds. Otherwise we'd still have black slaves, we would have finished the job and killed the last 5% of the indigenous culture, and women would still be without the vote, without education, and barefoot and pregnant on your porch.

You cannot ignore these..well, you can and have..but I'm still wondering why you do.

It's not fair to everyone, but it's the best system thus far.

Ok, Bowser..then I ask you this. Let's say ten years from now the majority changes their view to the opposite direction and supports the homosexuals. I wonder would you still be spewing out the same statement...

Would you offer the same insensitive statement up toward the parents whose homosexual teens have attempted or committed suicide? By this I mean those who were taught that being a homosexual is wrong..those who were made fun of, beaten by their peers, etc... They did not receive any support whatsoever...always felt as if they were an outcast...etc... they give up and feel that there is not a way out. Sure, they could cave in and try to follow the "majority"...but, inside they are miserable because they know who they are.
I think it is a shame that there are ways created to make a person feel that they are wrong just because they are not of the majority. It's a shame that we cannot learn how to accept people.

I'm sorry...you've just really blown my mind. It's sad...very sad.

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited August 16, 2000).]

Bowser

08-16-00, 03:21 PM

Flash,

Hey, I forgot to say hello. Hi Flash! <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">
<hr>

"Was that suppose to be some sick attempt at humor?"

Of course it was... Was that too liberal for your tastes? <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"Tiassa brought up some great points... You cannot ignore these..well, you can and have..but I'm still wondering why you do."

Probably because I don't see sexual orientation as needing special consideration. We are not talking about skin color or gender or culture. We're talking about the intimate sexual activities of a few. We are being forced to decide if it is a normal practice to have sex with the same gender.

I think this is ironic because this issue has been thrown into the air by the gay and lesbian minority who demand public acceptance of their sexual practice. Well, now the time has come to hear everyones voice. Let's take a vote. Are you worried? <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"Let's say ten years from now the majority changes their view to the opposite direction and supports the homosexuals. I wonder would you still be spewing out the same statement..."

Flash, much like the public opinion, my convictions change over time. I don't know where I might lean in ten years.

As for this crap about teen suicide, let me ask everyone: Who of us, as an individual, never felt isolation. We are all alone in our thoughts, Flash. Let's teach that to our children.

"I'm sorry...you've just really blown my mind. It's sad...very sad."

No, Flash...it's wonderful, very wonderful. I have an opinion which I can share with you on this open forum. Be very happy that we can disagree.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

08-16-00, 03:48 PM

Probably because I don't see sexual orientation as needing special consideration. We are not talking about skin color or gender or culture. We're talking about the intimate sexual activities of a few. We are being forced to decide if it is a normal practice to have sex with the same gender.

* Correct. Gender and sexual orientation need no special consideration; could someone please remind Mr Mabon?

* It matters not if the practice is "normal". Neither, technically, are the heterosexual encounters of a consenting couple in a violent rape fantasy. I think the issue becomes whether this behavior is socially detrimental. Once we establish that a behavior is socially detrimental, we must compare it against other detriments. Thus, if homosexuality is merely "a choice", what of those who choose to smoke cigarettes, or drink beer? I think that even in more directly relevant terms, it will be extremely difficult to establish homosexuality as a detrimental behavior compared to any number of heterosexual deviations that are none of anyone's business.

Mabon and his cadre have never established the social detriment of homosexuality.

But such votes as Mabon's have no place in the public. As I pointed out, our Bill of Rights precludes votes on certain things; well, we can vote for these things all we want, it doesn't make them legal. Would you accept the majority required to amend out the Second Amendment and let people vote about hunting rifles? (Not I, says the duck.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Tiassa

08-16-00, 04:28 PM

After reading your last post, I see a lot of evil being painted into a very simple statement: "...a ballot-measure which would prohibit public schools from promoting, endorsing, or encouraging homosexuality."

That's the evil of the ballot measure's writers.

This is an evolution of the last time, which was an evolution of the time before that.

Since 1990 (20-08, Corvallis, Oregon), Mabon has plagued the Oregon constituency with these ballot measures. By Mabon's 1992 definition, the placement of a book which does not directly condemn homosexuality into a public library is awarding homosexuals "special rights".

If the state does not directly prohibit the employment of gay teachers, it is apparently the awarding of a special right. If the state is not allowed to say: "You're gay, you're fired," it is apparently a special right awarded to homosexuals that you only get if you're gay.

Hmmm ... you and your wife practice something other than missionary sex? You're fired.

Your wife performs fellatio on you? You're fired.

You like to dress up in a nurse's costume while your wife spanks you with a flyswatter? You're fired.

You masturbate? You're fired.

Just a few parallels.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Bowser

08-17-00, 04:09 AM

Tiassa,

I know this will interest you. I pulled from the following URL: http://www.oregoncitizensalliance.org/

Enjoy... <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

<hr>
The Student Protection Act will prevent our children in the public schools from being indoctrinated into the mindset that says homosexuality and bisexuality are desirable lifestyles. It will stop the promotion and sanction of these behaviors in the school curriculum. At this time, nothing is in place to stop teachers and other educators from using their position to further the homosexual agenda. This Act will bring some much-needed accountability to those who are responsible for the education of our kids.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Text of The Student Protection Act:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OREGON:
Section 1. ORS 336.067 is amended to read (new section):

(e) Sexual Orientation as it relates to homosexuality and bisexuality, is a divisive subject matter not necessary to the instruction of students in public schools. Notwithstanding any other law or rule, the instruction of behaviors relating to homosexuality and bisexuality shall not be presented in a public school in a manner which encourages, promotes or sanctions such behaviors.

Section 2. ORS 659.155 is amended to read (new section):

(1) Any public elementary or secondary school determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or any community college determined by the Commissioner for Community College Services to be in noncompliance with provisions of ORS 336.067 (e) or ORS 659.150 and this section shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, which may include withholding of all or part of state funding, as established by rule of the State Board of Education.

<hr>

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser

08-17-00, 04:18 AM

I'm gonna give that one a hardy "YES" vote.

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser

08-17-00, 01:36 PM

Tiassa,

<hr>
"Hmmm ... you and your wife practice something other than missionary sex? You're fired.

Your wife performs fellatio on you? You're fired.

You like to dress up in a nurse's costume while your wife spanks you with a flyswatter? You're fired.

You masturbate? You're fired"
<hr>

There are some things that I wouldn't share with my employer or my children. They don't need to know such things about my life. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited August 17, 2000).]

Tiassa

08-17-00, 02:40 PM

Notwithstanding any other law or rule, the instruction of behaviors relating to homosexuality and bisexuality shall not be presented in a public school in a manner which encourages, promotes or sanctions such behaviors.

Notwithstanding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Consider, please, how many resources go out the window. How would you recommend that, say, high school seniors discuss

* The Defense of Marriage Act (History & Gov't)
* Vermont (it is, after all, a state in our Union)
* Current events?

Furthermore, the school-counselor scenario I mentioned in earlier posts is Mabon's own triumphalist example given to NWCN.

There are some things that I wouldn't share with my employer or my children. They don't need to know such things about my life.

That means the teachers can't bring their wives to football games or other school-related events. After all, it's only fair, since by your standard, Flash could not--were she a teacher in Oregon--bring her partner to watch the homecoming game. After all, there's some things she just shouldn't let her employer know, right?

Your hearty Yes vote invites enough political problems to ensure that homosexuality stays blazing in the foreground for an entire generation of Oregon students. Doesn't history show that antagonizing of any group of people only makes them louder?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Flash

08-17-00, 02:52 PM

Bowser,

Ahhh...I too forgot to say hello...hey, Bowser.. :)

Probably because I don't see sexual orientation as needing special consideration. We are not talking about skin color or gender or culture. We're talking about the intimate sexual activities of a few. We are being forced to decide if it is a normal practice to have sex with the same gender.

You are correct...we are not talking about skin color, gender, or culture. However, we are still talking about people in general..are we not? The problem I have, Bowser, is this is a matter of prejudice. As long as something does not cause harm..what the heck does it matter? To me what does cause harm is prejudice.
Look, I'm not saying that a person should stand up and teach that being a homosexual is the way to go. For that matter I do not feel that one should stand up and teach that being a heterosexual is the way to go either. But, to condemn a person just because of their sexual preference is wrong. If we could put more of an effort in building bridges of understanding and acceptance rather than tearing those bridges apart and promoting ignorance..well, don't you think the world would be a better place?

As for this crap about teen suicide, let me ask everyone: Who of us, as an individual, never felt isolation. We are all alone in our thoughts, Flash. Let's teach that to our children.

Bowser, you are missing my point. I'm not saying that only homosexuals having feelings of isolation...gee, man...give me a break and try to understand what I'm saying here.
In order to help someone the problem must be identified....right? I was simply giving examples regarding the homosexual teens who attempted or committed suicide. I'm all for helping ANYONE regardless of their sexual preference. I feel what the harm is in this case is that those teens were being told how wrong they are simply because they are a homosexual.
Please understand that I am not saying you should have pity because of what some of them go through and not have pity on others. I'm just asking to please take into consideration some of the possible outcomes. Lives are important period...even if they happen to fall on the minority side.

Sincerely,

Flash

Bowser

08-17-00, 03:38 PM

Tiassa and Flash,

"Notwithstanding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Consider, please, how many resources go out the window. How would you recommend that, say, high school seniors discuss

* The Defense of Marriage Act (History & Gov't)
* Vermont (it is, after all, a state in our Union)
* Current events?"

Does this initiative limit the content of student speech, or does it define the content of the education being served to them? Is a teacher a public servant while educating our children in our school? Is the classroom merely a place for our teachers to exercise their First Amendment Rights, or is it their to serve the interests of the public as defined by the public?

"That means the teachers can't bring their wives to football games or other school-related events. After all, it's only fair, since by your standard, Flash could not--were she a teacher in Oregon--bring her partner to watch the homecoming game. After all, there's some things she just shouldn't let her employer know, right?"

Hmm. That is a very challenging example. I don't see anything in the initiative which guides their personal time, but I do see the conflict of interest when you attach that time to a school activity. That is an interesting question, Tiassa.

"Your hearty Yes vote invites enough political problems to ensure that homosexuality stays blazing in the foreground for an entire generation of Oregon students. Doesn't history show that antagonizing of any group of people only makes them louder?"

I see what you are getting at: We should just bend over and take it up the ass? Or we can throw our support in the opposite direction. Maybe my convictions in this matter require more than just a "YES" vote?

<hr>

"You are correct...we are not talking about skin color, gender, or culture. However, we are still talking about people in general..are we not? The problem I have, Bowser, is this is a matter of prejudice. As long as something does not cause harm..what the heck does it matter? To me what does cause harm is prejudice."

It's a matter of my children being introduced in school to information and ideas which I believe to be inappropriate for their consumption.

"Look, I'm not saying that a person should stand up and teach that being a homosexual is the way to go. For that matter I do not feel that one should stand up and teach that being a heterosexual is the way to go either. But, to condemn a person just because of their sexual preference is wrong. If we could put more of an effort in building bridges of understanding and acceptance rather than tearing those bridges apart and promoting ignorance..well, don't you think the world would be a better place?"

Flash,

I'm going say that I think homosexuality is wrong, and I don't want any bridges being built between it and my kids--much less by their teachers in our schools. I don't think it is the worst of our society, and I don't see a need to dictate it out of the bedroom of a consenting adult, but our children don't need this subject gift-wrapped and left on the doorstep of their young minds.

Here's an example for you and Tiassa to play with:

If a teacher shows his class how to make a pipe bomb, don't you think that, at the very least, one of those kids is going to try making one of his own? I think we need to use a little discretion when sharing adult knowledge with the minds of the young.

Take care. You two are keeping this thread interesting. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited August 17, 2000).]

Tiassa

08-17-00, 05:28 PM

If a teacher shows his class how to make a pipe bomb, don't you think that, at the very least, one of those kids is going to try making one of his own? I think we need to use a little discretion when sharing adult knowledge with the minds of the young.

That's about as nefarious an analogy as you could possibly construct. I mean, it's better than saying, "If a teacher shows a student how to rape a little kid," which is usually the argumentative point of Lon Mabon and his mouthpiece Phillip Ramsdell.

Look, under this proposed law, if a student starts complaining about all the faggots in the world, his opinions stand as facts. By correcting erroneous notions in the classroom, the teacher is "promoting" homosexuality. By allowing another student to correct those erroneous notions, the teacher is "endorsing" homosexuality.

It's a matter of my children being introduced in school to information and ideas which I believe to be inappropriate for their consumption.

This raises an interesting question I've never been able to answer ever since the word "lesbian" went around my school when I was in third grade.

Simply, it's apparently okay for kids to abuse each other by calling each other "faggot", but it's not okay to tell them what the word means, and what sentiment is usually applied? Ah, that's a parental decision. I agree, but it seems parents don't care if their kids know what those words mean, eh?

Look, if I beat you up because you felt up my girlfriend .... If I beat you up because you stole my wallet .... If I beat you up because you tried to feel me up ....

Now ... compare that to beating someone up simply because you don't like who they sleep with.

Now ... fire someone because they stole from your work. Fire them because they harrassed you or another employee. Compare that to firing them because you don't like who they sleep with.

It seems people are just fine with gays as long as the little perverts run themselves ragged trying to hide from the world.

This all started, back in 1990, over a children's book. How many children has Mabon "protected" from knowing a part of the culture exists? He's placed the issue right out there, asked people to persecute, and now complains that the targets of his persecution have objected.

I suppose there's that ... this ballot measure is being driven by 10 years' worth of lying bigotry on Mabon's part.

But Mabon is asking Oregon citizens to approve a law which violates the US Constitution; it would seem that, since he couldn't fix this problem with his laws over the last ten years, we might wonder if he just wants to pass one so that Oregon might be an officially homophobic state, and then he can complain about the fed not allowing the state to enforce the will of the people.

The law has no state-level judicial review if passed. It goes straight to the 9th Circuit, where it would be destroyed. I guess it's just more important to Mabon to get a voting majority to acknowledge that they hate people based on whom they sleep with.

Mabon's ilk seem to think that every day is a Gay Rainbow Parade. Gay people are like anyone else. Just because they haven't offended you by telling you that they're gay does not mean that they are heterosexual. It could be that a particular homosexual is smart enough to protect himself/herself from those who would go out of their way to strip a person's dignity, sustenance, and rights, based on whom they sleep with. If it's none of my business what kinky things Joe the Idiot down the street does with his wife, then I don't see how it becomes my business if Joe's wife is a man.

Two groups of people have, over time, asked me to stick my nose into people's bedrooms: Lon Mabon, who wants to hurt people and steal their rights; and his intended victims, who said, "Help us, please? We'd like to have job and a home when we wake up tomorrow."

If I think your wife is ugly, can I fire you?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited August 17, 2000).]

Bowser

08-17-00, 05:43 PM

Tiassa,

You have some GOOD arguments in that last post. Please, please hold those thoughts because I need to go to work at this time. I promise that I will address them soon.

Thank you.

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited August 17, 2000).]

Tiassa

08-17-00, 06:20 PM

Oh my ... Oregon's going back to the dark ages. This just hit me, so I came back to the thread and looked it up in Bowser's post of the OCA website contents:

The Student Protection Act will prevent our children in the public schools from being indoctrinated into the mindset that says homosexuality and bisexuality are desirable lifestyles. It will stop the promotion and sanction of these behaviors in the school curriculum. At this time, nothing is in place to stop teachers and other educators from using their position to further the homosexual agenda. This Act will bring some much-needed accountability to those who are responsible for the education of our kids.

I'll even skip the equating of education and indoctrination. I'll skip the "further the homosexual agenda." And I'll skip the "much-needed accountability", as well.

Because when I look down at the ballot text:

(e) Sexual Orientation as it relates to homosexuality and bisexuality, is a divisive subject matter not necessary to the instruction of students in public schools. Notwithstanding any other law or rule, the instruction of behaviors relating to homosexuality and bisexuality shall not be presented in a public school in a manner which encourages, promotes or sanctions such behaviors.

I see nothing there restricting this to the schools that children attend. By this passage, I interpret the law also pertaining to the following Oregon institutions, to say the least:

* University of Oregon
* Oregon State University
* Western Oregon State College
* Eastern Oregon State College
* Southern Oregon State College
* Oregon Marine Biology Institute
* Oregon Health Sciences University
* Portland State University ....

and, just to be clear on the collegiate aspect of these, we look at the next section of ballot text:

Section 2. ORS 659.155 is amended to read (new section):

(1) Any public elementary or secondary school determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction or any community college determined by the Commissioner for Community College Services to be in noncompliance with provisions of ORS 336.067 (e) or ORS 659.150 and this section [i]shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, which may include withholding of all or part of state funding, as established by rule of the State Board of Education.

Public universities in Oregon fall under the jurisdiction of the Super. of Public Instruction; community colleges, being organized at a county level, respond to the state through the office of the Commissioner of Community College Services.

Mabon wants to protect your kids by sending the Universities back to the dark ages, when church-originated morals governed education.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Bowser

08-18-00, 05:20 AM

Tiassa,

"Look, under this proposed law, if a student starts complaining about all the faggots in the world, his opinions stand as facts. By correcting erroneous notions in the classroom, the teacher is "promoting" homosexuality. By allowing another student to correct those erroneous notions, the teacher is "endorsing" homosexuality."

Yeah...right. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> Don't let that one keep you awake at night. I'm not missing your point, I just think it's a corrupt assumption on your part. Even less do I believe a teacher could be held accountable for the words of a student.

Let's take that example closer to reality. Tell me, how many good teachers allow their students to control the classroom? My experience in class was that teachers focused on the subject being taught, not individual sexuality.

"Simply, it's apparently okay for kids to abuse each other by calling each other "faggot", but it's not okay to tell them what the word means, and what sentiment is usually applied?"

I don't see anything in that initiative which would hinder a teacher from defining any words being tossed around on the playground:

<hr>
'...the instruction of behaviors relating to homosexuality and bisexuality shall not be presented in a public school in a manner which encourages, promotes or sanctions such behaviors.'
<hr>

You're working too hard on your fears. The initiative is simply stating that we don't think it's normal, and we don't want our schools teaching our kids otherwise. Does that really sound unreasonable to you?

"Ah, that's a parental decision. I agree, but it seems parents don't care if their kids know what those words mean, eh?"

I doubt that kids often ask their parents the meaning of those words. However, if you had them sitting in a classroom, quietly, and focused, you could define just about anything for them. It's one of the few times that they are actually listening to an adult. Wouldn't you agree, Tiassa. Hell, you could define normal sexual relationships for them. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

Also, you insist on referring to people being beaten and fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation. I don't see any mention of this within the initiative. To which emotion are you pandering.

"The law has no state-level judicial review if passed. It goes straight to the 9th Circuit, where it would be destroyed."

No, I think you're wrong there. People are starting to realize that this can be a democracy. Power to the People, Tiassa! <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

"If it's none of my business what kinky things Joe the Idiot down the street does with his wife, then I don't see how it becomes my business if Joe's wife is a man."

I agree, but what if they insist on sharing that part of their lives with you...and with your children.

"If I think your wife is ugly, can I fire you?"

I've been fired for less, but the harm that came from it was suffered only by my employer. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser

08-18-00, 05:43 AM

Jesus Christ, Tiasa!

<hr>
"This just hit me, so I came back to the thread and looked it up in Bowser's post of the OCA website contents:"
<hr>

I left that there just for you! Where the hell have you been? <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> I've been waiting for you to come swooping down on it like a vulture on road-kill. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited August 18, 2000).]

Flash

08-18-00, 07:59 AM

Bowser,

It's a matter of my children being introduced in school to information and ideas which I believe to be inappropriate for their consumption.

Ok, believe it or not...I see your point. Because you feel that homosexuality is wrong you also want your children to adopt your view. I also understand that because you love your children you do not want them to be that way...meaning "homosexual". I realize that everyone has a right to their opinion, Bowser...I really do. But, to state as "fact" that homosexuality is wrong...I must disagree. I could sit here and debate all day long about this with you... and I'm sure you could with me as well. I'm sorry, but I still have a problem- that being your view is based on prejudice...and I just cannot see that as being right. We've come a long way since the day of black slavery and the right for women to vote... but I feel that the comparison is appropriate. You, Bowser, have a right to not agree with homosexuality...but, when it comes to others..you do not have a right to demand they be heterosexual, be it your children when they are of age or not. I believe that everyone has a right to live out their lives, provided it does not cause harm to others.

As far as any concerns you may have about a homosexual teacher promoting homosexuality...I just don't see that happening...UNLESS, for example, a teenager comes to a high school counselor and wants to talk about it. I think the worst thing a counselor could do is look at this teenager and tell them they are wrong for having those feelings and that they need to change. I realize you probably do not understand that...much less want to. Just because you can't see it being right doesn't make it wrong.

I'm going say that I think homosexuality is wrong, and I don't want any bridges being built between it and my kids--much less by their teachers in our schools. I don't think it is the worst of our society, and I don't see a need to dictate it out of the bedroom of a consenting adult, but our children don't need this subject gift-wrapped and left on the doorstep of their young minds.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by gift wrapping it. If you mean for a teacher to stand up and say this is the way to be..then I'll agree with you. But if the situation is that of the one provided above between the student and counselor...well, then I disagree. To teach that homosexuality is wrong is not right- period.

If a teacher shows his class how to make a pipe bomb, don't you think that, at the very least, one of those kids is going to try making one of his own? I think we need to use a little discretion when sharing adult knowledge with the minds of the young.

My, Bowser...you are not trying to equate pipe bomb making to homosexuality...are you?????? grrrrrrrrr, if you are.
Let me ask you this...if a counselor spoke up and said that they felt homosexuality was not wrong.....just because this was stated..would you have gone out and did the wild thing with one of your male friends???
Didn't think so. Everyone knows what they are and what they like... it doesn't matter what your teacher or parents say... Honestly, I remember when I was about 8 years old and an older neighbor girl had said the word lesbian in front of my friends and I. When we asked her what it meant she wouldn't tell us. So I did what you said most wouldn't do...I asked my father what it meant. You know how he replied? He replied as Tiassa predicted...he didn't define it..all he said was, "it's bad...very bad" end of discussion. Believe me...my parents never agreed with homosexuality whatsoever. As much as I love them...I had FINALLY come to the conclusion that I had to live my life for me and not for them. I wouldn't be happy otherwise. I think it boils down to this. Wouldn't you rather people be happy, be it your child or not, than to be miserable? Just food for thought.

Take care,

Flash

[This message has been edited by Flash (edited August 18, 2000).]

Tiassa

08-18-00, 01:35 PM

I left that there just for you! Where the hell have you been? I've been waiting for you to come swooping down on it like a vulture on road-kill.

Does that mean you agree that this ballot measure has little, if anything to do with children? Or, at least, that Mabon is dishonest?

If it's so obvious ... how are they going to teach medicine at OSHU? I mean, I'm quite sure a doctor (say, a psychiatrist, an MD?) needs to ... oh, that should be like the school counselors--we should mandate, by law, that doctors tell homosexuals that it's inadvisable to be themselves. At least, the doctors trained in Oregon? (Or any locality that would pass this law?)

In the sense of forcing colleges to teach a purely negative view of homosexuality--especially when the law is allegedly about protecting children--I am reminded of the occasion on which the Louisiana legislature debated a law to improve their public school's test scores by making math easier--under the proposed (and deposed) Louisiana law, pi was "corrected" to equal three. (The engineers, of course, threw a fit all over the legislature for the proposition.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Bowser

08-18-00, 01:54 PM

Tiassa,

"I see nothing there restricting this to the schools that children attend. By this passage, I interpret the law also pertaining to the following Oregon institutions, to say the least:"

I too took a second look at the effects that this would have on young adults who are attending higher schools of learning. I don't agree with that result of this initiative when it becomes law. However, I doubt that the lack of study in homosexuality will throw these institutions into the "dark ages."

Yes, Tiassa, this initiative was given life by a conservitive group. And I have no doubt that they are motivated by the same emotions that motivate you in this thread--fear and hate. For me, I see the OCA and their initiative as a tool towards maintaining moderation within our society. There are two camps of thought out there, and in the middle live the voters. Trust me, this initiative, after becoming law, will be molded by time and by the courts and by other initiatives. I've seen this process at work. And it does work.

Have faith.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

08-18-00, 02:42 PM

And I have no doubt that they are motivated by the same emotions that motivate you in this thread--fear and hate.

So I suppose it's wrong to stand up to bullies?

When I see one person or group of people attempting to victimize another person or group of people, I'm hateful to want it to stop?

Thank you very much for clearing that up.

I think gagging the school counselors is hateful. I think censoring books is hateful.

But thank you for helping me establish that the desire for Liberty and Equality is hateful. I was having such a conflict with that.

The proposed law violates the First Amendment. Period.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Bowser

08-18-00, 02:53 PM

Hello Flash,

"You, Bowser, have a right to not agree with homosexuality...but, when it comes to others..you do not have a right to demand they be heterosexual, be it your children when they are of age or not. I believe that everyone has a right to live out their lives, provided it does not cause harm to others."

I don't care what other people do with their lives. That really is their business. The problem is when they enter my life or the lives of my family with an element that I feel is wrong. Go figure.

"As far as any concerns you may have about a homosexual teacher promoting homosexuality...I just don't see that happening"

Well then, there shouldn't be any concern over this initiative. It doesn't appear to pose a threat to anyone since nobody will be encouraging, promoting or sanctioning such behaviors.

"To teach that homosexuality is wrong is not right- period."

As you know, I can give you many arguments to the contrary of that belief. Beginning with the facts DEFINED BY NATURE. But that's you and me, and we don't want to go there again. Do we.

"My, Bowser...you are not trying to equate pipe bomb making to homosexuality...are you??????"

Well, I will be honest with you and Tiassa. I was using that example for emotional impact, but my point was that kids do learn what we teach them. And yes, they love to experiment. You tell me what kids will think if our teachers and schools are encouraging, promoting or sanctioning homosexuality.

"So I did what you said most wouldn't do...I asked my father what it meant. You know how he replied? He replied as Tiassa predicted...he didn't define it..all he said was, 'it's bad...very bad' end of discussion."

Your father probably made a parent's decission that you were too young to understand or appreciate the details. How fortunate that the schools didn't rob him of the right. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

"Wouldn't you rather people be happy, be it your child or not, than to be miserable? Just food for thought."

Why does other peoples happiness depend on their sexual lives entering my schools and my childrens lives? Think about this, Flash. We are talking about adult sex and a child's school. Do you see the contradiction and the perversion of yours and Tiassa's argument?

Anyway, It's been nice arguing with you. Maybe we can do it again later. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser

08-18-00, 04:15 PM

Tiassa,

"So I suppose it's wrong to stand up to bullies?"

I don't see a public vote on this issue as being anything more than the sytem of democracy at work. The bullies are those who can't tolerate a democracy. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

"When I see one person or group of people attempting to victimize another person or group of people, I'm hateful to want it to stop?"

Funny. I imagine that the OCA see homosexuals under the same light. However, they are trying to protect children, not homosexuals.

"Thank you very much for clearing that up."

My pleasure.

"I think gagging the school counselors is hateful. I think censoring books is hateful."

Okay. Where would you draw the line before we reach irresponsible? How many other curious sexual behaviors should we rationalize within our schools? We're on a slippery slope if we accept your point of view. What waits for us at the bottom, Tiassa?

"But thank you for helping me establish that the desire for Liberty and Equality is hateful. I was having such a conflict with that."

No. I simply showed you that YOU and YOUR ENEMIES share the same feelings. You just don't hold the same ideas in common.

"The proposed law violates the First Amendment. Period."

If that were true, our teachers could endorse drug abuse.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

08-18-00, 05:37 PM

Okay. Where would you draw the line before we reach irresponsible? How many other curious sexual behaviors should we rationalize within our schools? We're on a slippery slope if we accept your point of view. What waits for us at the bottom, Tiassa?

I would ask, actually, a specification of your fears. To whatever degree suits you, but here's the thing ...

* I get the feeling, every time this issue comes up, that the OCA is trying to create this image of hordes of gay teachers in sequined g-strings and body paint trying to whisk your children off to Gay-land. That's obviously an overstatement, but the thing is that for all of offense and danger, I have never heard a specific fear that makes sense. Usually I'm left with a vague sense that the OCA's supporters are warding off imaginary spectres.

To answer your question more directly, though ... where do we draw the line before we reach irresponsible? To be honest, that line is shattered already, by Mabon and his ilk. I find it extremely irresponsible to prevent school psychologists and counselors from doing their job.

I mean, to be fair and equitable, should we tell heterosexual teachers to keep photos of their loved ones off their desks? Oh .. that's right, fair and equitable only applies to heterosexuals because they're not icky and "unnatural".

How many other curious sexual behaviors should we rationalize within our schools?

Counterpoint: how many sexual behaviors need we directly expunge from public mention through legislation? How about restoring a version of the old laws (not entirely gone) against fellatio, and make it illegal to discuss in public schools and universities? Fellatio, to say the least, is "unnatural". After all, God did not make Tab P to fit into Hole M. (By the way, heterosexual oral sex was on the slate in my Jr High health classes in the 1980's ... in a public school.)

It seems you're caught up on moral justification and rationalization of behavior. That's a better way of saying it: What, specifically, are you afraid of? In other words, what's rationalization? I've had gay teachers before, and they never got up and paraded, justified, rationalized, or otherwise bring up the subject; and they didn't have a state law stapling their mouths shut.

If you, the OCA, or anyone thinks gays are trying to "victimize" children, then demonstrate it. Period. Tell me what's going to happen if we don't fire the gay teachers. Please, I'd love to know what Sodomite misery will plague our lives if we don't go out of our way in society to ostracize people for who they sleep with.

And I might remind you that advising children to abuse drugs is a far cry from a counselor telling a gay-curious student to just chill out and give themselves time to think, and that the student might find their self inclined toward the opposite gender, but that it's no reason to go psycho if you don't.

I think mandating that teachers and counselors and psychologists respond to unsolicited questions about homosexuality in such a manner as Mabon is attempting is most definitely as dangerous as telling kids to abuse drugs. I mean, hell, teachers aren't even allowed to advise the kids to use drugs safely.

gotta run for now. thanx,

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited August 18, 2000).]

Flash

08-19-00, 11:43 AM

Bowser,

I don't care what other people do with their lives. That really is their business. The problem is when they enter my life or the lives of my family with an element that I feel is wrong. Go figure

Ok, Bowser...ok. Sooooooo.. you would rather the school counselor tell your child that being a homosexual is a very bad thing...Period. What of the other parents who would rather have the counselor to offer up similar advice which Tiassa gave an example of? I'm sorry...it's just that this whole thing reminds me sooooo much about a person at work I was speaking with who is 100% prejudice against blacks. She doesn't care what the person is like on the inside ..it's the fact that they are black that makes them "bad". Of course I had disagreed with her ummm "logic". I tried to get her to see beyond the color of their skin and look into their hearts. She views them as statistics, regarding crime, and not as people. Her parents believe the same way. Wonder where she learned this? I mean..is it so hard to teach to your children that homosexuals are people too? That they are not sexual perverts...they simply are with someone of the same sex. As to give the example of Boris...some people are right-handed and some left-handed. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Well then, there shouldn't be any concern over this initiative. It doesn't appear to pose a threat to anyone since nobody will be encouraging, promoting or sanctioning such behaviors.

What I meant by that statement was, as Tiassa, I feel that you think that just because a teacher is a homosexual you fear that they are going to stand up and try to "sell" it to your children. That, I do not see happening. BTW..you also ignored my
"UNLESS".

As you know, I can give you many arguments to the contrary of that belief. Beginning with the facts DEFINED BY NATURE. But that's you and me, and we don't want to go there again. Do we.

How quickly you forget the facts that were shown to you, by Boris- which were DEFINED BY NATURE. :eek:
I'd like to point out that although we both have views and points to make... you cannot state it is FACT! It's like, "guilty until proven innocent", huh??? It STILL boils down to teaching homosexual teens they should be shameful, among other things, for being who they are. Who the heck should ever have a right to do that???????? I mean do I have to draw a picture for you by way of posting numerous sites which disclose actual horror stories of homosexaul teens and a day in the life at school? Thank God not all are like this...but more than enough are. Homophobia is a horrible thing to encounter ...especially for a teen. The state of Vermont has actually started a program in many of their schools for support to homosexual teens. It's worked pretty good so far. Go figure.

Well, I will be honest with you and Tiassa. I was using that example for emotional impact, but my point was that kids do learn what we teach them. And yes, they love to experiment. You tell me what kids will think if our teachers and schools are encouraging, promoting or sanctioning homosexuality

Just what the heck do you think they are going to do, Bowser? Entice the youth to switch teams? What could they possibly teach which would do this that you fear so much? AND, in your answer to this I'd like for you to tell me if you think it would have been enough to have swayed you to try it.

Your father probably made a parent's decission that you were too young to understand or appreciate the details. How fortunate that the schools didn't rob him of the right

Hmmmmmm.... well, would I have been too young to understand what heterosexal meant?
Ohhhh, or do you mean I'd of been to young to understand his prejudice? If that is what you are meant then I'm glad he didn't.

Why does other peoples happiness depend on their sexual lives entering my schools and my childrens lives? Think about this, Flash. We are talking about adult sex and a child's school. Do you see the contradiction and the perversion of yours and Tiassa's argument?

That's just it, Bowser. It's not just YOUR school. I was taught about adult heterosexual sex when I was in middle school. Your point again?

Take care,

Flash

Tiassa

08-19-00, 06:25 PM

We are talking about adult sex and a child's school.

And we are also talking about Universities, community colleges, the libraries, staff, and possibly students of the same.

In that sense ... I learned Emma Goldman (an anarchist) at the University of Oregon. Never before had I heard of her, nor read such sensible "extremism". (I protest the notion that she was an extremist, but philosophically she was quite a ways out on the edge.)

Now, consider the "Eugene Anarchists" (from right beside U of O) who tore up retail stores at the Seattle WTO (some of whose alleged associates stand indicted of firebombing a car lot).

If one were to establish, based on these sorts of incidents, that anarchism was too dangerous to be taught in publicly-funded institutions, should we allow a population that has, perhaps, never read the history of Anarchism to vote to banish it from U of O?

If we did, and should that population vote to bowdlerize anarchism from history, as such, it would be ignoring the fact that many leading anarchists decry violence, as it lowers the activist to the moral cesspit of the opponent.

I'm hardly suggesting that straight people have a homosexual experience before they decide to vote on things, but if they want to protect the children by exscinding collegiate curriculum and resources, it might be beneficial to consider what happens then:

* The Universities will teach future doctors, nurses, teachers, psychologists, counselors, MSW's, ad infinitum that when their duties lead them into contact with a homosexual person, their first assessment should be one of human detriment to the greater society. Thus, after a single class generation at the Universities, all college graduates whose field of study might have included aspects of homosexuality will have been indoctrinated by legal obligation that homosexuality = moral corruption, societal danger, &c.

Indoctrination ... isn't that what Mabon's trying to stop, allegedly?

I recall an episode of Fox's Family Guy in which Brian and Peter argue about dignity: "I'll be out in the gazebo, since you're already on the cross."

I wonder how Mabon's driving the nails through his second wrist ... long hammer in his mouth? Or is that too homosexually suggestive?

Must've used a staple gun.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Goldman/
------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited August 19, 2000).]

Bowser

08-20-00, 05:17 AM

Tiassa,

"I would ask, actually, a specification of your fears.

A school system which assumes the privilege of COUNSELING my children in there sexual orientation is my fear. This goes beyond biology class or carrier guidance. The schools have no business going there with my children, no more than they have any business teaching or counseling my children in their religious convictions.

Here are a couple statements. You tell me which is more appropriate in the classroom:

"Some people have sex with there own gender."

"It's okay to have sex with the same gender."

Do you see the difference?

"Usually I'm left with a vague sense that the OCA's supporters are warding off imaginary spectres."

I want you to know that I enjoyed the paragraph that sat above the last sentence. You do, at times, give me a chuckle. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif"> Thank you.

Anyway, yes, people do feel suspicious of those who would bring something of this nature into our schools. I feel there IS an effort to normalize homosexuality within the minds of our children, and it's being accomplished through our schools. I think you will agree with this because you are part of that effort here.

"I find it extremely irresponsible to prevent school psychologists and counselors from doing their job."

I think it more appropriate that they identify the problem and then notify the parents.

"I mean, to be fair and equitable, should we tell heterosexual teachers to keep photos of their loved ones off their desks? Oh .. that's right, fair and equitable only applies to heterosexuals because they're not icky and "unnatural"."

Well, there's another contradiction to ponder. Let's give that even more of a twist...

Maybe the lifestyle of a teacher who practices beastiality doesn't harm anybody (we will assume that his chicken is a willing partner, okay). Do we want that individual teaching our children. Would we be offended if he displayed a picture of his love-pet on his desk? "Golly Mr. Green Jeans, who's that chicken in the picture?"

Do you see the parallel, Tiassa--I'm assuming that you're not going to defend the rights of a teacher who practices beastiality. But, then again, maybe we shouldn't discriminate against his sexual orientation. Hell, he's probably just like you and me with just one exception.

Wait! What if he's approached by a student who has experienced certain, uh, feelings... for the neighbor's dog? Do we want him to advise that youngster by saying, "That's okay, Jimmy, it's just an alternative lifestyle."

Don't get me wrong because I am getting your point. You're saying that our society can't maintain any sense of moral standards without violating the rights of, or offending the sensibilities of a small group of people. We must abandon our morality, our schools, and the welfare of our children to the desires of those who place their sexual orientation on a higher mountain of importance--and on parade, I should add.

This is correct?

"Counterpoint: how many sexual behaviors need we directly expunge from public mention through legislation? ..."

Hmm... Public mention or a child's education, Tiassa?

"...(By the way, heterosexual oral sex was on the slate in my Jr High health classes in the 1980's ... in a public school.)"

In the 70's, Tiassa, we studied the physical and reproductive differences of the male and female body--high school biology. We even learned about birth control. They didn't offer "Oral Sex 101" in my day, but I think I now understand where you are coming from, and I feel that this serves as a perfect example of the degenerative forces at work in our schools.

Also, when did you stop being a child. What did you lose to your education. This is something that has yet to be mentioned on this thread--the right to be an innocent. But, I suppose that is best left for another thread.

"It seems you're caught up on moral justification and rationalization of behavior. That's a better way of saying it: What, specifically, are you afraid of? In other words, what's rationalization? I've had gay teachers before, and they never got up and paraded, justified, rationalized, or otherwise bring up the subject; and they didn't have a state law stapling their mouths shut."

Wow, that is a lot to address. I stated my fears above. But I will take another stab at it...

My dog will hump just about anything that crosses his path--including my leg. Do I want my children to learn the same lack of discretion from the example displayed by their teachers? Also, what exactly are we doing when we PUSH our children through the gauntlet of sexual exploration?

Suppose that the majority of parents feel that the subject matter of homosexuality is not appropriate, or they think it is simply immoral(those darned bigots!): does the lifstyle of a teacher or a student take precident over the will of the majority of parents? The truth is, moral behavior is the thing that seperates us from the animals, Tiassa. It's the common glue that holds us together.

"What's rationalization?" Let me take a shot at that:

"We can't allow this initiative to guide the content of our childrens' education because it might foster predjudice sentiment against homosexuals."

"Our schools are teaching our children about oral sex in junior high school. There's really no risk of your children being introduced to homosexuality, and there is even less risk if their teacher is a homosexual."

"Parents don't love their children. Also, the schools and their teachers are better athorities on matters regarding sexual relations, and we should give them liberty to teach our children as they feel fit."

Here's my favorite, Tiassa...

"If a kid is confused about her sexuality, a school counselor should suggest that she might be orientated towards the same gender."

Hmm...<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon3.gif"> Y'know...the more I participate in this thread, the closer I come to reality. You're gonna hate this next statement, Tiassa; however, It has just occurred to me that this is truth. Here we go...

Once again, the majority DICTATES by vote and, probably more so, by SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION (yeppers...I said it) the common principles and acceptable behavior by which our society functions. It's this common and more popular standard which keeps our society from corruption and destruction.

"If you, the OCA, or anyone thinks gays are trying to "victimize" children, then demonstrate it. Period. Tell me what's going to happen if we don't fire the gay teachers. Please, I'd love to know what Sodomite misery will plague our lives if we don't go out of our way in society to ostracize people for who they sleep with."

I dunno, Tiassa. The victims are those who learned oral sex at school. I can only imagine all of the varied knowledge that will come from the gay community if allowed to educate whithin our schools. Just imagine the society it will create.

Ostracize is an interesting choice of words, and that may be the intent of the OCA, but the initiative doesn't accomplish that end. It does, however, help bring the schools back under public control.

'Why don't we do i--t in the road! (The Beatles).' Give it a listen. Even John Lennon had a sense of right and wrong.

"And I might remind you that advising children to abuse drugs is a far cry from a counselor telling a gay-curious student to just chill out and give themselves time to think, and that the student might find their self inclined toward the opposite gender, but that it's no reason to go psycho if you don't."

I know you didn't miss my point, Teassa. There are limitations to free speech within the classroom. I hope we have resolved your concerns about the First Amendment issues regarding this initiative.

"I think mandating that teachers and counselors and psychologists respond to unsolicited questions about homosexuality in such a manner as Mabon is attempting is most definitely as dangerous as telling kids to abuse drugs."

Yeah...like they are going to suffer because of a lack of homosexual sex. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

<hr>
<hr>

Flash!

You are my favorite lesbian, y'know <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

Concerning your question regarding the school counselors. My guess is that if a child had decided that she was gay, her parents would want to know. And I assume that they wouldn't want a stranger advising their child in such matters.

In regards to your example about your racist co-worker. You are trying to equate my dislike of homosexuality with racism. That doesn't work in any dictionary. On the other hand, you can say that I am bias towards heterosexualily, and that I favor it over homosexuality. You can even say that I feel that homosexuality is corrupt by nature.

With respect to the left and right hand theory of Sir Boris. If my left hand was telling my right hand that it was okay to fondle the guy sitting next to me, my right hand would be tempted to cut off my left hand.

"...just because a teacher is a homosexual you fear that they are going to stand up and try to "sell" it to your children."

No, Flash. I'm saying that they have no business selling it to my children. The OCA initiative will help keep them honest.

BTW..you also ignored my "UNLESS"

Please restate your question for me and I will answer it. My appologies.

"How quickly you forget the facts that were shown to you, by Boris- which were DEFINED BY NATURE."

What were those facts again, Flash? Something about animals...monkeys...bread mold? They couldn't have been very convicing if I've forgotten them. If you want to narrow it down to the facts and the nature of the HUMAN BODY, Flash, THEN we would be getting somewhere. You have to remember that we're not built to pollinate, and we don't lay eggs (however, nature may have made an exception for Boris <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">). The instruments of our sexual purpose are obvious. You and others just refuse to see that, or you hide behind an overstretched example of nature. Trust me, you were made for having sex with a man, and for the purpose of making babies. How you came to another conclussion is beyond any normal comprehension.

Of course, all of this depends on the assumption that you truly are a women. It could be that you're something else. I suppose we just can't be certain these days. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"I'd like to point out that although we both have views and points to make... you cannot state it is FACT! It's like, "guilty until proven innocent", huh??? "

If I see it as fact, then I will point it out as such. If you can convince me that I'm wrong, then I am wrong. I don't have a problem with that, but I have yet to see an argument which can sway me into voting "no" on this initiative. I see it as a good law, serving both the public's interest and the children's welfare.

"It STILL boils down to teaching homosexual teens they should be shameful, among other things, for being who they are. Who the heck should ever have a right to do that????????"

Once again you and Tiassa are adding your own words to the text of that initiative. There is nothing in there which requires heterosexual teachers to advise children to become heterosexuals. Don't worry. I'm certain that homosexuality will not die after the passage of this inititive.

"I mean do I have to draw a picture for you by way of posting numerous sites which disclose actual horror stories of homosexaul teens and a day in the life at school?

Yes, post those URL's for me, because I want to know. Also, Flash. How does your fellow classmates discover that you are homosexual? Here's another question: After the kid has shared his tears with his counselor, do we then use our authority and twist the arms and ideas of those kids who don't appreciate that lifestyle. Granted, it's wrong to pounce on another kid for any reason, but what are you wanting to do about that?

"Homophobia is a horrible thing to encounter."

And how does it compare with Heterophobia?

"What could they possibly teach which would do this that you fear so much? AND, in your answer to this I'd like for you to tell me if you think it would have been enough to have swayed you to try it."

Well, I've always question authority. And there was never any confussion about what I liked. Yet, I was an exceptional child. But most kids consider the words of authority to be law. Just consider those few kids who pounce on gay kids simply because a parent disagrees with homosexuality. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

I assume that your father loved you; I also assume that he tried to protect you. If I'm correct, then I thank your better judgement for pointing out his faults. On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong and he hated you.

I don't know your father, but my impulse is to believe that he worked very hard to provide for his little girl, that he cared very much for her, and that he wished and hoped for all things good in her future.

"That's just it, Bowser. It's not just YOUR school. I was taught about adult heterosexual sex when I was in middle school. Your point again?"

I think I missed your first point, but as for your rights to my schools...

Logically speaking, heterosexual parents will always have more invested in the public schools than the fruitless homosexual (hey, there's a contradiction of terms!) minority. With that being said...YES! IT'S MY SCHOOL! STAY OUT! <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

<hr>

Okay, you two. I'm going to be busy for several days, and I won't be able to play with you for a time. But rest assured, I'll be back.

Later, Hush Puppies

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser

08-20-00, 05:37 AM

Tiassa,

I just read your last post, and I concede that your point is valid when you argue that this initiative is bad for the education of young adults in publicly supported Universities and other institutions of that sort. Presumably, they are old enough to make sense of the information available to them, but I take your example of the riots as a potential argument that only supports the OCA's position.

I wish I could give you more time and thought, but it's late, and I'm out of heterosexual zeal for the time.

I wish you and Flash much happiness. I'll argue with you soon. Take care.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

08-20-00, 07:58 AM

Bowser--

If I'm impressed, don't take that sarcastically. Many points to consider ...

But I must start, emphatically, with this:

Maybe the lifestyle of a teacher who practices beastiality doesn't harm anybody (we will assume that his chicken is a willing partner, okay). Do we want that individual teaching our children. Would we be offended if he displayed a picture of his love-pet on his desk? "Golly Mr. Green Jeans, who's that chicken in the picture?"

Phillip Ramsdell, of the Oregon Citizens' Alliance, was fond in '92 of trying to equate homosexuality with certain deviant sexual practices:

* pedophilia
* bestiality
* necrophilia

Phillip Ramsdell's a pinhead, and I honestly--again, without sarcasm--think you're far more intelligent than that.

Hell, look at the internet--do you really think it's those girls' mommies taking pictures of them grinding with the family dog? Or is it just some sinister gay man with a misogynist bent because his mother spanked him with a rattan cane?

But, you've been kind enough to take a whack at one of the tougher questions. I thank yo kindly.

A school system which assumes the privilege of COUNSELING my children in there sexual orientation is my fear. This goes beyond biology class or carrier guidance. The schools have no business going there with my children, no more than they have any business teaching or counseling my children in their religious convictions.

I just figure a school counselor should have the opportunity to prepare themselves for whatever comes along. I mean, it's not like they're going to be calling children in one by one to petition their sexuality.

As a sensitive question ... when I was in eighth grade, one of my less fortunate classmates suffered an erection while showering after phys ed. Later that day, he was beaten senseless for being a faggot. How might a school counselor handle that one when it lands on his or her desk?

* Does anyone remember "casualty days" at school, when the whole world came grinding to a halt because something terrible had happened? Imagine ... Kristen died in a car accident, come talk if you need help with this. David was shot in an accident last night, come talk if you need help. Joey died last night, and we can't say how, can't say why, and if you need help, go somewhere else.

Here are a couple statements. You tell me which is more appropriate in the classroom:

"Some people have sex with there own gender."

"It's okay to have sex with the same gender."

Do you see the difference?

I would offer a few of my own: Johnny asks his health teacher what a faggot is.

* "I'm not allowed, by law, to answer that question." (This statement, from a teacher, would be untrue; for the teacher can answer the question.)
* "It's a stick." (My fifth grade teacher used that one to quell faggot-talk.)
* "A faggot is a word to describe dangerous people who do certain unwholesome things." (This answer is not disallowed by the OCA's measure.)

If groups of kids are beating up gay-suspect kids (and it happened in my day ...), how can the school deal with that?

I had one particular teacher in high school who taught an alleged ethics class. She had some personal problems, the sum of which meant that the only "right" answers to her hypothetical constructions reflected Catholic doctrine. This was a private school, so I had no problem with getting an "F" every time I argued my real opinion. But in a public school ....

Okay, I'm not going to equate homosexuality with religion, but the analogy works for another aspect:

* If we passed an absurd law that made it illegal for schools to "promote, encourage, or endorse" Judaism, how would a teacher be obliged to regard a school report drawing heavily from anti-Semetic literature like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and presented historical slanders as fact?

To make that a parallel: Will a teacher be obliged to cancel all student-initiated exchange on the subject of homosexuality? Or if a student writes a term paper on The Crimes of the Perverts, and uses spurious sources, will the teacher be able to stop the student? If the teacher awards a poor grade, and points out more reliable information that contradicts bad research, is the teacher "promoting, endorsing, or encouraging" homosexuality?

Will Oregon have to drop its Cable in the Classroom participation? What about those media resources that will have to be bowdlerized in order to meet the curriculum standard? I mean, a blank screen every time there's information on civil unions in Vermont?

Will a student researching, say, an election, be able to gather adequate information from the school's internet resources, or will the state pay someone to filter any gay-positive information which might be accessed from publicly-funded computers?

Anyway, yes, people do feel suspicious of those who would bring something of this nature into our schools. I feel there IS an effort to normalize homosexuality within the minds of our children, and it's being accomplished through our schools. I think you will agree with this because you are part of that effort here.

I accept that perspective, but offer this consideration: As more homosexuals moved into the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco, police began performing no-knock raids, the kind we see in the modern Drug War, searching for deviant sexual practices. Even at that time, protests against police action were seen as an effort to normalize homosexuality within the minds of children.

I think it more appropriate that they identify the problem and then notify the parents.

What, then, of the host of kids I knew who would never, in their lives, discuss these kinds of issues with their parents? From both extremes, to be fair: A girl gets pregnant and her father beats her to death in his slef-righteous rage; a girl gets pregnant and her mother drives her at gunpoint to an abortion clinic. Analgously speaking, I can understand why a youth confused by his or her sexual inclinations would be hesitant to take the issue up with their parents. My own parents were most definitely not violent (strangely, the closest they ever came to violence was when I cut my own hair into an obnoxious 80's floppy something). But despite the fact that they were generally reasonable about a good many things, there were things I simply did not talk about with them. A friend of mine used to get into fistfights with her mother about the stupidest things; I can honestly say that her family would not take well at all to the announcement that she was in love with another girl.

Hmm... Public mention or a child's education, Tiassa?

I want to clear up here what we mean when we say "child's education". First, we should consider what age at which we introduce students to the idea of sexual reproduction. We should also consider whether or not to discuss social disease and methods of transmission, and at what age.

But we are, apparently, looking at an attempted expurgation of the Universities, as well. At some point, it does become public mention; I recall a number of events at the University of Oregon in which various preachers of more severe forms of Christianity would use school facilities to editorialize about homosexuality. (One was a van-traveling stump preacher ... can't even begin to describe this guy.)

University curriculum, civic events, libraries ...

Once again, the majority DICTATES by vote and, probably more so, by SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION (yeppers...I said it) the common principles and acceptable behavior by which our society functions. It's this common and more popular standard which keeps our society from corruption and destruction.

It might be an operational truth, but that's because the participants in that truth choose to be that way; that underlying notion is part of what needs to be broken. Think of it for a moment in terms of guns: the society's getting more violent, so I might consider getting a gun, except that to me, it seems like I'm doing nothing to reduce violence in society by arming myself and being paranoid. Likewise, I worry about discrimination in society; I don't think that the solution to the troublesome discrimination in society is to accept it and find new ways to discriminate. I might as well cure my headache with a .357. I might as well treat my lung cancer with a pack of Kamel Reds.

If I might consider "common principles" and "popular standards" which our society is holding up in its effort against corruption and destruction:

* Women & the vote
* Women & birth control
* Reefer Madness (The Burning Question ....)
* Spice Girls, Brittany Spears, Backstreet Boys ...
* HMO's
* African slavery itself (and its accompanient menagerie of delusions)
* Puritan Massachusetts

The grand point here being that common principle and popular standard are randomly absurd. Now, some things do seem reasonable, but it really does sound like what you're doing is justifying discrimination.

What popular standard landed us with George Dubya and Prince Albert?

What common principle made the Drug War so bloody racist?

What common principle distrusted women with the vote?

I recognize the value of common principle and popular standard, but I beg you to recognize that it's often tasteless and occasionally very, very wrong.

I can only imagine all of the varied knowledge that will come from the gay community if allowed to educate whithin our schools. Just imagine the society it will create.

You and I probably imagine polar opposites on that. But I'm quite sure that many of the diverse personalities in the world that happen to be gay have much to contribute as teachers.

I know you didn't miss my point, Teassa. There are limitations to free speech within the classroom. I hope we have resolved your concerns about the First Amendment issues regarding this initiative.

Unfortunately not. You're talking about the censoring of actual speech, and setting content standards for books and media.

I wanted to comment on your comment to Flash:

The OCA initiative will help keep them honest.

Hmmm ... I'm being told what I cannot say. That's honesty?

The victims are those who learned oral sex at school.

Here I must confess something odd about my schooling. Somehow, I managed to avoid certain vital classes. I never took 9th grade health (in which they taught oral sex) ... this isn't unusual, to me, because my last actual grammar studies were in 6th grade, my last lifesaving in 7th, and I got my high school health credit in a nutrition class. There's a host of basic classes I never took, for some reason, but I must admit I never had the oral sex class.

The point of that being, so long as we're both working with broad generalizations, that, while I may not be as reckless as some of my associates from Junior High, I have a vastly different view of sex (usually regarded as a "liberated" position) than many people I know who did take the "gory details" health classes. It's of the manner where I would assert that my own observations indicate that the people I know who took the oral-sex health classes are actually more conservative about their sexuality than I am. Now, we might say, at this point, that such an assertion overlooks myriad factors affecting the individuals in question, but that, I think reinforces the notion that it might not be a bad idea to be at least somewhat explicit in schools.

Think of it in terms of information availability. What of other moral questions about sexuality in schools? I can tell you what the result would have been if condoms were handed out in my school for free, as was a particularly controversial trend at the time: people would have no more or less sex, but the student pregnancy rate (and abortion rate) at my Catholic high school would have dropped slightly. In another thread in the World Affairs section, I was babbling about this footnote in Lysander Spooner's Vices are not Crimes which indicated that the age of consent for a girl in Massachusetts in 1875 was ten years old. Actually, I think we ended up discussing reproductive notions versus life expectancy in the thread, which would have worked except for a book I heard about this week called Taking the Trade, which seeks to document the extraneous and almost arbitrary abortion rate among girls in colonial America. Spooner noted that the 10 year-olds could consent even in a form essentially equivalent to prostitution (in exchange for gifts or funds) ... how many would say yes if they knew what they were doing to their bodies?

Yeah...like they are going to suffer because of a lack of homosexual sex.

They will suffer a lack of homosexual conseling resources.

And students heterosexual and homosexual alike will suffer statewide as their counselors and teachers become less prepared by mandated revisions to the Universities' curricula.

Logically speaking, heterosexual parents will always have more invested in the public schools than the fruitless homosexual (hey, there's a contradiction of terms!) minority. With that being said...YES! IT'S MY SCHOOL! STAY OUT!

You might have missed that Flash said, "...it's not just your school ...."

She's right. These are my schools, if I am an Oregon taxpayer. What if I'm an Oregon taxpayer who

* hopes primarily for my child's happiness
* hopes my child will come to me with questions about sexuality
* hopes that the counselor at school is well-enough prepared to handle whatever my child feels--for whatever reason--s/he doesn't want to, or cannot by some perception--discuss with me.

My own mother once thought my best friend was gay. She cracked me up next by confessing that she also worried that he and I were a couple, but her only reason for wanting me heterosexual is that she wants grandchildren. At least she was honest with her reasons.

Consider a youth who thinks he's attracted to his own gender. He's scared senseless of his father, who thinks the faggots need a good ass-whoopin', he can't ask his preacher because his preacher says the feelings themselves are sinful and evil and wrong, and he can't go to his school because his school counselor is neither trained to handle, nor allowed by law to handle the situation put in front of him. Maybe he'll turn to one of those evil perverts the OCA likes to remind us of, and whom we all know are out there.

School performance at that point fails to equal the value of my tax dollar.

The way I see it, letting teachers and cousnelors do their job doesn't assume the worst in people. Gagging them does.

After the kid has shared his tears with his counselor, do we then use our authority and twist the arms and ideas of those kids who don't appreciate that lifestyle.

If I might stick my nose into your post to Flash again ...

So, what do you tell the kids who violently don't appreciate the lifestyle? Why is it wrong to beat up the faggot? After all, he's just a dangerous pervert and, in the affected schools, there will be no information allowed to refute such infantile notions.

Censorship, at the least.

If you want to narrow it down to the facts and the nature of the HUMAN BODY, Flash, THEN we would be getting somewhere.

Ever read Lysistrata, by Sophocles (I think)? Great play: men go to war, women are sick of war; women barricade themselves in city and suspend contact with men until the men end the war; in desperation, the women turn to each other for earthly comfort.

Homosexuality has a rich cultural history that's worth noting. Oscar Wilde and Truman Capote may end up being gone from the Universities. Hey! Lysistrata means the comparative literature class I took at the University of Oregon is out under the proposed law.

So if we narrow it down to the facts of nature and the human body, what do we do about teachers who've had plastic surgery or fertility drugs?

Take the OCA's website, for instance. I just read through their page on Homosexuality/Pedophilia. The word pedohilia occurs once on the page, in the title. The words pedohilia, pedophile, and pedophiles do not occur anywhere else in the text of the page. I think here we're seeing what this is all about: the OCA has a bent against gays and will slander them by trying to link them to pedophilia in order to carry out their agenda. Phillip Ramsdell, in the 1992 Oregon Voters' Guide, asserted falsely that 95% of all child sexual abuses were committed by homosexuals.

And I'm running out of steam tonight, myself. Your last post wasn't up yet when I started this, so I'm sure I'll hear from you when the zeal returns ....

Teachers are like everyone else ... they're irresponsible in many ways. But as it stands, nobody's ordered to do anything in Oregon. I had teachers who talked about the fun of learning to drink heavily ... I had a teacher that brought petrified human feces to class for no good reason other than it was petrified human feces. I've also listened to teachers describe the joys of marriage, which I think is nearly a crock, given the divorce rate in this country. Certainly it would be inappropriate for Mr. Gayman to get up on his desk and say, "I'm gay, and this is why you should be, too."

But if we pass a law specifically against that kind of irresponsibility, what else will qualify?

I should also mention that this is about religion, as well ... when you were at the website, did you read Lon Mabon's newsletters? And the Women's Cornerp by his wife? I've tried to be merciful to the OCA by pretending that they were separating themselves from their religious zealotry, but unfortunately it's not true.

Consider this: by allowing only condemnation of homosexuality, do you foresee integration problems? Even postdoctoral programs will run into this law. Does a high school have any obligation to teach students human interaction? So you spend twelve years in the Oregon public schools and then pop over to the University ... you graduate and suddenly you have a job at a desk next to a gay man. Geez, you shouldn't have to put up with that, right? After all, what scant information you ever received about gays in school tells you they're dangerous, and, well, they had to pass that law to protect us good folk from these deviants, so why the hell should a guy have to put up with one of these faggots at his workplace? That's my means of supporting my family, man, I shouldn't have to put up with this kind of corruption at the office ....

Do we foresee any human interaction problems?

But, as I've finished the dry-heave, I see I've vomited nicely all over the page. I promise that something in here should make sense ...

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Bowser

08-24-00, 05:38 AM

Tiassa,

When I have an afternoon to burn, I'm going to read your last post and respond to it. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Rambler

08-24-00, 06:01 AM

I don't get this....

You can't TURN a person gay they either are or they aren't...

Talking about it at school will not TURN anyones sexual preference...think about it does all this talk about homosexuality make you curious...I bet the answer is NO. And to the gays out there...if people told you your whole life that homosexuality was bad would it "cure" you and make you "normal" ????

Statistics tell us that a conservative attitude only leads to alarming rates of suicide (particulary teenagers)who are gay and are being told by their parents and friends that they are freaks....now you want their teachers to re-enforce that message????

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE AFFRAID OF????

Tiassa

08-24-00, 05:21 PM

Rambler--

You can't TURN a person gay they either are or they aren't...

Talking about it at school will not TURN anyones sexual preference...think about it does all this talk about homosexuality make you curious...I bet the answer is NO. And to the gays out there...if people told you your whole life that homosexuality was bad would it "cure" you and make you "normal" ????

Thank you very, very much for reminding me of this. Often, I try to recognize the perspective of my rhetorical opposition, and very often forget that the conventions I find myself arguing within are constructed purely of fancy.

When I lived in Oregon, watching Mabon & Company pummel us with petition after petition and ballot measure after ballot measure, the Letters to the Editor page of the Salem Statesman-Journal (Statesman-Urinal to the local youth) told a wonderful story. Within a week, I saw a number of helpful suggestions from OCA supporters about how to handle gays in society:

* It's a choice. Send 'em to prison (or ostracize, or whatnot ... After all, Bob the Idiot apparently figures people should go to jail for choosing things he dislikes.)

* It's a reaction to psychological trauma, and gays must be counseled.

* It's genetic; with new gene therapies, we might be able to "cure" them.

In other words, it's gotten to the point where I don't necessarily care from whence homosexuality arises in an individual. This, however, has apparently led to my forgetting that which you have been so kind as to remind us.

ramble on,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Bowser

08-24-00, 05:54 PM

"...was fond in '92 of trying to equate homosexuality with certain deviant sexual practices:

* pedophilia
* bestiality
* necrophilia

Phillip Ramsdell's a pinhead, and I honestly--again, without sarcasm--think you're far more intelligent than that."

Well, thank you for the high praise. I suppose that I should better illustrate my point:

"They were born to have sex with the same gender. It's natural. Accept that."

"They were born to have sex with children. It's natural. Accept that."

"They were born to have sex with animals. It's natural. Accept that."

"They were born to have sex with a corpse. It's natural. Accept that."

Rationalizing the absudity of perversion, Tiassa. Do you see that slippery slope?

"Hell, look at the internet--do you really think it's those girls' mommies taking pictures of them grinding with the family dog? Or is it just some sinister gay man with a misogynist bent because his mother spanked him with a rattan cane?"

I think it's another sick puppy who is lost in his sexual perversions. Fortunately, I haven't seen that site.

"I just figure a school counselor should have the opportunity to prepare themselves for whatever comes along. I mean, it's not like they're going to be calling children in one by one to petition their sexuality"

Or suggest to a confused kid that they might be homosexual? It's one thing to identify a problem; it's another to try fixing it without consent.

"As a sensitive question ... when I was in eighth grade, one of my less fortunate classmates suffered an erection while showering after phys ed. Later that day, he was beaten senseless for being a faggot. How might a school counselor handle that one when it lands on his or her desk?"

Inform the parents and discipline the offending classmates. It's very simple.

"Does anyone remember "casualty days" at school, when the whole world came grinding to a halt because something terrible had happened? Imagine ... Kristen died in a car accident, come talk if you need help with this. David was shot in an accident last night, come talk if you need help. Joey died last night, and we can't say how, can't say why, and if you need help, go somewhere else."

I'm sure that there is nothing in that initiative which would prevent a teacher or counselor from discussing the death of a student or the reasons why that student died. You're really trying to play this into an extreme, but there is nothing in that initiative that would deny students and teachers from discussing homosexuality. It simply states that they can't promote or encourage it. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

"Okay, I'm not going to equate homosexuality with religion, but the analogy works for another aspect:

* If we passed an absurd law that made it illegal for schools to "promote, encourage, or endorse" Judaism, how would a teacher be obliged to regard a school report drawing heavily from anti-Semetic literature like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and presented historical slanders as fact?

To make that a parallel: Will a teacher be obliged to cancel all student-initiated exchange on the subject of homosexuality? Or if a student writes a term paper on The Crimes of the Perverts, and uses spurious sources, will the teacher be able to stop the student? If the teacher awards a poor grade, and points out more reliable information that contradicts bad research, is the teacher "promoting, endorsing, or encouraging" homosexuality?"

Tiassa, Those are some interesting questions. I am curious about how this might have come into play in the past--I bet it has been an issue before. I'm hesitant to answer without considerable thought because those are good questions. I'll think about it. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

"Will Oregon have to drop its Cable in the Classroom participation? What about those media resources that will have to be bowdlerized in order to meet the curriculum standard? I mean, a blank screen every time there's information on civil unions in Vermont?"

Another very good question. I'm sorry to answer your question with another question, but...

What limits now exist, and why?

"Will a student researching, say, an election, be able to gather adequate information from the school's internet resources, or will the state pay someone to filter any gay-positive information which might be accessed from publicly-funded computers?"

Again, what limits do our schools now maintain when our children use public access? How do they control access to online pornography?

"I accept that perspective, but offer this consideration: As more homosexuals moved into the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco, police began performing no-knock raids, the kind we see in the modern Drug War, searching for deviant sexual practices. Even at that time, protests against police action were seen as an effort to normalize homosexuality within the minds of children."

I don't see a legitimate parallel between your example and the effects of this initiative.

"... Analgously speaking, I can understand why a youth confused by his or her sexual inclinations would be hesitant to take the issue up with their parents. ..."

Certainly, there are many difunctional families; however, this is another issue in itself. I think you do have a very good point though, but I disagree that our schools should be handling such sensitive issues such as sexual orientation. That's not why we send our children to school. ...

<hr>

Tiassa, I'm out of time. I hope I can get back to you, but life calls. Maybe later.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

08-24-00, 09:10 PM

Bowser--

I need to lay out some points of my own, while we're on absurdity and perversion.

* Pedophilia: 1 adult, 1 child. Consent is not an issue here, as the law only trusts consent to a specific age.
* Bestiality: 1 human adult, 1 animal. Consent is impossible to obtain. At best, it's Pavlovian, and from practice.
* Necrophilia: 1 human adult, 1 corpse. I believe that Sam Kinison pretty much explained what's wrong with that. But, let's be technical here: if you can get consent from a corpse to have sex with you, more power to you.

Now ...

Homosexuality: 1 adult + 1 adult. Consent is given.

Now, if we want to introduce the idea of 1 high school teenager + 1 high school teenager for homosexuality, then we need to get into all the heterosexual groping, unless, of course, schools are meant as practice grounds for species advancement techniques. (cf--Huxley, Brave New World?)

Now ... where homosexuality exists, you must create a crime based on personal taste. Where necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia exist, no standard of law recognizes consent there, unless you're a judge from Wisconsin acquitting (heterosexual) child molesters because their 3 to 5 year old victims "behaved with the suggestiveness of promiscuity."

Evil gay butt sex: consent.
Evil lesbian carpet cleaning: consent.
Evil gay hummers: consent.

Let's see ... how healthy is consentual heterosexual bloodsports? How about scatological sex? How about rape and strangulation scenarios?

It's not "natural"? Hey, let's talk to millions of heterosexual Viagra users. Seems to me that God wanted them sexually dysfunctional, as such.

The only slippery slopes I can see involving homosexuality involve a lot of Wett-Jel and Doc Johnson's cherry body oil.

I think it's another sick puppy who is lost in his sexual perversions. Fortunately, I haven't seen that site.

But he must be gay, right? After all, once you're gay, it's only a short hop over to pedophilia and bestialism, right?

Or suggest to a confused kid that they might be homosexual? It's one thing to identify a problem; it's another to try fixing it without consent.

Again, I would inquire what to do for those kids who feel they cannot discuss these things with their parents.

The first time I was ever consciously aware that another male was hitting on me, I was 16. For the kind record, I should note that he whose affections were aimed at me was not an adult, but rather a 15 year-old. It took me weeks to figure out a few things about that. Now, my parents weren't particularly unreasonable, but there was no way in heaven, hell or the stars that I would ask their take on this. When I think of my friends who physically fought out the difficult issues with their parents, I can understand why they would not have addressed the possibility of homosexuality with their parents.

So it's in the best interests of the child, then, to call these parents that the child fears will react violently or with extreme emotional force, and tell them that their child asked you not to tell, but he's gay.

I'm sure that there is nothing in that initiative which would prevent a teacher or counselor from discussing the death of a student or the reasons why that student died.

If you're a teacher/counselor, and Joe the Gay Kid e-mailed everyone at school with a "Good-bye cruel world, why couldn't you just leave me be?" note .... You're right ... it's too extremely narrow a possibility to ever happen in Oregon.

So the kids say, "Why?" The teachers and counselors have nothing to say. They can either tell the kids that Joe was a detriment to society, or they can say, "Sorry, we can't help you because if we try to demonstrate sympathy with Joe's motives, we're endorsing his socially detrimental, perverted behavior."

Again, what limits do our schools now maintain when our children use public access? How do they control access to online pornography?

Right, so alongside LarryLongJohn.com, CNN.com will land in the filters, too. USAToday.com? How many University libraries? Or will they build really good filters that can remove only the content which mentions homosexuals without condemning them? (Who cut out my sports section? Well, there was a faggot article on the other side of the page.)

"I accept that perspective, but offer this consideration: As more homosexuals moved into the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco, police began performing no-knock raids, the kind we see in the modern Drug War, searching for deviant sexual practices. Even at that time, protests against police action were seen as an effort to normalize homosexuality within the minds of children."

I don't see a legitimate parallel between your example and the effects of this initiative.

It's very simple. But I point out your post from 8/20, 1.17 am:

Anyway, yes, people do feel suspicious of those who would bring something of this nature into our schools. I feel there IS an effort to normalize homosexuality within the minds of our children, and it's being accomplished through our schools. I think you will agree with this because you are part of that effort here.

Okay, note the bold, please.

When people were being raided and arrested in the Castro district of SanFran, for nothing greater than the "crime" of engaging in homosexual activity, many people protested the suspension of constitutional and, in some cases, human rights. These protests were decried as an attempt to normalize homosexuality within the minds of our children, and it was being accomplished through what? The police departments? We were normalizing homosexuals by awarding them human rights protection against the cops?

If you don't find the false employment of identical principles a legitimate parallel ... well, I guess this is America.

After all, I don't see the parallel between raping a dog and having sex with another consenting, adult human being. Go figure.

Certainly, there are many difunctional families; however, this is another issue in itself. I think you do have a very good point though, but I disagree that our schools should be handling such sensitive issues such as sexual orientation. That's not why we send our children to school. ...

So we should be charging the kids $100/hr to counsel them about their sexuality in private offices, or is it that the parents, no matter how poorly they might react, or how desperately the child asks to remain in the closet, need to be told so they can punish their kid or send him to reform school to straighten out?

You know, it really does suck being a kid. When you're arrested, you don't get a lawyer, and you don't get a phone call, and you don't have the right to remain silent.

And now we're getting ready to close this avenue for the parade to Calvary? "Suffer the children" does not mean to go out of your way to screw them, unless, of course, it's in your Will.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Rambler

08-29-00, 04:32 AM

Bowser:

-------------
Or suggest to a confused kid that they might be homosexual? It's one thing to identify a problem; it's another to try fixing it without consent.
-------------

Who's consent?? the teenagers or his/her parents??? He/She wouldn't be there asking for help if they didn't give consent...so what I see you are suggesting is a person who is deciding what side of the fence their gonna be humping on should ask their parents permission???? am I far off the mark??

Further you also stated that it would be very wrong to suggest to a confused teenager that they are homosexual, I agree with you...but I would also suggest that to stop that from happening we should make CERTAIN that school counselers are up to the job, i.e. trained to deal with these situations...be able to recognise a confused teenager and deal with that aspect instead of telling them they're gay. Making homosexuality a taboo subject isn't going to fix couselers incompetance or bad judgment. Infact not allowing a counseler to be equiped with those kinds of skills would be far more damaging.

I just don't get it Bowser...if you are secure in your sexuality why do you feel so threatened by homosexuals???

Flash

08-29-00, 04:47 AM

Rambler,

I just don't get it Bowser...if you are secure in your sexuality why do you feel so threatened by homosexuals???

That's exactly what I'd like to know. I thought I was the only one that felt Bowser thought this way.

Bowser

09-03-00, 02:47 PM

Rambler,

"Who's consent?? the teenagers or his/her parents??? He/She wouldn't be there asking for help if they didn't give consent...so what I see you are suggesting is a person who is deciding what side of the fence their gonna be humping on should ask their parents permission???? am I far off the mark??"

First, let me remind you that we are talking about a young person...a child. Second, as a parent, I feel obligated to GUIDE my children through these early years. Call me crazy, but I love them, and I feel that homosexual behavior is not in their best interest. Now, if my child was to ask me the merits of homosexuality, I would want the opportunity to shine my light on the subject.

We can't control our children, Rambler. We can only hope that they are listening to our words. How will my house stand if the school system is undercutting its foundation?

"Further you also stated that it would be very wrong to suggest to a confused teenager that they are homosexual, I agree with you...but I would also suggest that to stop that from happening we should make CERTAIN that school counselers are up to the job, i.e. trained to deal with these situations...be able to recognise a confused teenager and deal with that aspect instead of telling them they're gay. Making homosexuality a taboo subject isn't going to fix couselers incompetance or bad judgment. Infact not allowing a counseler to be equiped with those kinds of skills would be far more damaging."

Well, once again, I don't send my kids to school for counseling in their sexuality. I believe this activity is far beyond my definition of a public school. It sounds more like a Roman bathhouse.

"I just don't get it Bowser...if you are secure in your sexuality why do you feel so threatened by homosexuals???"

From that statement, I assume that you're not a parent. Let me answer this for both you and Flash: I love my children. Their welfare is my job. Their future is the sum of our actions, today and tomorrow. As you might have surmised from my previous postings, I think homosexuality is wrong, but others want to teach it to my children as being normal. With that in mind, you tell me why I feel threatened. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

<hr>

Tiassa,

Sorry for ignoring you, but I just don't have time to invest in a lengthy response--I've been so busy. I am reading your thoughts, however. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser

09-03-00, 05:54 PM

Tiassa,

<hr>
Well shoot! Your efforts can't go without a reward. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif"> Let me see if I can forge a response to your last post.
<hr>

"Now ... where homosexuality exists, you must create a crime based on personal taste. Where necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia exist, no standard of law recognizes consent there...

Evil gay butt sex: consent.
Evil lesbian carpet cleaning: consent.
Evil gay hummers: consent.

..."

I must thank you for some new terms which I had never before seen or heard.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

Now, Tiassa, you and I both know that we're not discussing the legality of consensual sex. We are talking about a consensus of voters and about our children's education. Yes, the outcome will probably be based on our popular tastes and popular sensibilities, but this initiative will not make consensual sex illegal in Oregon--not even for Homo's.

"Let's see ... how healthy is consentual heterosexual bloodsports? How about scatological sex? How about rape and strangulation scenarios?"

Are those topics of education in the classroom? Do you think parents would be concerned if their children were receiving counceling on such activities within their schools? Should we label these activities as being "Normal?" Thank you for defining that slippery slope. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon6.gif">

"But he must be gay, right? After all, once you're gay, it's only a short hop over to pedophilia and bestialism, right?"

No, Tiassa. It's one thing to entertain a thought, but it's another to act it out in public. I suggest that if you want public acceptance of homosexuality within our schools, then you must anticipate the arrival of even more unsavory diversities. Tell me, where do you propose we draw the line? <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon3.gif">

"Again, I would inquire what to do for those kids who feel they cannot discuss these things with their parents."

Golly, I don't know, Tiassa. I was thinking more of the majority of kids. That is a hard question: "How can our school system better serve a few homosexual students?" I know this sounds cruel, but maybe our schools can't fix homosexual problems. Hey...or maybe they are better off leaving those difficult, personal problems to the family.

"So it's in the best interests of the child, then, to call these parents that the child fears will react violently or with extreme emotional force, and tell them that their child asked you not to tell, but he's gay."

On the other hand, we can give our schools the licence to subvert the parents' interest in matters which concern their children.

Concerning the suicide issue:

"The teachers and counselors have nothing to say. They can either tell the kids that Joe was a detriment to society, or they can say, "Sorry, we can't help you because if we try to demonstrate sympathy with Joe's motives, we're endorsing his socially detrimental, perverted behavior."

That's too simple, Tiassa. When you mourn the death of an individual, I hope it is for the loss of the person, not for the loss of their sexuality. Also, what is the topic at hand when we are talking suicide: Is it the death of a life, or is it homosexuality? I would judge suicide to be the greater evil. This initiative will not hinder the explanation of teen suicide.

"Right, so alongside LarryLongJohn.com, CNN.com will land in the filters, too. USAToday.com? How many University libraries? Or will they build really good filters that can remove only the content which mentions homosexuals without condemning them? (Who cut out my sports section? Well, there was a faggot article on the other side of the page.)"

To be honest, Tiassa, I think this is a dead point. There are limitations to what the schools can reasonably filter out of public access. You and I both know that, and it would probably be recognized as a non-issue in regards to the the schools obligations after this initiative passes. As I have stated earlier, these things moderate over time--through the courts and through other Initiatives and Measures. Democracy is great. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

"Okay, note the bold, please.

When people were being raided and arrested in the Castro district of SanFran, for nothing greater than the "crime" of engaging in homosexual activity, many people protested the suspension of constitutional and, in some cases, human rights. These protests were decried as an attempt to normalize homosexuality within the minds of our children, and it was being accomplished through what? The police departments? We were normalizing homosexuals by awarding them human rights protection against the cops?

If you don't find the false employment of identical principles a legitimate parallel ... well, I guess this is America."

Well, I don't see this initiative kicking down doors. I do see the common principles at play, and I thank you for that point. That is a reasonable parallel.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

"After all, I don't see the parallel between raping a dog and having sex with another consenting, adult human being. Go figure."

It depends on how you define perversion. Maybe this initiative will define that word for us and for my community (Oregon).

"So we should be charging the kids $100/hr to counsel them about their sexuality in private offices, or is it that the parents, no matter how poorly they might react, or how desperately the child asks to remain in the closet, need to be told so they can punish their kid or send him to reform school to straighten out?"

Oh, now we're talking about sexually and financially disadvantaged kids. Our schools are looking more like mental hospitals than centers for education.

You assume a negative reaction, Tiassa. My parents were filled with surprises--all I had to do was ask. However, you are probably correct in some instances. We can't father the world, and we shouldn't assume that role, and I don't want to pass it to the schools.

"You know, it really does suck being a kid. When you're arrested, you don't get a lawyer, and you don't get a phone call, and you don't have the right to remain silent.

And now we're getting ready to close this avenue for the parade to Calvary? "Suffer the children" does not mean to go out of your way to screw them, unless, of course, it's in your Will."

Sheesh! What a load! If you ever have children, take the time to ask yourself who is King or Queen in your household. Trust this little nugget of truth...it's not the parents. We parents are the loving surfs of the family. Also, in most cases, no one loves a child more than his or her parents. A school counselor can't provide the same concern.

I will give you this, Tiassa. There are carnivores out there who feed on children--the military and government to name just two.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

09-05-00, 07:01 PM

Bowser--

"Now ... where homosexuality exists, you must create a crime based on personal taste. Where necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia exist, no standard of law recognizes consent there...

Evil gay butt sex: consent.
Evil lesbian carpet cleaning: consent.
Evil gay hummers: consent.

..."

I must thank you for some new terms which I had never before seen or heard.

Now, Tiassa, you and I both know that we're not discussing the legality of consensual sex. We are talking about a consensus of voters and about our children's education. Yes, the outcome will probably be based on our popular tastes and popular sensibilities, but this initiative will not make consensual sex illegal in Oregon--not even for Homo's.

"Let's see ... how healthy is consentual heterosexual bloodsports? How about scatological sex? How about rape and strangulation scenarios?"

Are those topics of education in the classroom? Do you think parents would be concerned if their children were receiving counceling on such activities within their schools? Should we label these activities as being "Normal?" Thank you for defining that slippery slope.

What you are failing to consider here is that as long as you attempt to justify the "harm" of homosexuality (the "harm", of course, being the device which apparently necessitates Mabon's exclusionary campaign) by trying to compare homosexuality to pedophilia, bestiality, or necrophilia. If we must, by your standard, consider that "harm equation" worthwhile, then we are also obliged to consider "deviant" heterosexual practices and come to one or another conclusion about the "health" of heterosexuality.

So, no, scatological sex is not a particularly appropriate topic for classroom. But it's not necessarily the point. The point is that unless you establish a unique harm exclusively applicable to homosexual practice, you're simply holding one group of people accountable for something that occurs through a diverse range of people.

As long as we're on the classroom bent, though, I thought I might touch on those college-age "children" Mabon's trying to "protect". Consider the military: when your son enters the army, he will see a host of "educational films", many of which will center around sexually-transmitted diseases. Now, given that it's your tax money, do you want your government telling soldiers how to have casual sex, and tipping them off regarding how to avoid the pitfalls of such behavior? Do you want your tax-dollars going to support such an education for "children" who are not yet old enough to avoid proscribed information about homosexuality? After all, isn't stability and marriage the "moral" thing to do?

What I'm after here is that public funds are being spent "encouraging" (by merit of not outright condemning) behavior deemed by some to be immoral. Furthermore, those funds the army spends are being spent, often, on "children" whose age is similar to those "children" we are trying to protect. Those "children" we train to kill (in the Army) are the same age as those "children" we are training to be our doctors.

"But he must be gay, right? After all, once you're gay, it's only a short hop over to pedophilia and bestialism, right?"

No, Tiassa. It's one thing to entertain a thought, but it's another to act it out in public. I suggest that if you want public acceptance of homosexuality within our schools, then you must anticipate the arrival of even more unsavory diversities. Tell me, where do you propose we draw the line?

Actually, Bowser, what I'd like is an answer to the original issue: You had made statements comparing homosexuality to bestiality. I responded with an issue about the nature of the people generating bestial kiddie-porn online. You called him a pervert, but never did make your connection to homosexuality. Hence, my sarcastic answer, which I will restate with boldfaced parenthetical cues:

But he (the bestial kiddie-porn producer) must be gay, right? After all, once you're gay, (according to Mabon, and, possibly, Bowser) it's only a short hop over to pedophilia and bestialism, right?

So the bestial kiddie-porn producer is or isn't gay? You're the one who likes to link homosexuality to bestialism: demonstrate it, please.

And pedophilia.

And necrophilia.

"The teachers and counselors have nothing to say. They can either tell the kids that Joe was a detriment to society, or they can say, "Sorry, we can't help you because if we try to demonstrate sympathy with Joe's motives, we're endorsing his socially detrimental, perverted behavior."

That's too simple, Tiassa. When you mourn the death of an individual, I hope it is for the loss of the person, not for the loss of their sexuality. Also, what is the topic at hand when we are talking suicide: Is it the death of a life, or is it homosexuality? I would judge suicide to be the greater evil. This initiative will not hinder the explanation of teen suicide.

So it's too simple to assume that if a kid kills himself and tells everyone why that another child might ask for greater insight into the event? Really: "Dear world, life sucks and so do you all. You couldn't just let me figure out how to be happy; it was more important that you had a faggot to push around. Good-bye, good riddance, and I hope you all burn in hell."

Is that too unreasonable a suicide note? Is it really too simple an idea that some of Joe the Suicidal Gay Teen's classmates might want a better answer?

I restate your words:

This initiative will not hinder the explanation of teen suicide.

Unless, of course, the suicidal is gay.

"Right, so alongside LarryLongJohn.com, CNN.com will land in the filters, too. USAToday.com? How many University libraries? Or will they build really good filters that can remove only the content which mentions homosexuals without condemning them? (Who cut out my sports section? Well, there was a faggot article on the other side of the page.)"

To be honest, Tiassa, I think this is a dead point. There are limitations to what the schools can reasonably filter out of public access. You and I both know that, and it would probably be recognized as a non-issue in regards to the the schools obligations after this initiative passes. As I have stated earlier, these things moderate over time--through the courts and through other Initiatives and Measures. Democracy is great.

You're right, it is a dead point. After all, any institution failing to meet the standards of this measure will be subject to withholding of funding. Seems to me that it's a form of blackmail; this isn't excess money for cream puffs in the lunchroom ... it's basic operating funds. If the school were an organism, its penalty would be suffocation or starvation.

On the other hand, we can give our schools the licence to subvert the parents' interest in matters which concern their children.

You should be thankful that the assumption is that a parent has a child's best interests at heart, as compared to a parent's best ambition for a child. After all, would you prefer your child be exactly what you tell them, or would you rather they choose happiness when that's the stake? I mean, what it can actually, in theory, come down to, is that gay-curious youths will simply lie about their folks, tell the counselors that their parents have threatened and committed bodily violence in the past; before the parents know their kid's having sexuality issues, the counselor will have invoked the legal obligation to intervene in the form of reporting a claim of child physical abuse. Or is it that you think a gay-curious child needs a good ass-whooping? If we train counselors well, they will make the appropriate decisions. If not, well, the best we can hope for is a flock of parrots spouting Mabonian wisdom to the corners of the world.

What will the epitaph of a gay-teen suicide read: "At least we protected him"?

It depends on how you define perversion. Maybe this initiative will define that word for us and for my community (Oregon).

True enough ... I seem to recall towns in Oregon where it was perverted--and therefore felonious--to talk "dirty" to your wife while having sex. It really does depend on how you define perversion.

"So we should be charging the kids $100/hr to counsel them about their sexuality in private offices, or is it that the parents, no matter how poorly they might react, or how desperately the child asks to remain in the closet, need to be told so they can punish their kid or send him to reform school to straighten out?"

Oh, now we're talking about sexually and financially disadvantaged kids. Our schools are looking more like mental hospitals than centers for education.

Point #1: where, then, does a child seek advice outside of the home? Church? Oh, hey, when buggery's the issue, they're going to get really well-considered advice, right?

Point #2: If our schools are looking more like mental hospitals than education centers, then maybe, oh, the parents should stop sending mental patients to the schools and start sending students.

You assume a negative reaction, Tiassa. My parents were filled with surprises--all I had to do was ask. However, you are probably correct in some instances. We can't father the world, and we shouldn't assume that role, and I don't want to pass it to the schools.

So ... you were surprised when your parents behaved in a manner you found reasonable and communicative when you were a teenager?

"You know, it really does suck being a kid. When you're arrested, you don't get a lawyer, and you don't get a phone call, and you don't have the right to remain silent.

And now we're getting ready to close this avenue for the parade to Calvary? "Suffer the children" does not mean to go out of your way to screw them, unless, of course, it's in your Will."

Sheesh! What a load! If you ever have children, take the time to ask yourself who is King or Queen in your household. Trust this little nugget of truth...it's not the parents. We parents are the loving surfs of the family. Also, in most cases, no one loves a child more than his or her parents. A school counselor can't provide the same concern.

Ah ... the standard response. If kids feel disenfranchised, left out, ignored, or otherwise not considered regarding issues directly pertaining to their lives, they should just ignore the bad stuff and be thankful for the good things? That's as big a load of crap about emotional poverty as it was and is about financial poverty.

Parents are the loving serfs of a family? If they feel like serfs, then maybe they shouldn't have had children. But, since they did anyway, the rest of the community now has to abide by the serfs' standard? Never in my life have I known of serfdom to come about by election of the serfs.

A school counselor, of course, won't be allowed to show any concern, depending on what the student brings to the table.

Are you willing to censor the Universities in order to achieve your ends in the younger schools? Are you willing to let Lon Mabon--whose entire basis derives from prejudice and the Bible--write subject matter off our pre-med curricula? How about business school? A flock of Human Resources specialists with their degrees who have been taught that homosexuality is perverse, dangerous, and wrong ... I guess it's an indirect way of purging your workplace of buggery.

Simply, I need a few things demonstrated:

* Link homosexuality to necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia, please.
* Demonstrate a "danger" of homosexuality that doesn't exist in heterosexuality, and then please prioritize it against other issues in the schools, say, drugs, life skills, and literacy.
* Mabon's initiative calls homosexuality divisive. On the one hand, I would ask for an example of that that predates a conservative individual taking offense to the book Heather Has Two Mommies in a city library (approx. 1990, Springfield & Corvallis). To the other, I note P.J. O'Rourke, who notes that his grandmother was so Republican that she chose not to say the word "Democrat" in front of children, preferring the term "bastard" instead. Politics are divisive. Is this the end of Civics?

Otherwise, this current ballot measure that Oregonians get to vote on is just another attempt by Lon Mabon to score just one victory over the evil gay aliens he thinks are coming to steal his children.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)

Bowser

09-06-00, 06:23 PM

Hello Tiassa,

Regarding your position that the OCA is holding homosexuals accountable for deviant sex:

"The point is that unless you establish a unique harm exclusively applicable to homosexual practice, you're simply holding one group of people accountable for something that occurs through a diverse range of people."

As a fringe group, the homosexual community is at the forefront with their sexuality, and they are visibly pushing on social barriers. Despite their stereotype, these people are an aggressive lot. I understand why they are being targeted by the OCA.

As for the harm, I'm sure that the OCA views this issue both as a moral threat and as a social threat. Personally, I label homosexuality as being abnormal, which, in my mind, places it in the same catagory as pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. That's why homosexual behavior is being placed in parellel with those other sexual diversions, because it is not normal.

"Consider the military: when your son enters the army, he will see a host of "educational films..."

I did my time in the infantry, and I feel that young adults should not be in the military or exposed to the horrors that it offers. The issue of sex education is minor compared to being taught how to best snap a mans neck or how to open up his liver with a knife. The consumption of our young by war is a serious issue for me (forgive my response). But you can take relief in knowing that when I was enlisted, I was told to use a condom. It was a very short discussion on personal protection. In short, Tiassa, the issue that we speak on is trivial when compared to the greater sin of turning our children into killers. It's a can of worms which opens a whole new issue for me.

As for this initiative and the military. Oregonians don't create laws for the entire country, and we can't control the actions of the military with this initiative. We are talking about Oregon Public Schools. That is where the initiative will cause change. Keep it local please.

To answer those questions for you, Tiassa:

<hr>
"But he (the bestial kiddie-porn producer) must be gay, right? After all, once you're gay, (according to Mabon, and, possibly, Bowser) it's only a short hop over to pedophilia and bestialism, right?"
<hr>

How the hell should I know? He's a deviant! Also, according to Bowser, once you accept one deviant into the fold of social acceptance, it's an open door for all. Once again, for your better understanding:

<hr>
Personally, I label homosexuality as being abnormal, which, in my mind, places it in the same catagory as pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. That's why homosexual behavior is being placed in parellel with those other sexual diversions, because it is not normal.
<hr>

<blink>Now, you answer my question. Where should we draw the line, Tiassa?</blink> I want to know where perversion begins in your mind.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon5.gif">

"So it's too simple to assume that if a kid kills himself and tells everyone why that another child might ask for greater insight into the event?"

Insight: "The kid was homosexual and felt socially...no, sexually isolated."

Is that a reasonable explanation for Skippy's problems. Maybe we should explain why homosexuality is considered perverse. Hell, we might even explain the anatomy of the male and female body. Do you think that this would clear up Skippy's problem? Insight isn't the OCA's problem. The OCA--and this initiative--takes issue when our teachers or counselors go farther than the obvious, and start telling our children that Skippy's homosexuality was normal, encouraging its practice by other confused students. Let's look at it as it is and not build a fairy tale around the truth.

"Seems to me that it's a form of blackmail; this isn't excess money for cream puffs in the lunchroom ... it's basic operating funds. If the school were an organism, its penalty would be suffocation or starvation."

I don't see it as "blackmail." It's a method of assuring that the schools adhere to the law (voters will). The schools will conform to the law because they want that money.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif"> It's a bureaucracy too.

"After all, would you prefer your child be exactly what you tell them, or would you rather they choose happiness when that's the stake?"

Well, I'm hoping to give my children a stable foundation before they become adults, before they need to make adult decisions which will have long-lasting results in their lives. An honest assesment of the World around them will provide them with truth. What form of happiness will they find in a lie?

"Or is it that you think a gay-curious child needs a good ass-whooping?"

I would first want to explore that curiosity, and find out how it came to be. If it was beyond resolve by rational thought, it couldn't live in my house. Love would save it from the violence of an "ass-whooping."

"True enough ... I seem to recall towns in Oregon where it was perverted--and therefore felonious--to talk "dirty" to your wife while having sex. It really does depend on how you define perversion."

Yes, that is a terrible extreme, but now we are going to counsel our children in homosexuality? Wow, maybe even encourage it? We have gone a long way since then. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"Point #1: where, then, does a child seek advice outside of the home? Church? Oh, hey, when buggery's the issue, they're going to get really well-considered advice, right?"

That's a pretty shallow point if you are saying that the schools or the churchs are the only place where a kid can receive counseling.

"Point #2: If our schools are looking more like mental hospitals than education centers, then maybe, oh, the parents should stop sending mental patients to the schools and start sending students."

And I suggest that by encouraging, promoting, or sanctioning homosexual behaviors, our schools are creating mental patients.

"So ... you were surprised when your parents behaved in a manner you found reasonable and communicative when you were a teenager?"

Yes, they proved to be very liberal on several occasions--it was very scarry.

"Ah ... the standard response. If kids feel disenfranchised, left out, ignored, or otherwise not considered regarding issues directly pertaining to their lives, they should just ignore the bad stuff and be thankful for the good things? That's as big a load of crap about emotional poverty as it was and is about financial poverty."

Not at all, but let's place it in perspective: Skippy's homosexual curiosity or my child's education; Skippy's self-esteem or society's definition of perverse; Skippy's adolescent emotions or rational thought.

"Parents are the loving serfs of a family? If they feel like serfs, then maybe they shouldn't have had children. But, since they did anyway, the rest of the community now has to abide by the serfs' standard? Never in my life have I known of serfdom to come about by election of the serfs"

You have never been a parent. Ignorance is bliss.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"Are you willing to censor the Universities in order to achieve your ends in the younger schools? Are you willing to let Lon Mabon--whose entire basis derives from prejudice and the Bible--write subject matter off our pre-med curricula? How about business school? A flock of Human Resources specialists with their degrees who have been taught that homosexuality is perverse, dangerous, and wrong ... I guess it's an indirect way of purging your workplace of buggery."

I'm game to take the gamble and see how the cards are passed to the players. From my perspective, I don't see any serious harm. The deck is stacked in my favor.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

"* Link homosexuality to necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia, please."

Sure. They are all generally consider to be extreme, diviant sexual practices.

"* Demonstrate a "danger" of homosexuality that doesn't exist in heterosexuality,...

A loss of social limits and natural truth.

"...and then please prioritize it against other issues in the schools, say, drugs, life skills, and literacy."

It was once a standard taught through the actions of society in general and the community. Maybe we should establish a social conscience in our schools. Are you suggesting that we start by teaching that homosexuality is wrong?

"* Mabon's initiative calls homosexuality divisive. On the one hand, I would ask for an example of that that predates a conservative individual taking offense to the book Heather Has Two Mommies in a city library (approx. 1990, Springfield & Corvallis). To the other, I note P.J. O'Rourke, who notes that his grandmother was so Republican that she chose not to say the word "Democrat" in front of children, preferring the term "bastard" instead. Politics are divisive. Is this the end of Civics?"

No, let's stick with the word "devisive." With this the OCA is saying that the general public is not in agreement regarding homosexuality and bisexuality--a large number of us still think it's wrong. For this reason, homosexuality and bisexuality should "not be presented in a public school in a manner which encourages, promotes or sanctions such behaviors."

I don't know what's so frightening. We just don't want you folks teaching this shit to our kids. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon5.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Greenwood priest

09-06-00, 09:01 PM

Well, I don't know when this election is (or was) but it is obvious that this thread is desperately in need of a reality check.

Reality #1 Many homosexuals begin to see themselves as such during their teen age years.

Reality #2 Many teenagers who identify themselves as homosexual would greatly prefer to fit in with the rest of their peers in heterosexuality.

Reality #3 Violence, whether from peers, parents or strangers, is a real risk for a homosexual teen.

Reality #4 Sometimes students may find a teacher or councelor at school with whom they are able to open up and seek aid in any things that trouble them. Sometimes this aid can be the ONLY thing that keeps the student from commiting suicide.

These points are reality. They may not be pleasant; too bad.

It has already been pointed out that a child might not be able to get help from church or parent. Most teens have no other resources out side of school for counceling. It is EVIL to deny that counceling. I can agree that schools have no business in advocating a homosexual lifestyle. There is a big difference in promoting a lifestyle to the general student body and counceling a troubled teen. What it comes down to, is that counceling a teen and telling them they might be gay could be the only thing that keeps that teen from suicide. The NEEDS of the teen MUST take precident over the WANTS of the parents.

Certain terms were tossed about in the thread that should be addressed as well. Words like deviant, natural, normal. It appears that about 10% of the population is gay. That means that 90% is not. Since 90% is a majority, the behavior of the 90% defines "normal". The preponderance of evidence shows homosexual behavior to be an inborn trait. I have heard of cases where it was a learned behavior, but in most cases it looks like a person is born to grow up gay. Attempts to make them behave otherwise can only result in neurosis. Thus, while homosexuality is not "normal" it IS natural. Deviant is an emotionally laden word that obscures reality by carrying the implications of perverse or immoral. For further info, find the thread "Homosexuals, do they need to be cured? a MUST read" on the Religious Debate board. There are some very good points raised there about the possibilities of being gay and Christian at the same time. Please note that I do not advocate a Christian lifestyle, I point out this thread only for those so aflicted.

In summary, homosexuality is natural, if not normal. Since it is outside the norm, teens who identify with it MUST be able to get the counceling they need to integrate this facet of their lives into a working whole.

Blessed be

------------------
Greenwood priest

Tiassa

09-06-00, 09:11 PM

Bowser--

Also, according to Bowser, once you accept one deviant into the fold of social acceptance, it's an open door for all.

Jesus Christ was a deviant. Maybe not by your standards or mine, but he certainly was an unusual flower in the local garden.

I remind you again, as well, that it was, by local legislative declaration, sexually deviant to talk dirty to your wife during sexual intercourse in certain towns in Oregon; it's nice to see Mabon has some local history driving him.

An honest assesment of the World around them will provide them with truth. What form of happiness will they find in a lie?

I might ask the same question. Providing your children with truth is not to mandate educational standards based on one religious group's perception of perversion. What form of happiness will they find when it's presented to them that their parents were so scared of their future decision-making skills that they (the parents) had to vote not to remove a certain item from the curriculum, but to force a narrow standard based on one religious group's ideas into the curriculum? See, it's not just enough that you can't talk about homosexuality; that's a questionable enough First Amendment situation. Mabon, his ilk, and, by your support, you, Sir Bowser, require that only one set of considerations be allowed, regardless of how the subject arises. Justice is blind ... what does she care who's climbing up her ass?

"Seems to me that it's a form of blackmail; this isn't excess money for cream puffs in the lunchroom ... it's basic operating funds. If the school were an organism, its penalty would be suffocation or starvation."

I don't see it as "blackmail." It's a method of assuring that the schools adhere to the law (voters will). The schools will conform to the law because they want that money. It's a bureaucracy too.

I do see it as blackmail. If the schools lose funding because they fail to achieve their goals, that's the stupidity of a bureaucracy (hmm ... they don't have enough to get it done, so let's give even less). But if the schools lose funding for not throwing out the First Amendment on the whim of a single religious group's standards .... Hmm ... you're making someone get up and declare true something that they do not believe, else their livelihood will disappear. And this isn't blackmail?

Well, I'm hoping to give my children a stable foundation before they become adults, before they need to make adult decisions which will have long-lasting results in their lives.

I need to ask clarification. Are you assuming, then, that homosexuals are not "stable", or have no "stable foundation"? (I might end up asking what your definition of a stable foundation is, and what extra rights you think having one entitles you to.)

Yes, that is a terrible extreme, but now we are going to counsel our children in homosexuality? Wow, maybe even encourage it? We have gone a long way since then.

Hey, if you don't want kids getting used to discovering themselves, that's your own problem. I, personally don't see the use in legally mandating the alienation of youth who are trying to resolve problems. Let me guess, though, if they don't resolve to your ideal, then they don't resolve at all ...?

"Or is it that you think a gay-curious child needs a good ass-whooping?"

I would first want to explore that curiosity, and find out how it came to be. If it was beyond resolve by rational thought, it couldn't live in my house. Love would save it from the violence of an "ass-whooping."

That's very telling, I think. I should check to make sure I'm reading it right, though: Are you saying you'd kick your kid out of your home for being gay?

Hell, that's merciful: instead of whooping their ass, push them farther onto the fringe. Wise, too. I can see clearly the positive results of hanging your kids out for those dangerous people we do need to worry about; you know, the pedophiles who cruise the streets looking for disaffected children who have been kicked out of their homes?

"Point #1: where, then, does a child seek advice outside of the home? Church? Oh, hey, when buggery's the issue, they're going to get really well-considered advice, right?"

That's a pretty shallow point if you are saying that the schools or the churchs are the only place where a kid can receive counseling.

Nice answer; you dodged the question. Where, then, should a child seek advice if they feel they can't get it from their folks?

"Point #2: If our schools are looking more like mental hospitals than education centers, then maybe, oh, the parents should stop sending mental patients to the schools and start sending students."

And I suggest that by encouraging, promoting, or sanctioning homosexual behaviors, our schools are creating mental patients.

So these kids aren't arriving to the school system with any psychological difficulties? The entire breadth of youth difficulties are to be laid at the door of a homosexual teacher? Or a counselor who won't condemn them for trying to figure their own self out? Geez ... you're paranoid on that one, I think.

"So ... you were surprised when your parents behaved in a manner you found reasonable and communicative when you were a teenager?"

Yes, they proved to be very liberal on several occasions--it was very scarry.

I, too, was surprised on occasion. When I explained that to my father, it hurt his feelings. I agree with him that while a parent might need to shock or surprise a child, compassion should never be a surprise; it should be the standard.

"Parents are the loving serfs of a family? If they feel like serfs, then maybe they shouldn't have had children. But, since they did anyway, the rest of the community now has to abide by the serfs' standard? Never in my life have I known of serfdom to come about by election of the serfs"

You have never been a parent. Ignorance is bliss.

It's better than ill preparation or outright stupidity. For all the stupid things I see people do, the most dangerous is to bear children before one is ready to support them. One of the reasons I've neither married nor had children is that everyone I know of my age group who has gotten married ended up having a child either because "she wanted one" (literally, I know three people who tried buying their wives puppies), or because "it was a surprise". Head-Start? Food-stamps? Hello? I'm all for Liberty, but I suppose we're going to blame the gays for the United States' having the highest unwed teenage pregnancy rate in the industrialized world?

Stop thinking of parenthood as a trial. You may find me ignorant, in this case, but I wasn't dumb enough to have a kid and complain of being made a serf. There's a hundred other words you could have used than "serf" ... oh, I forgot ... all those poor serfs in Europe chose to live in abject poverty during feudalism.

If you're going to call yourself a serf ... why did you choose to be?

I'm game to take the gamble and see how the cards are passed to the players. From my perspective, I don't see any serious harm. The deck is stacked in my favor.

That's hardly a surprise. As long as the deck is stacked in your favor, the situation can't possibly be wrong? Oh ... that's right ... we live in America, where liberty is often demanded in the form of taking away other people's rights. Sounds like you're in the right country.

"* Link homosexuality to necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia, please."

Sure. They are all generally consider to be extreme, diviant sexual practices.

Boy-oh ... that was a dumb answer. "Considered" implies a subjective value. Subject, say, to your values. I hear that old conservatism coming here: "I demand my freedom to take yours away!" How much longer can conservatism hold that silly principle up?

"* Demonstrate a "danger" of homosexuality that doesn't exist in heterosexuality,...

A loss of social limits and natural truth.

Your perception, your loss, your problem. The rest of us wonder about the natural truth of Victorian propriety, and other such social limits. Are you proclaiming social limits to be a good thing in general, or just your idea of social limits? (And I will drag up history if I need to.)

I'll remind you that it was a natural truth, once, that the world was flat.

More relevant? I'll remind you that it's a natural truth that heterosexuality is causing overpopulation, and therefore the resulting economic distress. 1.7 billion people in this world don't have access to clean drinking water; I suppose that's the fault of the gays, too.

"* Mabon's initiative calls homosexuality divisive. On the one hand, I would ask for an example of that that predates a conservative individual taking offense to the book Heather Has Two Mommies in a city library (approx. 1990, Springfield & Corvallis). To the other, I note P.J. O'Rourke, who notes that his grandmother was so Republican that she chose not to say the word "Democrat" in front of children, preferring the term "bastard" instead. Politics are divisive. Is this the end of Civics?"

No, let's stick with the word "devisive." With this the OCA is saying that the general public is not in agreement regarding homosexuality and bisexuality--a large number of us still think it's wrong. For this reason, homosexuality and bisexuality should "not be presented in a public school in a manner which encourages, promotes or sanctions such behaviors."

I don't know what's so frightening. We just don't want you folks teaching this shit to our kids.

A note on the boldface: I'm waiting for an example, but what I'm trying to demonstrate is that there was no wholesale brainwashing of kids to be homosexual before 1990. And then along comes 20-08 in Corvallis, and whatever number it had in Springfield, and suddenly we see censorship based on religious ideas. So the targets of censorship stand up and say, "Hello?" And then the conservatives encouraging the censorship accuse them of pushing an "agenda" for the simple act of defending their constitutional rights. The issue was not divisive in the manner it is except for groups like the OCA looking around for fights to start.

I should note that it seems to me a lot more harmful to teach your kids the kind of hate that Lon Mabon is asking for. But I'm apparently too ignorant to figure out what's good about a sectionalized, marginalized, fractured, divided, bigoted, paranoid, assumptively-educated society. Teaching children narrow perceptions as fact has never caused problems, right?

It was once a standard taught through the actions of society in general and the community. Maybe we should establish a social conscience in our schools. Are you suggesting that we start by teaching that homosexuality is wrong?

Standards taught through the community resulted, in one point in American history, in a person being declared to have only 60% comparative human worth based on the color of their skin. History again; I must ask by what criteria you, personally determine the nature of community standards. (I'll make it real easy to pick on mine: It is my personal standard to never subscribe to a community standard which relies on the exclusion of people based on subjective perceptions.)

No, I would suggest that we sit back and look at the motivations of Mabon's group. Religious interpretation, and now the need to pass just one ballot measure to get those nasty gays. He keeps scaling it back every year ... Student Protection Act? What in the hell are we protecting children from? The means to discover their own truths? Their own selves?

So we want to protect our kids ... if I take Mabon's vague paranoia and resolve even the most complimentary image, I see something like The Wall, or the old Schoolmaster from the movie of Dahl's Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. If I try to sympathize with Mabon's "vision" at all, I see a man who's afraid of a Freud-looking, goose-stepping, "hands-on", prancing, homoerotic lunatic. "How can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?"

If I base my vision of what Mabon's afraid of compared to my own experiences with homosexual teachers in both public and private school, I can't say that I ever had the kind of "indoctrination" problems Mabon's referring to. I can't even come close, and I really don't think it was that long ago.

So, if Skippy gets beat up because Jack thinks Skippy hit on his girlfriend .... (We've been through this series of questions before.)

What I would suggest is that when decency itself becomes an issue as pertains to sexuality, it should be a matter of modesty and decency, and not of the gender-combination of the partners. You're a fan of noting that this or that isn't "classroom" material; and I agree with you. But is there any greater degree of impropriety to declare to one's students the fun of getting a blowjob that depends on the gender of the partner?

If indecency occurs, we should be able to deal with it. There are a few sets of circumstances, by Mabon's measure, where the objections to a certain indecency would not be recognized because to recognize the objection would be to give the appearance of endorsing, encouraging, or promoting outlawed behavior. Of course, as long as you're in the majority that doesn't have to worry about getting screwed this way ...?

An anecdote and a consideration:

* So I'm riding a city bus, passing across the Ship Canal when the guy sitting across the aisle begins kissing and feeling up his girlfriend, practically climbing on top of her. At first everyone pretty much ignores the scene (though retrospect begs the question if this was a homosexual couple ....) until he has her by the throat and one hand between her legs (she's wearing jeans) but they're both laughing and carrying on and such, so it's all in good fun for both of them. Now ...

1) Is this behavior by this couple "appropriate" for a city bus which includes school-age children as passengers?
2) Would this behavior be any more or less appropriate were school-age children not present.
3) If I were to choose to take offense to this display, should I be any more offended if it was a homosexual couple?
4) Would the scene be any more or less appropriate or not (as determined, say, by Q's 1 & 2) should school-age children be on the bus?

I ask because I'm quite sure this ballot measure isn't about improving schools per se, but that "Student Protection" is a fiction created by a number of artificial paranoias that simply don't hold up in any objective comparison.

Decency doesn't discriminate; if it's indecent, it's indecent: hetero-, homo-, or "otherwise".

When the issue of homosexuality comes up ... regardless of how it comes up ... under Mabon's law, any teacher or resource not directly condemning homosexuality will be seen as encouraging, promoting, ad craptacular.

This ballot measure is about a bunch of people who have been taught that their propriety is demanded, and therefore mandated by God. This measure is about a bunch of people who have been taught to dislike something. This measure is about those people who have been taught to dislike a certain thing attempting to exercise their alleged God-given mandate.

Student Protection Act ...? I still don't know what we're protecting the students from. I guess I have to bear your prejudices in order to understand that. Oh, that's right ... God says so, according to Mr. Mabon. We better do what Lon's God says.

And you still think that a kid old enough to go to college and old enough to vote in Oregon needs to be "protected"? I guess that makes voting easy: whatever Dad tells me to vote for.

Although there's one benefit I know you'll enjoy, should this law pass: homosexuals, and those who aren't gay but happen to give a rat's behind (at the bare minimum) about justice and equality won't waste their time inside Oregon. After all, we'd hate to disturb the facist fairyland. I wouldn't trust a doctor, a psychologist, or a teacher trained in Oregon under Mabon's proposed law.

Thus I repeat my original hope that the Oregon electorate once again rejects bigotry and religious favoritism. It is my sincerest hope that Lon Mabon and his ilk are banished back to the pits of their own loathing. It is my sincerest hope that the people decide that they would rather not pay their attorney general to go forth and argue a losing argument in front of the US Courts. Were I an AG, I would resign before arguing in support of such a law.

Hmmm ... that's right ... I can call my mother and ask her if I can come down and stay for a couple of weeks; I've got the vacation coming; I've got what it takes (by law) to vote in Oregon. Of course, I've got my own local electorate to worry about; I think we're about to vote on whether or not we want federal highway funding. As it is, we've already voted for potholes in this city. God, we love our potholes. Oregonians ... well, they get to figure out whether or not they love their Oregon Christian A**holes. In the end, we all get to think hole-y thoughts.

Liberty and justice for all ...? When are conservatives going to learn that the one thing you cannot do at a ballot box is vote to strip a group of people of equal rights based wholly on subjective criteria? I mean, really, let's not force the founding of the Church of the Holy Ass. You know, dedicated to exploration of the self and preservation of the human race; we could put overpopulation at the top of the list, and then homosexual contact could be constitutionally protected as a religion.

Best if Mabon & Co. give up their fight immediately. They cannot win in the long run, and so this takes on the appearance of attempting to hurt as many people as possible before going down.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited September 06, 2000).]

Bowser

09-07-00, 05:03 AM

Greenwood priest,

It's good to read a new voice on this thread. Thank you for dropping in with your thoughts. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif">

<hr>

"Reality #1 Many homosexuals begin to see themselves as such during their teen age years."

Okay, I can accept that.

"Reality #2 Many teenagers who identify themselves as homosexual would greatly prefer to fit in with the rest of their peers in heterosexuality."

Understandable.

"Reality #3 Violence, whether from peers, parents or strangers, is a real risk for a homosexual teen."

No doubt about that.

"Reality #4 Sometimes students may find a teacher or councelor at school with whom they are able to open up and seek aid in any things that trouble them. Sometimes this aid can be the ONLY thing that keeps the student from commiting suicide."

Well, that seems to be the argument to which Tiassa is clinging. What bothers me is the assumption that the counselors' advise will be less effective if they can't encourage homosexuality.

"These points are reality. They may not be pleasant; too bad."

It's not a problem for me.

"It has already been pointed out that a child might not be able to get help from church or parent. Most teens have no other resources out side of school for counceling. It is EVIL to deny that counceling."

The homosexual student won't be denied counseling because of this initiative. It's really not a threat to any child's welfare. Simply because the counselor can't propagate homosexuality, they're not going to shrug their shoulders and say, "oh well, Kid."

"I can agree that schools have no business in advocating a homosexual lifestyle."

We agree! <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

"There is a big difference in promoting a lifestyle to the general student body and counceling a troubled teen. What it comes down to, is that counceling a teen and telling them they might be gay could be the only thing that keeps that teen from suicide."

That was a very good point, but what if it's a mental illness or something else at play?

"The NEEDS of the teen MUST take precident over the WANTS of the parents."

Well, here we are again, trying to rob the parents of their authority and their children. I just can't believe that you feel that the parents have no business involving themselves in the lives of their children.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon13.gif">

READ THIS, TIASSA:
<hr>
"It appears that about 10% of the population is gay. That means that 90% is not. Since 90% is a majority, the behavior of the 90% defines "normal"."

I think it's less than 10%, but I thank you for that point.
<hr>

"The preponderance of evidence shows homosexual behavior to be an inborn trait. I have heard of cases where it was a learned behavior, but in most cases it looks like a person is born to grow up gay. Attempts to make them behave otherwise can only result in neurosis. Thus, while homosexuality is not "normal" it IS natural."

I see...an accident of nature. Yes. I can accept that. So, if I am to excuse this and ignore its public display, should I then also redefine all of nature's other misdeeds? I'm certain there are many oddities that are not presently accepted as appropriate for public consumption.

"Deviant is an emotionally laden word that obscures reality by carrying the implications of perverse or immoral"

Deviant is an adjective which you can find listed in any dictionary. Please look it up and read the definition. It is very applicable when defining homosexuality.

"In summary, homosexuality is natural, if not normal. Since it is outside the norm, teens who identify with it MUST be able to get the counceling they need to integrate this facet of their lives into a working whole."

I disagree. If it was normal, natural, and right; their lives wouldn't be such a mess. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon13.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Flash

09-07-00, 02:55 PM

Bowser,

I have really tried to stay away from this thread a bit...but your last statement...GRRRRR "I disagree. If it was normal, natural, and right; their lives wouldn't be such a mess" The mess has to do with discrimination...don't you think? If you disagree...please- be ever so kind and explain to me what you think it is.

Tiassa

09-07-00, 03:02 PM

Deviant is an adjective which you can find listed in any dictionary. Please look it up and read the definition. It is very applicable when defining homosexuality.

Deviant also describes recessive genetic traits; deviant is anything not matching a statistical norm.

I looked up deviant at m-w.com ... I find it interesting that they define deviant as differing from the "accepted norm".

Equal rights are deviant, aren't they?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser

09-07-00, 05:44 PM

Tiassa, <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

<hr>

"Jesus Christ was a deviant."

Yes. He deviated from the established religiose beliefs of his time, and he paid for it on the cross. By simply calling him a deviant, no one would assume that you are suggesting he had lusty anal sex with the apostles. When I use that word in referrence to homosexuals, I'm sure you understand my meaning, and to what I am referring.

Let me modify that sentence in which I used the word deviant:

Also, according to Bowser, once you accept one group of sexual deviants into the fold of social acceptance, it's an open door for all perverts.

Now, I understand that Christianity is just a perversion of an older faith, but that only depends on the context in which you are using the word perversion. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon9.gif">

"...Providing your children with truth is not to mandate educational standards based on one religious group's perception of perversion. What form of happiness will they find when it's presented to them that their parents were so scared of their future decision-making skills that they (the parents) had to vote not to remove a certain item from the curriculum, but to force a narrow standard based on one religious group's ideas into the curriculum?"

A narrow standard...Golly. We are so unreasonable to be wanting our children safe from sexual perversion. Will they ever understand? I dunno. Maybe when they have children of their own...

"...Justice is blind ... what does she care who's climbing up her ass?

Justice abides by the law which is established by the majority, Tiassa. That's how it works, here. You want to hold her bent over so that we can service a minority?

"Hmm ... you're making someone get up and declare true something that they do not believe, else their livelihood will disappear. And this isn't blackmail?"

No, Tiassa, we are telling them not to educate our children in the sexual perversion of homosexuality. That sounds pretty darned unreasonable. Doesn't it. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"Are you assuming, then, that homosexuals are not "stable", or have no "stable foundation"? (I might end up asking what your definition of a stable foundation is, and what extra rights you think having one entitles you to.)"

I question the stability of anyone who finds sexual attraction to their own gender. Their foundation might be strong; however, it must not include discretion. An understanding of right and wrong and an appreciation for life is a good foundation. Also, the benefits come from a life without regrets.

"Hey, if you don't want kids getting used to discovering themselves, that's your own problem. I, personally don't see the use in legally mandating the alienation of youth who are trying to resolve problems. Let me guess, though, if they don't resolve to your ideal, then they don't resolve at all ...?"

Well, it (this initiative) doesn't alienate anyone. It does, however, place limitations on sexual perversion in our schools. If introducing children to homosexuality is your rational answer to a childs exploration, then we will never agree on this subject.

<hr>
If it was beyond resolve by rational thought, it couldn't live in my house.
<hr>

"That's very telling, I think. I should check to make sure I'm reading it right, though: Are you saying you'd kick your kid out of your home for being gay?"

Love is unconditional, Tiassa, but not my home.

"Hell, that's merciful: instead of whooping their ass, push them farther onto the fringe. Wise, too. I can see clearly the positive results of hanging your kids out for those dangerous people we do need to worry about; you know, the pedophiles who cruise the streets looking for disaffected children who have been kicked out of their homes?"

Oh, you're talking about sexual deviants now. I thought that was what I've been teaching my children to avoid. But the schools have redefined that word for my children. Wait, now we're confused...some sexual deviants are not a threat, but...

I hear your point, Tiassa; but you must understand that I have more than one child. If one of those children is disposed to a sexual perversion of that degree, I couldn't allow it to live under my roof. I have more than one to nurture.

"Nice answer; you dodged the question. Where, then, should a child seek advice if they feel they can't get it from their folks?"

I found three in Oregon by simply checking online. I disagree with the source and purpose of these rescources, and I refuse to post their identities here. I'm sure you can find them too if you try. You may or may not believe that. It doesn't matter to me because I know it to be true.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

"So these kids aren't arriving to the school system with any psychological difficulties? The entire breadth of youth difficulties are to be laid at the door of a homosexual teacher? Or a counselor who won't condemn them for trying to figure their own self out? Geez ... you're paranoid on that one, I think."

You may be correct in that assumption (paranoid). I would parallel your position here with a counselor who is helping a child explore their fascination with matches.

"...compassion..."

Not at the expense of good judgement.

"It's better than ill preparation or outright stupidity. For all the stupid things I see people do, the most dangerous is to bear children before one is ready to support them. One of the reasons I've neither married nor had children is that everyone I know of my age group who has gotten married ended up having a child either because "she wanted one" (literally, I know three people who tried buying their wives puppies), or because "it was a surprise".

Well, to wait until you are ready does sound like a good a good plan. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

"I'm all for Liberty, but I suppose we're going to blame the gays for the United States' having the highest unwed teenage pregnancy rate in the industrialized world?"

Many people feel that it is our liberal views towards sex which have caused these peoblems. All of this sexual exploration might have had the opposite effect, rather than what was expected.

"Stop thinking of parenthood as a trial. You may find me ignorant, in this case, but I wasn't dumb enough to have a kid and complain of being made a serf. There's a hundred other words you could have used than "serf" ... oh, I forgot ... all those poor serfs in Europe chose to live in abject poverty during feudalism"

Well, I don't want you to continue thinking that we parents are despots. I wanted to give another view point. Trust me, it's a job which returns very little gratitude. I wouldn't do the work for anyone else. It truley is a responsibility of love.

"That's hardly a surprise. As long as the deck is stacked in your favor, the situation can't possibly be wrong? Oh ... that's right ... we live in America, where liberty is often demanded in the form of taking away other people's rights. Sounds like you're in the right country."

I'm in the best country in the world...as are you. Count your blessings. Also, nobody is losing rights by the passage of this initiative. I understand that you feel that freedom of speech hinges on this issue, but I feel that you are missing the point that it doesn't apply here, in our schools, or in the work environment. If the opposite were true, you could verbally abuse your employer's customers and then expect to win a large settlement because you were fired. It's common sense that there are limits to individual rights when they are measured against the needs of the larger community, Tiassa.

<hr>
"* Link homosexuality to necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia, please."

Sure. They are all generally consider to be extreme, diviant sexual practices.
<hr>

"Boy-oh ... that was a dumb answer. "Considered" implies a subjective value. Subject, say, to your values. I hear that old conservatism coming here: "I demand my freedom to take yours away!" How much longer can conservatism hold that silly principle up?"

Once again, this initiative won't take away your right to have anal sex, Tiassa. It won't even keep us from talking about it. It's an opportunity for the majority of citizens (parents) to set a standard for our children's education. Yes, maybe it is subjective, but that's our privilege. And who better to set these standards within our schools?

"Your perception, your loss, your problem. The rest of us wonder about the natural truth of Victorian propriety, and other such social limits. Are you proclaiming social limits to be a good thing in general, or just your idea of social limits? (And I will drag up history if I need to.)"

Well, if social limits protect our children, then yes, it's a good thing. You can drag up history, if you truley think it's to your advantage here.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"I'll remind you that it was a natural truth, once, that the world was flat."

And if they tried to teach your children that it is flat, when it is obviously round.

"More relevant? I'll remind you that it's a natural truth that heterosexuality is causing overpopulation, and therefore the resulting economic distress. 1.7 billion people in this world don't have access to clean drinking water; I suppose that's the fault of the gays, too."

Hmm, that's a good argument for birth control..<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

<hr>

Tiassa,

I'm sorry but I just don't have the time to address every point that you made in your last post. I would give you that time if I could. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif"> You do have some interesting arguments. I do feel like we have reached a point where we are just chasing eachothers tail--we are covering the same points over and over again. With that in mind, I'm going to give you my thanks for your efforts.

I do want to ask some questions before I leave:

Where would you draw the line on sexual perversion, Tiassa? Where are your limits?

Take care...

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

09-07-00, 07:09 PM

Bowser--

I do want to ask some questions before I leave:

Where would you draw the line on sexual perversion, Tiassa? Where are your limits?

Personally, as applies to my body, I have three rules about sex which are simply not negotiable:

* No children
* No animals
* No dead things

And these seem to me to be standards worth asking the rest of my human neighbors to abide by, as well. It's about both, consent and medical sense; I need not get into the subjective of what feels good ... I'm sure heroin feels good, but I'm not going to take it to find out; I'm sure humping sheep feels good to some people, but I'm not hopping that fence to find out.

Here's the other thing about that: I have a number of other assorted sexual standards. For instance, I don't see what's so fun about whipping each other senseless and bleeding with cats-o'-nine-tails for sexual pleasure. It's hardly a rule like the above standards, but nobody's ever given me a compelling enough reason to try. The point of mentioning this is to remind you that just because I would allow my individual self to behave that way under certain circumstances hardly means I must.

And that crosses over, slightly, into my perception of people's fears about homosexuals. I don't understand how we go from knowing a person practices homosexual sex to assuming he's trying to "convert" your child.

But when it comes to protecting children, right is pretty much right, to me, and wrong is pretty much wrong. My ideas of right and wrong don't care about the gender of your sexual partners.

* An analogy ... literature: Alice Walker, who wrote The Color Purple, among others, is generally regarded as a very good author. In the past, though, she has been described as a "foremost black author" and a "popular woman author". Now ... accepting for argumentative purposes, that Alice Walker is a good writer (I recognize taste differences here, but they're irrelevant): Is Alice Walker a good author because she's black? because she's a woman? or because she can write me (you/anybody/&c) off the page and under the table any day of the week? If Alice Walker is a good "black" author, what does that say about skin color? That we should assume you're a poor writer if you have dark skin, and that your work should be regarded as "good" if it rises above the sub-par quality we assume of non-white cultures? If Alice Walker is a good "woman" author, what does that say about the quality of other works written by authors who happen to be female?

* Likewise ... children & sex: The way I see it is that a rape is a rape is a rape. If you sexually abuse a kid, you're a child molester first, and a heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise second. If your child is raped, would it be of any comparative comfort to know it was at least a heterosexual rape?

Where do I draw the line? I worry about people hurting children; not the classifications I apply to the people before they hurt children. Mind you, there are some labels to be observed: I would trust a NAMBLA member no more around my child than I would trust a Eugene Anarchist to maintain the database at Lexis-Nexis.

I just feel like I'm missing the point if I have to feel more or less angry at someone because they're gay or not.

Now that I've explained my line, there's only these few things I'd like to add:

* Have "doggy-style" with your wife? That's deviant; in fact, some social standards would say that the adapting to new social standards, such as digression from missionary-position sex, were detrimental and perverted. I might remind you that certain social standards decry the enjoyment of sexual intercourse to be perverse.

* I hear your point, Tiassa; but you must understand that I have more than one child. If one of those children is disposed to a sexual perversion of that degree, I couldn't allow it to live under my roof. I have more than one to nurture.

I recall an episode of The Simpsons: "Bart? Forget Bart, we've ruined him. Lisa is the wave of the future."

* Love is unconditional, Tiassa, but not my home.

I can't argue against this. So your feelings of love are separate from your demonstrations of love, which, in turn, are dependent on your offsprings' obedience to your own personal standard in their most intimate and private moments? You want your children to be strong individuals, but exactly as you've prescribed?

Individualism ... I recall a 1990's Levi's campaign in which we, the consumers, were encouraged to be individuals by wearing the same clothes as everyone else. (Well, Levi's isn't alone in this, but ....)

Like I said, it's kinda tough to argue against that.

Of course, we're having a basic disagreement of definitions, as well. I don't call that love. I call it authoritarianism.

"I'm all for Liberty, but I suppose we're going to blame the gays for the United States' having the highest unwed teenage pregnancy rate in the industrialized world?"

Many people feel that it is our liberal views towards sex which have caused these peoblems. All of this sexual exploration might have had the opposite effect, rather than what was expected.

Well, first off, I think it's hilarious the way you answered. :D Seriously ... we could splinter off here into the conservative kinship your expressed philosophy has with the one about liberalizing heterosexual sex. Sure, liberalization is coming, but conservatives don't want to prepare people for it; it seems to me like giving kids access handguns without teaching them how to shoot.

In the meantime, all the robust heterosexuality in the world won't reduce our teen pregnancy rate.

I'm in the best country in the world...as are you. Count your blessings. Also, nobody is losing rights by the passage of this initiative. I understand that you feel that freedom of speech hinges on this issue, but I feel that you are missing the point that it doesn't apply here, in our schools, or in the work environment.

* Best country in the world: That's a terrible excuse. Period. "We're better off than Sudan, so let's not worry about it until we are as bad off as Sudan." "We have more freedom than we would in a Communist country, so we shouldn't worry about it." Pure, unadulterated, street-grade crapola.

* Freedom of speech doesn't apply: Yes, it does. Show me where, in the Constitution, freeedom of speech is excepted in our schools. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, by its own declaration. You want to assault freedom of speech, take on the US Constitution. It can be done; that it's so difficult to do is a deliberate safeguard against stupid legislation: Flag-burning Amendment; Anti-abortion Amendment ... what next, a pro-heterosexuality amendment? Or just a gutting of the First Amendment so that certain groups of people get to decide what is and isn't appropriate speech.

If the opposite were true, you could verbally abuse your employer's customers and then expect to win a large settlement because you were fired.

Crap. Absolutely unapplicable. When you go to work for someone in a private enterprise, you sign a piece of paper agreeing to their rules. Some of these rules are later overturned because you just can't ask someone to do this or that. But the first thing you do when you're hired is sign on to the company's interests. Verbally abusing your customers is, by widespread convention, not conducive to company interests. When you break your own private agreements with people you have nobody to blame but yourself. I feel this is a terrible example.

Once again, this initiative won't take away your right to have anal sex, Tiassa. It won't even keep us from talking about it.

* Italic portion: No, but that's not the issue. The initiative will strip people of their livelihood based on a narrow religious standard; furthermore, it will proscribe free speech.

* Bold portion: You're right; but it will put words in the mouths of our school faculty, whether true or not. I guess forcing someone to lie in order to keep their job isn't censorship. :rolleyes:

"So these kids aren't arriving to the school system with any psychological difficulties? The entire breadth of youth difficulties are to be laid at the door of a homosexual teacher? Or a counselor who won't condemn them for trying to figure their own self out? Geez ... you're paranoid on that one, I think."

You may be correct in that assumption (paranoid). I would parallel your position here with a counselor who is helping a child explore their fascination with matches.

Fascination with matches ... yeah, I had a fascination with matches when I was four. Burned my left hand, learned how to handle matches.

Or are you trying to imply, not-entirely-directly, that becoming heterosexual is tantamount to setting oneself on fire? That's your own personal standard and your own problem, and not something that I would ask my neighbor to forfeit his job or his right to speak.

The only people playing with matches here are the OCA and their rabble. Think about it: you are claiming to have better authority than the American Medical Association, so that when you vote your will, you will protect your children from being "converted" to homosexuality by declaring that you know better than medical doctors what should be taught in med school. Of course, maybe the solution is for Oregon to simply stop training teachers, psychologists, or doctors.

It's a bad, bad situation the Mabon proposes, imho.

I quote Ozzy Osbourne: "One of the things I love about America is that it's a country where you have the god-given right to be offended."

He was, in fact, referring to people who wanted to throw out the First Amendment in the name of "protecting children". Of course, those would-be censors didn't know how to read.

In fact, that's a great parallel: Suicide Solution was about the dangers of drinking heavily and steadily, yet was persecuted because it apparently "encouraged kids to kill themselves".

Homosexuals, as an applicable generalization, simply want to live and work as members of our society; yet they're persecuted because they apparently "encourage kids to buggery".

These phantom campaigns, these notions of "recruiting" new gay soldiers ... I honestly don't know where they come from. Such ideas never came up until Messrs. Mabon and Ramsdell brought them up. You'd be better off with a real horse, a real stick, and real pseudo-armor, tilting against real windmills. That, at least, would make enough sense to redeem the motivations.

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited September 07, 2000).]

Bowser

09-08-00, 04:21 AM

Tiassa,

I knew it was going to be another long and winding road <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif"> Well, I'm glad to hear that you do have a sense of right and wrong. You know what I think, so I won't bother with the details...again. Let's wait for the vote. I'm work on a few pages for the vote, and my kids and I will be canvassing door to door on this issue. Wish us luck <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

Argue with you later.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

09-08-00, 03:03 PM

Well, I'm glad to hear that you do have a sense of right and wrong.

Though I hope you understand that I wonder about yours.

I'm work on a few pages for the vote, and my kids and I will be canvassing door to door on this issue. Wish us luck

I shall oblige.

Good luck, Bowser; I hope you find everything in society you want, and that your children don't wind up bearing the burdens of those desires.

Good luck, indeed; I know how important moral support is when crusading to ostracize.

Good luck, Bowser's Kids ... May you figure out that people are people despite their labels before it costs you too much in your futures.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser

09-08-00, 04:42 PM

Tiassa,

Just so you know that I don't travel with bliders, I'm going to share a URL with you...against my better judgement:
http://www.youthresource.com/gallery/

I promise you, my children will have very happy and stable lives, more so than those which you will find in this gallery. Enjoy the benefits of homosexuality <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

09-08-00, 05:31 PM

Wow ... kids who are coherent enough to express themselves clearly. All things considered, maybe that is a benefit of homosexuality. ;) At any rate, I'll look deeper through the gallery when I'm not at work; but my initial survey showed me exactly what I expected to find: human beings. And yes, I do think there's some brilliant expression taking place; much of it far, far greater than the heterosexual teen-majority has led me to expect.

As far as those who could only express themselves by killing themselves ... well, there ya go. Next time you or your kids are beaten up by a bunch of gay people for the mere crime of heterosexuality ... well, then I'll listen while you complain.

If your child is raped, would it be of any comparative comfort to know it was at least a heterosexual rape?

Just restating a question. It's more conceptual than anything else. But I dare you to look a raped child in the eye and say, "Smile! At least it wasn't homosexual!"

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser

09-08-00, 06:17 PM

"Wow ... kids who are coherent enough to express themselves clearly. All things considered, maybe that is a benefit of homosexuality."

Yes, I was impressed with the artistic nature of the various efforts. They were very good.

"As far as those who could only express themselves by killing themselves ... well, there ya go."

Yes, that is a shame, if only someone was there to encourage their homosexuality. That really would have set things right. I say that the problem is deeper, and requires more than a reversal of our social values. Suicide is a sign of MENTAL ILLNESS. Does suicide sound like a stable condition to you? A sexual drive is a pathetic excuse for committing suicide. Because society doesn't agree with your preferrence, you're going to hold your life hostage? Stupid. And the proposed remedy is even more in deficit.

"Next time you or your kids are beaten up by a bunch of gay people for the mere crime of heterosexuality ... well, then I'll listen while you complain."

Won't ever happen. Thank you just the same.

"But I dare you to look a raped child in the eye and say, "Smile! At least it wasn't homosexual!"

I would prefer to kill the turd who committed the act. How's that for random violence, Tiassa?

Here we go again...ranting.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

09-08-00, 06:47 PM

Bowser--

Yes, that is a shame, if only someone was there to encourage their homosexuality. That really would have set things right. I say that the problem is deeper, and requires more than a reversal of our social values. Suicide is a sign of MENTAL ILLNESS. Does suicide sound like a stable condition to you? A sexual drive is a pathetic excuse for committing suicide. Because society doesn't agree with your preferrence, you're going to hold your life hostage? Stupid. And the proposed remedy is even more in deficit.

Your apparent lack of faith in human emotion is disturbing.

Boldface section: I resurrect the idea of, "If I beat you up because I think you're hitting on my girlfriend ...." Or, "If I beat you up because I catch you stealing the stereo out of my car ...."

Now, if I beat you up simply because you're gay ...? The nearest thing to a proper justification I can manage would be that I, as a heterosexual, am beating up the homosexual based on my assumption of this homosexual's motives; that is, I am beating him up because I have decided what he is thinking and feeling, and choose to be threatened by it.

Now, at this point, what is the school's part in this? (Assuming that the act took place on school grounds.) "Well, Billy, violence is wrong, but you have to look at yourself, carrying on in such an unwholesome, socially irresponsible, detrimental, sinful manner."

My own father and I still associate, but just barely. About the single most unreasonable thing he ever said to me came after a friend succumbed to the suicidal urge in the midst of methamphetamine addiciton. When he told me that she had it coming to her, simply because she was 14 and on drugs ... well, I'm 27 now and neither one of us are over it.

I would assert that we lose focus when we justify violence against individuals and declare their emotions to be based entirely on their sex drives. No, I don't think we lose focus, actually. I think we smash reality altogether.

When your family decides you're not worth their time and thus kicks you out of the home because of your sexuality, the emotional impact one might feel is apparently based solely on their sex drive? Hell, I must be stupid; I had figured it was pretty much the standard human reaction to being betrayed by the people who claim to love you.

That's the problem with Moralism. It accepts greater immorality in its quest to achieve a specific moral purpose. Your rhetoric only works toward justifying the stupid people who think someone's sexuality is justification for physical violence.

So I might agree with you that yes, had we someone there to encourage that homosexuality ... more specifically, had we someone there to affirm the difficult notion that what other people are doing to you is wrong. But they're gay, right, and not entitled to human dignity?

I've never heard anything to counteract my notion that homophobes are fighting anything more than a phantom army of marionette fudgepackers trying to steal the children for their own revue of "The Pied Piper". I've never heard anything to counteract my notion that homophobes are fighting anything but their own imaginations.

So it seems to me that this is about cruelty: You don't like gay people, and would like to vote them out of your society. This may be America, but let me know when you're done raping Miss Liberty ... oh, but she won't mind, will she? At least it's heterosexual.

Moralism--especially Mabon's version of it--is nothing more than hatred disguised in Christ's beard. Mabon does his faith a disservice, he does his community a disservice, and he does Liberty a disservice. Literally, the only hope y'all have of winning is to disenfranchise homosexuality so strongly that the homosexuals literally cannot survive. Oh, equal rights! Help me, help me! The goddamn buggers want to be equal, what ever shall we righteous people do?

Hint: get used to it. Human dignity does not bow to narrow religious standards. Anyone who asks it to may well be demonstrating Liberty by taping your mouth shut.

I would prefer to kill the turd who committed the act. How's that for random violence, Tiassa?

Not random at all, actually. Now, does it make a difference if it was heterosexual or homosexual? Your long-standing implication in this thread is that it would be morally worse if it was a homosexual rape than if it was aa heterosexual rape. Rape is rape. Maybe you like to be a discriminating observer, but what the hell is the difference?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Flash

09-09-00, 06:53 AM

Tiassa,
Hey, there old friend :) I have not said much recently in this thread...for many reasons LOL However, I wanted to tell you that your posts are refreshing! I wished more people in the world shared the same spirit of views that you have. Not just regarding homosexuality, but, rather acceptance of people... in general.

Take care!!!!!!

Flash

Bowser

09-09-00, 09:49 AM

"Your apparent lack of faith in human emotion is disturbing."

Oh, love for thy brother. And the best way to express that is through anal sex?

"Now, if I beat you up simply because you're gay ...? The nearest thing to a proper justification I can manage would be that I, as a heterosexual, am beating up the homosexual based on my assumption of this homosexual's motives; that is, I am beating him up because I have decided what he is thinking and feeling, and choose to be threatened by it."

There may be some truth to that. I would feel threatened if a child molester moved next door to my house. Hint: Most people do feel uneasy when confronted by sexual perversion. Let's think about that for a moment. It's not as if homosexuality is a common sport with all of us. Are you really surprised by this normal human reaction to homosexuality...revulsion? I mean, would you feel comfortable sitting next to a child molester? Also, if we are going to place grace on homosexuality simply because it's their way (queer), then why not give those thugs some credit for their normal compulsions. Hey, hate is as stong an emotion as love. They both involve passion, don't they. It could just be that homosexuality creates fear in these heterosexual youngsters. And since we are being so very concerned about the few students who are homosexual, let's take the time to think of those students who are not queer. Maybe they don't like queers. Maybe those homosexual students cause anxiety. I understand that it would be easier if they all just conformed to your way of thinking, but that just doesn't sound fair to me.

"Now, at this point, what is the school's part in this? (Assuming that the act took place on school grounds.) "Well, Billy, violence is wrong, but you have to look at yourself, carrying on in such an unwholesome, socially irresponsible, detrimental, sinful manner."

Hey, Billy felt threatened by that queer kid. He had to take a swing in defense of his identity. Let's give that kid Billy some sympathy, he's been traumatized by a big bad fag.

"My own father and I still associate, but just barely. About the single most unreasonable thing he ever said to me came after a friend succumbed to the suicidal urge in the midst of methamphetamine addiciton. When he told me that she had it coming to her, simply because she was 14 and on drugs ... well, I'm 27 now and neither one of us are over it."

That's too bad, Tiassa. I suppose he should have accepted drug addiction as a good thing. Maybe even thought of it as natural and normal. Do you think that would have helped?

"I would assert that we lose focus when we justify violence against individuals and declare their emotions to be based entirely on their sex drives. No, I don't think we lose focus, actually. I think we smash reality altogether."

Unfortunately, the form of love that we are speaking of, to my understanding, involves sexual contact. It does contradict reality for many of us when applied in such an unfamiliar way. You do have a very valid point about reacting violently to homosexuality. I suppose that if you're going to walk around with your dick hanging out of your fly, someone will take notice, even more so when you're pointing at it.

"When your family decides you're not worth their time and thus kicks you out of the home because of your sexuality, the emotional impact one might feel is apparently based solely on their sex drive? Hell, I must be stupid; I had figured it was pretty much the standard human reaction to being betrayed by the people who claim to love you."

Hmm, if the world and your family revolved around your sexuality, you might have a right to feel betrayed. Where's your shame in dictating the conditions of love for those around you?

"That's the problem with Moralism. It accepts greater immorality in its quest to achieve a specific moral purpose. Your rhetoric only works toward justifying the stupid people who think someone's sexuality is justification for physical violence."

Well, we shouldn't speak our minds then. Might I add that your rhetoric only works towards justification of sexual perversion, and it supports the stupid people who think the male and female differences are of no purpose.

"So I might agree with you that yes, had we someone there to encourage that homosexuality ... more specifically, had we someone there to affirm the difficult notion that what other people are doing to you is wrong. But they're gay, right, and not entitled to human dignity?"

Yeppers, there must be some dignity lost when one gent is blowing another gent, but that's just me. What about two teen boys holding hands and kissing in the hallway at school. Me and my girlfriends would pet during break. Do we want to deny that same pleasure to young homosexuals, but that might cause a reaction from the other students. We better change their thinking.

"I've never heard anything to counteract my notion that homophobes are fighting anything more than a phantom army of marionette fudgepackers trying to steal the children for their own revue of "The Pied Piper". I've never heard anything to counteract my notion that homophobes are fighting anything but their own imaginations."

Maybe we are affraid of the homosexual imagination, and we don't want it involved with our children. If that confuses your sense of morality, I point at the homosexual community for a better explanation.

"So it seems to me that this is about cruelty: You don't like gay people, and would like to vote them out of your society. This may be America, but let me know when you're done raping Miss Liberty ... oh, but she won't mind, will she? At least it's heterosexual."

I wish it was that simple. The length of this thread is proof that it is not so simple, more so when you are trying to make homosexuals into the guiltless victims of their own indiscretion. It's a much more complex issue then it's worth. In short, you are right, but you are wrong. Most of us don't like it; but we don't want to limit the decisions of others. Unfortunately, this has become a public issue--forced into the light by activist...not just the OCA.

"Moralism--especially Mabon's version of it--is nothing more than hatred disguised in Christ's beard. Mabon does his faith a disservice, he does his community a disservice, and he does Liberty a disservice. Literally, the only hope y'all have of winning is to disenfranchise homosexuality so strongly that the homosexuals literally cannot survive. Oh, equal rights! Help me, help me! The goddamn buggers want to be equal, what ever shall we righteous people do?"

There's some truth to that. You tell me; where will people place more concern: The security of their children or the dignity of homosexuals? Where does our love begin and end with this issue? <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"Hint: get used to it. Human dignity does not bow to narrow religious standards."

But it bows for a queer penis!? Is that what you are telling me?

<hr>
I would prefer to kill the turd who committed the act. How's that for random violence, Tiassa?
<hr>

"Now, does it make a difference if it was heterosexual or homosexual?"

Either or...I don't think I would give it much thought other than my own resolve. Child rape is some pretty gross shit. But you have brought a new thought to mind. Is there a diferrence between messing with a kid's body and messing with a kid's mind (in sexual terms, that is)? When you're exposing a kid to homosexual ideas, are you not raping children of their innocence? Do you see harm in that savage act, Tiassa?

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser

09-09-00, 09:57 AM

"I have not said much recently in this thread...for many reasons LOL"

Chicken! <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser

09-09-00, 04:55 PM

<center>
<hr>
<img src = "http://www.geocities.com/bowsertwo/Kiddo.JPG")<hr>

When you're exposing a kid to homosexual ideas, are you not raping children of their innocence? Do you see harm in that savage act, Tiassa?
</center>

------------------
It's all very large.

Flash

09-09-00, 08:06 PM

No, believe me..it has nothing to do with me being chicken. ;)

Flash

09-09-00, 08:16 PM

Bowser,
You have got to be kidding with the picture ?? Let me ask you this...exactly what do you think the homosexuals are wanting to do to your children??????

I mean hey, because one is a homosexual AUTOMATICALLY makes them a child molester???
Where exactly did you learn this, Bowser? The school of ignorant homophobics?

All because one chooses a different gender than you think they should...makes them evil, violent, and a rapist? Pleaseeee :rolleyes: Do you really believe that a homosexual is not capable of being loving, caring, honest, or stable?

Anyway...was simply curious....

Cable Man

09-10-00, 03:01 AM

Tiassa-
Why can't we all just get along? Isn't that the biggest pile of do-do we could get into. I applaud "Mabon". It was a bad idea for the Government to create public schools in the first place and this is where we have come. Because there are people like you and people like me public schools must tone down those things which MAKE LIFE. Ideally, sex should be left out of the picture. What business does sex have in any classroom? What determines a gay person? The Gay agenda would have my young children taught that having two daddys is a sound and acceptable policy. Coming from a Judeao Christian perspective it would be irresponsible for me to allow my children to be taught that anything good comes from a gay relationship. Regardless of what you think of me, is my Government going to demand that I "open up my childrens' minds"? This is dangerous ground. It is definately a fight worth fighting. After reading you and others over the last few months I have come closer to the conclusion that it is a rare moment that attitudes are changed by persuasion. Standing up to the plate and taking a pitch does not change the world...it just shows the world who we are...and it helps us to know who we are. Battle in Oregon...let the fight begin...may Providence take its course.

Bowser

09-11-00, 04:04 AM

Hey Flash,

"You have got to be kidding with the picture ?? Let me ask you this...exactly what do you think the homosexuals are wanting to do to your children??????"

I believe that they want to teach my children that homosexuality is right.

"I mean hey, because one is a homosexual AUTOMATICALLY makes them a child molester???
Where exactly did you learn this, Bowser? The school of ignorant homophobics?"

There are many who would argue that with you, but I won't. I do believe that it is, as with child molestation, perverse and should be viewed as such by our schools.

"All because one chooses a different gender than you think they should...makes them evil, violent, and a rapist? Pleaseeee Do you really believe that a homosexual is not capable of being loving, caring, honest, or stable?"

I thought I made my position clear throughout this thread about how it relates to the others. I'm sure homosexuals have much more to offer other than their sexuality. It's a shame that they place so much attention on that aspect of their lives.

"Anyway...was simply curious...."

I'm glad you asked. I think that the queer few care less for what we think and more for what they want. When you participate on this thread, I know that, at the very least, one of them has the courage to open up to other possibilities. Thank you for being brave.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon14.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

09-11-00, 03:33 PM

There may be some truth to that. I would feel threatened if a child molester moved next door to my house. Hint: Most people do feel uneasy when confronted by sexual perversion. Let's think about that for a moment. It's not as if homosexuality is a common sport with all of us. Are you really surprised by this normal human reaction to homosexuality...revulsion? I mean, would you feel comfortable sitting next to a child molester? Also, if we are going to place grace on homosexuality simply because it's their way (queer), then why not give those thugs some credit for their normal compulsions. Hey, hate is as stong an emotion as love. They both involve passion, don't they. It could just be that homosexuality creates fear in these heterosexual youngsters. And since we are being so very concerned about the few students who are homosexual, let's take the time to think of those students who are not queer.[/i] Maybe they don't like queers. Maybe those homosexual students cause anxiety. I understand that it would be easier if they all just conformed to your way of thinking, but that just doesn't sound fair to me.

To start from the bottom of this paragraph and work up, Bowser.

* It's not "my" way of thinking; when I was a child, I was taught by parents, teachers, preachers, and all manner of half-witted, well-intentioned fools what right and wrong is. And then one day I woke up and realized that whatever right and wrong is, it seems that everyone wants "right" to be exactly what they believed. So I looked at the underlying philosophy; that is, I looked at what it was we aspired to with our standards, and then tried applying that result equally throughout the society I observe. It seems to me that it's not so much "my" way of thinking, but the underlying freedom that we all aspire to. Can't help it much if you're jealous of another person possibly being your entitled equal in society, but I will try to stop you from codifying them as your inferior based solely on your own prejudices.

* Right, maybe those homosexual students "cause" anxiety because we are taught from cradle to the grave to distrust anything we perceive as different. Comparative differentiation is nothing new in humanity; in fact, I'm of the opinion that such forms of classism and social stratification are what powerful religious leaders like Christ and Muhammed worked to defeat.

* Sexual identity politics wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the fact that in Western culture, we have always "naturally" excluded people for being homosexual. Well, everyone but the priests. So I'll come to terms with you on your plea for extra-special attention for the heterosexual kids just as soon as you show me a public school that is so prejudicially gay that your heterosexual kids are killing themselves because there's no justice to fill in for the repeated beatings, tongue-lashings, and sundry cruelties of their daily lives.

* Hate may be as strong as love, but death is as strong as life, and black is as strong as white. It's nice that you've clarified which side you endorse, though.

* As to the first part of it, your continued attempts to morally equate homosexual intercourse to child molestation is beyond pathetic. I actually would have a better evidentiary case to establish religiously faithful people of several faiths as willful mass murderers.

Now, at this point, what is the school's part in this? (Assuming that the act took place on school grounds.) "Well, Billy, violence is wrong, but you have to look at yourself, carrying on in such an unwholesome, socially irresponsible, detrimental, sinful manner."

Hey, Billy felt threatened by that queer kid. He had to take a swing in defense of his identity. Let's give that kid Billy some sympathy, he's been traumatized by a big bad fag.

So if I'm threatened by the fact that you exist, I should be able to beat you with all the ferociousness as I should when I catch you robbing my house?

Again, thank you for clarifying where you stand on violence.

"My own father and I still associate, but just barely. About the single most unreasonable thing he ever said to me came after a friend succumbed to the suicidal urge in the midst of methamphetamine addiciton. When he told me that she had it coming to her, simply because she was 14 and on drugs ... well, I'm 27 now and neither one of us are over it."

That's too bad, Tiassa. I suppose he should have accepted drug addiction as a good thing. Maybe even thought of it as natural and normal. Do you think that would have helped?

I won't suggest what your response equals. I would not put such cruel, hateful words in your mouth; but I'll point out the bloody-red stains they leave on your lips.

You'd think that parents actually give a rip what their children might think of them ten, twelve, fifteen years down the line. But in the sense that my father didn't, I see the same in your opinion.

"I would assert that we lose focus when we justify violence against individuals and declare their emotions to be based entirely on their sex drives. No, I don't think we lose focus, actually. I think we smash reality altogether."

Unfortunately, the form of love that we are speaking of, to my understanding, involves sexual contact. It does contradict reality for many of us when applied in such an unfamiliar way. You do have a very valid point about reacting violently to homosexuality. I suppose that if you're going to walk around with your dick hanging out of your fly, someone will take notice, even more so when you're pointing at it.

You're still babbling about the sense that you have better emotional motivations than your neighbor. I'm glad you're so all-seeing into their emotional states. That was more the point.

"When your family decides you're not worth their time and thus kicks you out of the home because of your sexuality, the emotional impact one might feel is apparently based solely on their sex drive? Hell, I must be stupid; I had figured it was pretty much the standard human reaction to being betrayed by the people who claim to love you."

Hmm, if the world and your family revolved around your sexuality, you might have a right to feel betrayed. Where's your shame in dictating the conditions of love for those around you?

Well, as you've pointed out, the stability of your family will be undermined if your child chooses a sexuality different from your preference.

As to dictating the conditions of love ... I think you've said quite enough. I didn't know that family love came at a price. Or did you actually go out of your way to start a family to have people to rule over? Dictate the conditions of love ... :rolleyes:

"That's the problem with Moralism. It accepts greater immorality in its quest to achieve a specific moral purpose. Your rhetoric only works toward justifying the stupid people who think someone's sexuality is justification for physical violence."

Well, we shouldn't speak our minds then. Might I add that your rhetoric only works towards justification of sexual perversion, and it supports the stupid people who think the male and female differences are of no purpose.

I'll have to trust that this makes sense in your own mind. :rolleyes:

"So I might agree with you that yes, had we someone there to encourage that homosexuality ... more specifically, had we someone there to affirm the difficult notion that what other people are doing to you is wrong. But they're gay, right, and not entitled to human dignity?"

Yeppers, there must be some dignity lost when one gent is blowing another gent, but that's just me. What about two teen boys holding hands and kissing in the hallway at school. Me and my girlfriends would pet during break. Do we want to deny that same pleasure to young homosexuals, but that might cause a reaction from the other students. We better change their thinking.

So, your only definition of dignity is that Victorian "sight-of-the-neighbors" standard where the only reason to behave "appropriately" is to show everyone else it's appropriate? I'm talking about human dignity; you know, the dignity we allow other people simply because they're human beings? Oh, of course you don't .... :rolleyes:

Most of us don't like it; but we don't want to limit the decisions of others. Unfortunately, this has become a public issue--forced into the light by activist...not just the OCA.

I forget now if I've asked you to demonstrate when homosexuality was a politically divisive issue in Oregon schools prior to Mabon's assault on the First Amendment in 1990. However, I still am of the opinion that this is about library books and unadulterated Christian hate. You're going to show me how this has become a public issue. And about the time you establish that in Oregon, I might invite you to consider US History, as well.

You tell me; where will people place more concern: The security of their children or the dignity of homosexuals? Where does our love begin and end with this issue?

Well, as long as people such as Mabon and yourself continue to espouse that homosexual equals necrophiliac-bestial-child molester, people will have the difficult task of choosing. However, when you choose to come down from the hills and join civilized society as opposed to haranguing it from afar, you might find that people are weary of pseudo-Christian hatemongers asking them to vote on religion.

"Hint: get used to it. Human dignity does not bow to narrow religious standards."

But it bows for a queer penis!? Is that what you are telling me?

That sounds like the dumbassed censorship groups from the 1980's who wondered why freedom of speech "bowed" to Ozzy Osbourne's tongue.

"Now, does it make a difference if it was heterosexual or homosexual?"

Either or...I don't think I would give it much thought other than my own resolve. Child rape is some pretty gross shit. But you have brought a new thought to mind. Is there a diferrence between messing with a kid's body and messing with a kid's mind (in sexual terms, that is)? When you're exposing a kid to homosexual ideas, are you not raping children of their innocence? Do you see harm in that savage act, Tiassa?

Short answer, no.

When I took Anthropology--Culture & Human Sexuality at the University of Oregon, I read an essay in which a feminist author asserted rape among flies. Simply, a weaker fly, in search of a mate, will attack a stronger fly in order to attract the scent of food; deceiving the female, some weaker male flies managed to reproduce this way. Hence, the author's declaration of the social crime of rape.

You have made a slightly less grounded assertion.

I might make the same assertion about teaching a child to kill an animal for sport. I might make the same assertion about racism. I might make the same assertion about our American tendency to shield children with post-Victorian standards of prudism that have nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with the appearance of propriety.

I might make the same assertion about any idea which I find inappropriate.

Look at DARE ... best efforts actually made kids more likely to take drugs; would you say we've raped them? I wouldn't. There's a lot of things I'd call it, but rape ain't one of 'em.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Tiassa

09-11-00, 03:35 PM

CableMan--

Why can't we all just get along?

I might ask Mr. Mabon the same question.

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Tiassa

09-11-00, 07:33 PM

Flash--

:o

Let me thank you for your kind words. If I'm embarrassed (as my smilie might indicate) at all, let me just say that it's because I feel badly that people might recognize my efforts in a fight that needs not be.

Almost any reason I have to take part generally leads in a roundabout way to a weird condescending perspective that shouldn't need to exist. But I'm convinced that has to do with a deep-seeded neurosis I suspect I have regarding what I consider injustice; rarely do I see injustice that truly requires deeper thought ... mostly, it's pretty apparent, and the only deeper thought needed is to explain it to the people who are just incapable of understanding that people are people are people.

I'm also ashamed that I succumbed to the temptation of relaxing beneath the force of a nice round of antibiotics this weekend; God Hates Fags made what turned out to be a pathetic showing, but they dared preach their hatred in a tavern, and I would have loved to be there to see how close it came to a street riot. Or, at least, to tell them to get bent.

But I was busy lying on my back having quasi-recollective hallucinations about Huxley's elephants, of all things, and imagining the pretty, pretty glowing flowers that dotted my ceiling on Sunday. Sometimes life has its own subtle rewards, eh? ;)

(There's a cheesy line coming here somewhere ... probably about rolling on the river, so I'll just say thanks, and right is right, and liberty is liberty, and human beings are simply that--human.)

best of my hope,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser

09-12-00, 04:46 AM

Tiassa,

Well, I'm not going to quote you tonight. It boils down to what WE want in our schools, and I doubt that homosexuality is on OUR list.

It's a shame that some people are trapped in their homosexuality; however, I won't sacrifice my concepts of right and wrong for anyone. As for what we think of it, that is our privilage and our right. Yes, I do hate homosexuality, but that's my right too.

And when this initiative becomes law, forgive me if I don't spill any tears. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

.

------------------
It's all very large.

Cable Man

09-14-00, 01:32 AM

"Why can't we just get along?...Tiassa, that was supposed to be a joke. When you have two diametrically opposed views there will always be serious friction unless one side lays down and dies. I'm thankful that, for the most part, we don't wage our battles at gunpoint.

Bowser

09-14-00, 04:36 AM

Yes, we shoot only verbal bullets here. It's a safe sport.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

09-14-00, 04:40 PM

Cable Man--

I suppose I should have winked ;)

If I'd taken it seriously, I would have made a comment or two about the "Gay Agenda" (which I tend to view as composed almost entirely of people who desire "equal rights" ... extremists? yes, they do occur amid the "Gay Agenda" but where in society do extreme philosophies not arise?)

But I did want to match your baseball metaphor:

* You are correct when you say nothing is accomplished by taking the pitch. However, I might point out that in real baseball, you can throw a pitch three feet out of the zone--inside or out--and still get the called strike. In the electoral arena, the voters are the umpires. Unlike MLB, these umpires refuse any perception that they are responsible for the dignity of the progression of the game. You can't afford to take a pitch when the electorate is calling strikes because, just like real umpires, we're often left to wonder if they're watching the game at all.

Thanx much, though. Truly, I did hear in my mind the whining sarcasm that usually goes with the plea these days.

And I might have noted, had I taken it seriously, that my Catholic high school routinely ignored the "Judeo" part of Judeo-Christian, because it was simply too difficult to reconcile the amount of things that God hates in the Old Testament to the Redeemer, who stands in the name of Things Not Hateful (compassion? love? respect? repsonsibility?)

--Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited September 14, 2000).]

Bowser

09-16-00, 02:07 PM

<center><a href=http://www.ocayeson9.com/hope/>
<img src="http://www.ocayeson9.com/images/hopeforchange2.gif" width="468" height="60" border="1" alt="Click Here"></A>
</center>

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

09-19-00, 06:53 PM

oca-yes-on-9 dot-com?

How ironic. I remember Measure 9. That was the year that persecuting gays was so important that two people were murdered in the name of Lon Mabon's zeal.

Yes, I can see the sense of hope. It's kind of like the sense of hope a "witch" was expected to feel as the Inquisitors set her on fire in order to "save her soul".

Yes on 9 ... a message of hope: We'll just put you out of your misery.

How should we give the gays hope, then? Fire? Ducking stool? Firing squad? Lynch mob? How about a good ol' mob beating?

Nine's a good measure, though. It shows exactly how stupid, how hateful, how dishonest, and how desperate Mabon and his ilk are. If you ever find the Voters' Pamphlet from the '92 election, read some of the absolutely dumb things Mabon and Ramsdell stuck into their campaign pitches. Gagging teachers is nothing compared to their ambitions then. Seems to me they're willing to settle for any victory, just as long as that victory involves hating people.

thanx for the memories,
Tiassa :cool:

PS--we could always flay the skin from their still-living bodies and know that the sound of their pain is pleasing to the Lord.

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited September 19, 2000).]

Bowser

10-09-00, 06:02 PM

"PS--we could always flay the skin from their still-living bodies and know that the sound of their pain is pleasing to the Lord."

But that might turn them on.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

10-09-00, 06:15 PM

"PS--we could always flay the skin from their still-living bodies and know that the sound of their pain is pleasing to the Lord."
But that might turn them on.

Yes, Bowser, it might. But only if the homosexuals are as dangerously perverse as their persecutors.

Since you have a problem with gay people, and a problem with the idea of a hate-crime, as well, here's a suggestion:

* Count people as you pass them every day. Every tenth person, stop as you pass, and advise them that you think they are immoral and should not be allowed the same rights as you based on your assessment of their immorality.

Now, on the one hand, you'll be expressing yourself and promoting the morality you believe is proper. To the other, I know you're worried that you're not allowed to hate people. But this isn't true, you'll be able to crush anyone who tries to drag you in on a hate-crime. Think about it, it's win-win. You get to hate 'em, you get to tell 'em, and there's nothing they can do to stop you.

Isn't that all you're asking for, anyway?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 09, 2000).]

Bowser

10-11-00, 04:02 AM

Better to stop and ask each of them if they care for homosexuality--maybe two out of a hundred will say yes.

Better to stop and ask each of them if they think homosexuality is a normal behavior--maybe two out of a hundred will say yes.

Better to stop and ask each of them if they think homosexuality is a lifestyle which we want promoted within our public schools--maybe two out of a hundred will say yes.

Better to stop and ask each of them if they think homosexuality is a behavior worthy of federal protection--maybe two out of a hundred will say yes.

Better to stop and ask each of them if they are homosexual--maybe two out of a hundred will say yes.

I know that heterosexuals are the majority, but I won't make any apologies for this fact. And I don't see any reason to change our values to the satisfaction of a minority of perverts. We have been too sympathetic towards the gay community. It's time for a change.

Let's focus our attention on the pervertion. Honestly, do we really believe that anal intercourse between men is anything but abnormal? What of two woman? Men and boys? Woman and girls? Do we really want our children taught that this is okay...normal? It's abnormal as defined by natural law. Only fools would believe the opposite.

I pulled the following text from a link which Tiassa had shared while illustrating one of his/her arguments against bigoted Christian attitudes. I feel that it defines my point about this issue best:

<hr>

A phrase that has come up recently in this earth is "sexual orientation." This is a phrase made up by homosexuals to try to make themselves look less filthy than they really are. The purpose of the phrase is to take the spotlight from what these perverts do, and put it on the notion that they are just poor, mistreated people, who simply are attracted to members of the same sex. "Sexual orientation," as used today, has nothing to do with sexual activity (yeah, right), but only refers to who or what a particular person is attracted to. If you think that people of other "sexual orientations" are just fine, let's see what other "sexual orientations" you would necessarily have to accept as wholesome and pure. If you're not going to discriminate based on "sexual orientation", then you must not discriminate against any of the following. If you discriminate against any of these, you're a hypocrite. These "sexual orientations" are generally known as "paraphilias", and are mental disorders - just like homosexuality used to be.

Exhibitionism - involves people who are sexually aroused by the idea of exposing their genitals to a stranger.

Fetishism - involves people who are sexually aroused by nonliving objects.

Frotteurism - involves people who are sexually aroused by the idea of touching and rubbing against a nonconsenting person.

Pedophilia - involves people who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children (usually 13 years or younger).

Sexual Masochism - involves people who are sexually aroused by being "humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer."

Sexual Sadism - involves people who are sexually aroused by causing the psychological or physical suffering of a victim (e.g., "restraint, blindfolding, paddling, spanking, whipping, pinching, beating, burning, electrical shocks, rape, cutting, stabbing, strangulation, torture, mutilation, or killing").

Transvestic Fetishism - involves people who are sexually aroused by cross-dressing.

Voyeurism - involves people who are sexually aroused by watching unsuspecting strangers have sex.

Telephone Scatologia - involves people who are sexually aroused by making obscene phone calls.

Necrophilia - involves people who are sexually attracted to corpses.

Partialism - involves people who are sexually attracted to exclusively one part of the body.

Zoophilia - involves people who are sexually attracted to animals.

Coprophilia - involves people who are sexually aroused by feces.

Klismaphilia - involves people who are sexually aroused by enemas.

Urophilia - involves people who are sexually aroused by urine.

<hr>

As said in the above text, Tiassa, you cannot support the gay cause without also endorsing all of the other perversions that linger in the closet. They too could just as easily be classified as "Sexual Orientations" Tell me...please tell me that you would not fight so fervently for these perverts and their "Sexual Orientations"?

It is a slippery slope which ends only when we hit bottom. I refuse to allow my children on that slope.

------------------
It's all very large.

Bowser

10-11-00, 04:33 AM

Another link or two for you.
http://www.americansfortruth.com/
http://www.americansfortruth.com/pressroom.html

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

10-11-00, 03:07 PM

Bowser--

And then ask them if they have any reason to worry about homosexuals, except for the fact that someone's asking. Those answers should be very, very interesting, eh?

I know that heterosexuals are the majority, but I won't make any apologies for this fact.

I have no idea what you would be expected to apologize for.

We have been too sympathetic towards the gay community.

Like Reagan's sympathy when he let AIDS burn through America like wildfire because he thought it was a "gay measles" and the effects of their own sin?

Or is that the sympathy of the Inquisitors? That they're sorry it hurts to burn you at the stake, but they're saving your soul so you should be thankful?

Let's focus our attention on the pervertion. Honestly, do we really believe that anal intercourse between men is anything but abnormal? What of two woman?

Yes, let's. As soon as you find some perversion, let me know so I can stop yawning.

Anal intercourse between men? Aesthetically, I don't find it beautiful, but aesthetics don't show spirit. And if two spirits are in harmony ... you're right. In this modern, forced version of normalcy, two spirits in true harmony would be abnormal. But otherwise, no.

Between women? Maybe I'm an utter chauvanist, but I generally think lesbianism is psychologically healthier than indentured heterosexuality. To be a little more mainstream about it, it's only abnormal if you have a preconceived reason for it to be abnormal. Thus far, no homophobe or even mere "don't think it should be forced on me" person has ever given me a reason to describe homosexuality as abnormal that didn't A) owe itself to a religiously-inspired bigotry, or B) bear serious ramifications for the organization of society when applied appropriately across the social spectrum (meaning you can't be arbitrary with your contrived morality).

Men and boys? Woman and girls?

I would say this is no more normal or appropriate than heterosexually abusing children. What's the matter, did you forget that many, many Daddies like their Li'l Princesses? Or are those just closeted homosexual men abusing their daughters in order to exact revenge on their mothers? :rolleyes:

I'd say the above-quoted point is only relevant if you approve of heterosexual adult-child sexual relationships.

It's abnormal as defined by natural law. Only fools would believe the opposite.

Then paint me pink and call me a foolish wedge of neon cheese.

See, here's the thing ... It's abnormal as defined by human institutional conceptions of natural law; that is, it is abnormal as defined by the artificial construction of natural law.

Natural law doesn't care about people.

Homosexuality occurs in nature, period. That pretty much covers "natural" law.

Now, as to your list ....

You're equating homosexuality to something two heterosexual people can do? At this point, I think it's a matter of sanitary considerations, effort, and taste. Sure, coprophilia and urophilia seem creepy, but it's not like they're coming to work with little bits of shite in their hair or under their nails. As far as I'm concerned, let them. It only becomes important to me when I have an offer to participate.

As far as equating homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality ... It's really a lot simpler than you seem to want to let it be. Two homosexual adults consent to take pleasure in each other's bodies. What your problem with that is, I can't figure out.

But having sex with children is not generally regarded as a consent issue. Having sex with animals most definitely isn't.

Frotteurism? Okay, you're reaching on that one, mostly because I'm well aware that most male humans have a thing about that ... we know well we're not supposed to, but it doesn't mean we don't. Ask any woman who goes to a rock concert, a dance club, and so forth. Quite frankly, it would be reassuring to my self image if just once a homosexual male would grab my ass. I mean, sure, I was about 13 when I went through that phase, but should I let that reflect on my assessment of the maturity of a woman who walks up to me and sticks her hands inside my clothes at a Screaming Trees show? (No ... if I'm, well, me, I figure she's having a nice ride on the Ecstasy and I can either pursue this from a perspective of advantage, or just enjoy the fact I'm getting attention. Really, it's all in what you choose to put into it and take from it.)

So I'm having sex with a corpse ... establish, please that there are two perverts involved. See, necrophilia ... really, I would love to see someone obtain consent there. :p

As said in the above text, Tiassa, you cannot support the gay cause without also endorsing all of the other perversions that linger in the closet.

The ones that are consensual, I generally don't have much of a problem with. Crowley's maxim Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law accounts exactly for these ideas. Just because I can do many of those things on the list you've made does not mean that I must. You're sounding more and more like Phillip Ramsdell, who once wrote a voters pamphlet article describing the details of homosexual function so that he could complain in an editorial that the good heterosexuals had to know the intimate details of gay sex.

You've succeeded in one thing, though. You've let us know what you don't think people should be allowed to do while being allowed to participate in society. That's a big list, especially of the consensual acts and kinks that two adults can willingly share.

It is a slippery slope which ends only when we hit bottom. I refuse to allow my children on that slope.

You and your slope .... :rolleyes:

Your children will ski where they want to. It's up to you to make it cost them their family.

I'll check out your Ejaculation Test links later. ;)

You know, it might be that if your kids do get around to buggery, they might surprise you by thinking they're the first to ever figure this out. After all, if you have your way, they'd never know homosexuality exists in the Universe. They'd never know that nature already got around to creating it.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser

10-12-00, 06:16 AM

I have no idea what you would be expected to apologize for.

A natural reaction to perversion. The voice inside most of us that says, "Hey...that isn't right!"

Like Reagan's sympathy when he let AIDS burn through America like wildfire because he thought it was a "gay measles" and the effects of their own sin?

Or is that the sympathy of the Inquisitors? That they're sorry it hurts to burn you at the stake, but they're saving your soul so you should be thankful?

No, more like swallowing our disgust while perversion slaps us in the face then parades in our streets. Now it knocks on the classroom door.

"Yes, let's. As soon as you find some perversion, let me know so I can stop yawning."

Don't open your mouth too wide. Someone might take that as an invitation. Ah...but that wouldn't be a problem because perverts are the real victims in our society. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon11.gif">

Anal intercourse between men? Aesthetically, I don't find it beautiful, but aesthetics don't show spirit. And if two spirits are in harmony ... you're right. In this modern, forced version of normalcy, two spirits in true harmony would be abnormal. But otherwise, no."

Yow! Harmony can be found through same gender sexual relations! What kind of farce is that? Let's think about this for a moment. You're telling me that two men assuming sexual roles in a relationship which are, normally, those of a man and a woman is somehow a harmonious relationship? How the hell could you justify this harmony even in spirit. It's doomed to be a failure from the start.

<hr>Men and boys? Woman and girls? </hr>

"I'd say the above-quoted point is only relevant if you approve of heterosexual adult-child sexual relationships.

It's relevant if you are a champion for the cause of sexual perversion. What of all the other perverts? If we are to allow homosexuality to hide behind a veil of words such as "sexual orientation" or "lifestyle," why then should we not allow those other minorities to do the same?

"See, here's the thing ... It's abnormal as defined by human institutional conceptions of natural law; that is, it is abnormal as defined by the artificial construction of natural law"

Artificial constructs of natural law...what, are you blind? Okay, let's consider what is normal for homosexuality. The following information I gained through a link supplied by you. It really has hardend my position on this issue.

<hr>
One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978).

One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

50% of male syphilis is carried by homosexuals as a rectal infection and can enter through the urethra of another homosexual during anal sex (Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE).

Around 67-80% of homosexuals lick and/or insert their tongues into the anuses of their partners (called "rimming", anilingus, fecal sex, etc.) and ingest biologically significant amounts of feces (Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.), which is the chief cause of hepatitis and parasitic infections among homosexuals (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.).This practice is called the "prime taste treat in sex" in the bestseller The Joy of Gay Sex.

78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53).

12% of homosexuals give/receive enemas as part of sexual pleasure (Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.).

In one study, the average homosexual fellated somewhere between 20 and 106 men, swallowed 50 seminal discharges, had 72 penile penetrations of the anus, and ingested feces of 23 different men EVERY YEAR (Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.).

33% of homosexuals admit to fisting (inserting the hand, sometimes part of the arm, into the rectum of his partner) (Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.).

Urinating on each other ("golden showers") and torture has doubled among homosexuals since the 1940s, and fisting has increased astronomically (Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.).

Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior" (MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco." Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.).

Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States ("Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet, April 25, 1987.). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.).

Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
).

In large cities, hospitals are often called on to remove objects from the rectums of homosexuals. Sometimes, the homosexuals do so much damage that they have to wear colostomy bags for the rest of their lives (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
).

41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
).

The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
).

The median age of death of homosexual woman is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
).

50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (Newsweek, 4 October 1993.).

There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE." This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.).

Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" (San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992.).

<hr>

Yes, there is something to be said for homosexuality. Our schools should be teaching the dangers of homosexuality. I am truly pro-education.

"You've succeeded in one thing, though. You've let us know what you don't think people should be allowed to do while being allowed to participate in society. That's a big list, especially of the consensual acts and kinks that two adults can willingly share."

I think there are limitations to what I want exposed to the public view. I really don't want to be involved with perversion on the street. It doesn't need to be there, and it only brings attention to itself when doing so. As for what people do in their homes and behind closed doors, that really is their affair within reason. It seems that people are not satisfied with that liberty, and maybe their perversions cause them to force us into a position where we have had enough of their sexual orientation. The gay community really is begging for a public spanking, but does this surprise us.

"Your children will ski where they want to. It's up to you to make it cost them their family."

I hope that they choose better than what some would teach them as being an "alternative."

"You know, it might be that if your kids do get around to buggery, they might surprise you by thinking they're the first to ever figure this out. After all, if you have your way, they'd never know homosexuality exists in the Universe. They'd never know that nature already got around to creating it."

Well, we need to educate them so that they understand the difference between ignorance and perversion.

<hr><blink>Vote Yes on Measure 9</blink>
Our Children
Our Schools
Our Vote<hr>

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

10-12-00, 03:19 PM

Yes on 9? I think I hear Phillip Ramsdell!

Yes on Nine, my right eye. ;)
http://www.eserver.org/cultronix/Kent/default.html

Measure 9 is overtly contradictory regarding the public visibility of gays and lesbians. In sections (1) and (2), the amendment provides that the state "shall not recognize any categorical provision such as 'sexual orientation,' 'sexual preference,' and similar phrases that includes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism" and that state monies shall not be used, directly or indirectly, to "promote, encourage, or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism." Simultaneously, and in identical language, section (3) requires that the state "recognize homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse." Thus, within the text of the measure (and under the force of the proposed law) homosexuality is both denied and affirmed as a meaningful category of persons. The first two sections of the measure want to barricade gays in the closet, erasing visibility and prohibiting self-representation. The third section wants to parade gays and lesbians through the streets, but dressed in the tar and feathers of state-mandated condemnation. The combined effect of the three sections of the measure is to take the power of self-representation away from gays and lesbians and assure that they are known only through the state's condemnation. The measure wants gays and lesbians to be visible, but only on its terms.

I mean, why, oh why, are you dragging Nine Itself out of the Closet of Evil History? Are you trying to demonstrate just how lost a cause Mabon's Menagerie Ministry of the Gospel-According-to-Lon really is?

Here's a quote that should tell you how well Mabon's Menagerie has "protected" children:

In my own experience, I can recall first learning the term "gay" in just such a narrative, during orange juice queen Anita Bryant's 1979 crusade against homosexual teachers. (Le'a Kent)

And I liked this one a whole lot:

Simon Watney discerns the paranoid point of truth behind the fear of homosexual contamination--the gay man, he says, really is a threat to the artificial rigidity of gender identity:

Above all, homosexuality problematises the casual identification of primary power with the figure of the biological male as masterful penetrator. It equally problematises the parallel identification of powerlessness and passivity with the figure of the biological female as submissive and penetrated. For the gay man is truly polymorphous: he may f--k and be f--ked...

(I have done the profanity censoring and accenting above.)

The OCA's list of "homosexual practices" is probably the only place or way many Oregonians would ever have learned this particular definition of "water sports," or, indeed, any of the listed practices. This will become important in some of the Arguments in Opposition, which object to Measure 9 precisely on the grounds that it could mandate the description of these sexual practices in the schools in order to educate against them. In the OCA's enumeration of practices and diseases, disease is framed as a crossing of boundaries, or as the inevitable result of a crossing of boundaries, in discourse that echoes early AIDS reports implying that homosexuality somehow "caused" AIDS. Significant among the borders violated in the OCA's list is the border between public and private sex. OCA rhetoric constructs homosexuality itself as a contagion, and reinforces this semiotic slide through the assertion that homosexuals, in addition to being a contagion, carry contagion. When uncloseted, homosexuality spreads (like) disease.

(I have accented the above. I have added no parenthetical notes, however, to the text excerpt.)

At any rate, there's a big paper about Measure Nine, at the above address. It's what I've been quoting from.

But, come on ... you're using in defense of your ill feelings toward homosexuality a ballot measure that asked the constituency to fire every gay state employee, from the colleges down to the typing pool? That asked the constituency to legalize the beating of gays in the street? (Unable to discern that homosexuality is anything but detrimental, the courts would be obliged to allow the "good" citizens to aggressively "protect" themselves; the offense of the homosexual that would allow such aggressive protection would simply be, by legal definition, their presence within Oregon.)

Or are you coming around to the Temple of Ramsdell? What I fail to understand is how one person's decision to not like something becomes their solemn right to tell other people how to behave. Now if it's bossing you around too much to demand that you regard a homosexual human being as a human being, then I suppose this country just ain't free enough yet. I mean, what's wrong with the US of A? Hmmm? We're tyrants because we won't let you be a tyrant?

Oh, Wah! :rolleyes:

Measure Nine impacted people's lives severely. I feel fairly confident in the declaration that Had Lon Mabon not asked the state of Oregon to Constitutionalize hatred, Brian Moch and Hattie Cohen would still be alive.

This started over a library book, you know ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 12, 2000).]

Tiassa

10-12-00, 06:08 PM

I just had a scary moment. I had left work to go grab some lunch, and was returning to my office when two women passed me. One was slightly overweight, the other grossly. Said the Gross to the Slight, "Hey, look, there's a McDonald's bag. Let's just grab his."

And sure, we all laughed, but you do what you have to in those scary times. You gotta do what you can to protect yourself and your property.

I shouldn't be subject to that kind of threatening harassment at the hands of fat people who just want to steal my food, and the food of my children.

Chris Cornell sang, I don't mind stealing bread from the mouths of decadence; but I can't feed on the powerless when my cup's already overfilled.

When I think of the costs of obesity .... Businesses have to order special chairs to accommodate the overweight; and I'm endangered by the mere presence of a fatty if I'm on an airplane--I might not be able to get by, around, over, or through them to escape from the sinking or burning wreckage. Have you ever been trapped in an elevator with a smelly fatty? Ugh!

And the obese people in America: how many starving Africans would the "extra" food required by fatties for mere sustenance feed?

Anywhere there's a publicly-financed health plan, I'm paying for the fatties' irresponsibility. Should I have to pay for your bypass surgery, when all you had to do was lay off the Twinkies and leave my Quarter Pounder alone! :mad:

And I want my children to be healthy, damnit! I don't want them growing up thinking it's "okay" to be stinky and grossly overweight. I want them to know that it's immoral, and socially detrimental to be fat. I think they need to be taught at school that fat people are immoral. In fact, it's my right to demand that my kids be protected from fatties trying to stuff sugary, lardy treats down their snackholes.

Think about it, people! The fatties are trying to steal your children, to lure them away with sinister promises of nacho cheese and deep-fried delicacies.

And all the while trying to sell you the lemon-idea that obesity is a "disease". Hey, fatty! Try choosing not to be sick! That food is an "addiction"? Fine ... hey, it's just a matter of not eating, you know? I'd say, Just quit cold turkey, but you know those fatties, they can't see a pun without thinking of a pat of butter and a gravy boat.

And it's leading to a moral breakdown in society. The words of the Lord are being slowly eaten away by the army of gluttonous devils creeping across the land to take your children away! Is not gluttony a deadly sin? Yet the fatties work hard to convince people that they, the fat sinners, are the victims. Can you believe that? Soon enough, the fatties will have your kids sustaining their food habit by prostitution(*), or dealing Ho-Ho's on the black market.

Thus I propose a law. No more coddling. No special rights for this gluttonous army coming to rape your refrigerator and brainwash your kids into believing it's okay to be fat.

It should be illegal for the government to encourage, endorse, or promote obesity.

After all, if we keep allowing people to glorify the gaining of weight ... are they not simply delivering your children into the fatty's sticky, dirty hands?

No more state funding for workplace accommodations. Hey, if you're too fat for the stairs, get a job on the first floor. Leave the handicapped elevator for the people who need and deserve it. Special chairs ... workstation redesigns ... I'm tired, as a consumer, of having fatties pushing up the overhead with their special demands.

When our classrooms are protected from fat teachers, when our libraries are protected from pro-fatty literature, when our police no longer have to waste their time persecuting people for not liking fatties, then we will finally live in a free society. We will finally be able to raise our children without fear of the spectral fatties, reaching and clutching and stuffing and gorging on your children.

We shall call it the Child Protection Act of 2000.
____________________________

Note:

* Prostitution: In Germany, a restaurant has opened which serves sushi, several varieties, to be consumed off the body of a naked woman. Yes, they put the tuna where you think they would. Such debauchery can only come from the twisted minds of fatties!
____________________________

This is an outre ... yadda ad nauseam. I wouldn't actually bother with such a disclaimer, but history demonstrates that one cannot guard against conservative literalism too strongly. And y'all can put that in the bloody Congressional freakin' Record! :D

thank you,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited October 12, 2000).]

Bowser

10-14-00, 05:06 AM

Interesting, I'm sure.

I've been checking many of those gay-activist sites--they do have some very good ideas on gathering support for a cause...very imaginitive people. Those thoughts about feeding ideas to the young...that does sound like a good way to make a change in our society. I really do like that one. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

I'm busy so forgive me if I neglect the topics over the next 30 days or so.

Take care

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

10-14-00, 07:25 PM

Yow! Harmony can be found through same gender sexual relations! What kind of farce is that? Let's think about this for a moment. You're telling me that two men assuming sexual roles in a relationship which are, normally, those of a man and a woman is somehow a harmonious relationship? How the hell could you justify this harmony even in spirit. It's doomed to be a failure from the start.

Yes, Bowser, it can.

It's not a farce. This harmony allows human beings to choose and know what their spirit considers harmonious. If a spirit cannot sing, it cannot be part of the harmony. Yet we live in a society which would order spirits not to sing sheerly out of bigoted jealousy. I think I'm safe in saying that you probably aren't the type experimental enough to see how your spirit reacts to a good, long, homosexual lay. On that grounds, I know I'm safe in saying that you, then, have no idea that such a harmony exists. As such, it would seem that you have no way of understanding that a spiritual harmony can exist between two men.

Does God exist in the Universe, or is what we see all that's there? Why, then, do I find a book purporting to know God and ordering me to obey, in every motel room I've ever seen? I've never seen that God. Should I simply assume he doesn't exist and the followers of this "God" are as stupid as the conditions would then assert? I would have to deny the whole of human spirit in order to get away with that. And you must deny the whole of human spirit in order to write new confines for what is spiritually allowable.

I would say "because it feels good", or "because it makes me happy" are better reasons for being homosexual than "Because God says so," or, "Because Lon (or Bowser) say so," is a reason for not being a homosexual.

Thus I would say, "Good luck" in your explorations. I hope they bring you some comfort which you have not yet attained. In the meantime, take good care of the kids: watch out both for Twinks and Twinkies. (And Ho-Ho's, delights named Alfredo, and other perverted stuff.)

We'll see you when you're ready ... ;)

take it easy,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Tiassa

11-06-00, 09:46 PM

To Oregon Voters:

Tomorrow, November 7, 2000, you are asked to make a choice. You are asked to legalize discrimination and to move Oregon into a legislative class by itself among the many states.

In 1992, the People of Oregon rejected the OCA.

In 1994, the People of Oregon rejected the OCA.

Across the state, for several years, communities fought hard to resolve the divisive issues created by the Oregon Citizens' Alliance in its quest to purge the state of homosexuals.

For those who have stood against the OCA's proposed tyrranies, the world at large can only thank you.

For those whose lives these measures have stolen, I, at least, still remember you. Brian Moch and Hattie Cohen did not need to die, and had Oregon not been embroiled in Measure 9, they may not have been murdered by a firebomb.

Now, Lon Mabon says he will protect your "children" by censoring the libraries of the Universities, and writing their curriculum. Think about it ... any Oregon Health Sciences University graduate entering the medical industry could do so believing, like Ronald Reagan and many others, that AIDS is God's punishment for the homosexuals.

Lon Mabon has asked you to fire your schoolteachers, and to censor your school libraries, textbooks, and internet resources. The OCA and its supporters have asked you to look among your neighbors and have moral difficulty where you never have before. They ask you to join them in fear, though what they fear is demonstrating a legitimate cause for their concern, for it cannot be done.

The OCA is asking that you gag your school counselors, restrict their options and order them to condemn young people for asking certain questions.

Oscar Wilde and Truman Capote are the first to jump to mind; books will be removed from school curricula and libraries. Will your high school band be allowed to play YMCA at halftime? Here's a counterpoint: they would still be allowed to play Gary Glitter's stadium rally song (I forget the title; just say, Da-dada-dada-da, Hey! dada-dada, and you'll be close) even though he's a convicted child molester. What, exactly, is Mr Mabon and his cadre trying to achieve?

There's over 80 printed pages in this thread arguing the latest Mabon Frankenstein, last I checked, spread across the several html pages. If you've the time to take a sampling of our debates, please do so.

I lived in Oregon for several years; I never realized how much a part of my existence the OCA was until I got somewhere else, and enjoyed an election season without having to deal with them.

It is, therefore, my sincerest hopes that Oregon will reject Lon Mabon and the OCA, and reject their latest attempt to legislate their religiously-prescribed opinions as fact in your lives.

Please say No to discrimination.

Please say No to censorship.

Please say No to the OCA.

It's your state. It's your life. Don't let the OCA make it theirs.

thank you,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Shadowflame

11-09-00, 09:04 PM

I've been following this thread for a while, but haven't responded. Tiassa, one question, (I haven't looked into it), who won?

------------------
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music---George Carlin

Tiassa

11-09-00, 09:15 PM

According to CNN.com, it's still too narrow to call. As of 17:51 Eastern time today (11/9), the count favored the "No" vote by a 51/49 margin. The official vote difference is about 11,400 out of 1,175,000 or so counted.

The state-level measures the OCA sponsors usually turn on a couple of points; if I recall, 1992 (the original Measure 9) saw a 52/48 split at the same time that Colorado passed Amendment 2, developed by Colorado for Family Values, which involves the Promise Keepers, somehow. (McCarty? McCarthy?)

I'll stop before I begin grandiose editorializations. (I'll wait until it's a declared race to break out the soapbox.) ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser

11-11-00, 03:51 AM

Well, Tiassa, I think it's safe to say that M9 has failed to pass the Oregon vote... again. We will try again later--maybe place two on the next ballot. Let's now focus on this Bush-Gore fight. It really has overshadowed the Measure 9 issue and is much more interesting.

We are living in an exciting time. <img src ="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

11-13-00, 02:26 PM

Honestly? Go right ahead and put two measures on the ballot. I should warn you, though, that historically, Oregon voters choose one or the other, thus splitting the vote.

I think it was 1996 when two virtually but not quite identical measures made the ballot regarding pornography, child pornography, and the First Amendment. Either ballot measure, it seemed, would have shored Oregon's definition of obscenity up with the Supreme Court standard (though I have no idea what the difference is/was), but Oregon conservatives voted for one or the other, while Oregon liberals voted against both. On an essentially split ticket, I recall that both anti-obscenity measures failed. Let me simply advise that part of the problem there was a marketing issue; I'm not sure the ballots' sponsors had reliable statistics, and may have written two measures to accomodate a faux-schizophrenia. On the other hand, I can see people generally being unwilling to tinker with the First Amendment at a state ballot box; it almost makes sense that way, too.

But it's been an incredibly close election; again, I would assert that Mabon keeps rescaling the scope of his measures in an attempt to woo that last 2% of the electorate that just doesn't seem to want to be fooled. But I offer my applause to Oregonians; I think it's right to put such a measure down. One decade down; how many does Mabon have left in him? ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser

11-13-00, 08:18 PM

Thanks for the advice. That is something to consider. It is time for a new approach. Also, I should note that the opponents to this measure spent about $7.00 for every $1.00 spent by the OCA. It looks like votes can be purchased.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

11-13-00, 09:26 PM

Bowser--

It looks like votes can be purchased.

Tell that to Huffington. Tell that to Perot. At least, in the sense you're using. ;)

On the other hand, does that mean that Coca-Cola is "buying" your patronage with those silly Christmastime polar-bear ads?

I think it's fair to say that money is more important a resource than creativity. On the other hand, it helps if one can be creative; I don't think Measure 9 permitted it. It had a clear point: cause the schools to assert opinion as fact. It had a clear source: the Bible. It had a clear cause: this is (the Christian) God's will. The point, the source, and the cause are all pretty rigid.

Of course, 7:1 isn't a bad ratio, in my opinion, when you're preserving equality. Any cash price is workable, actually; at least nobody had to die for this one.

Campaign spending isn't purchasing, per se, but I get your point. Purchasing? Would the invention of a trillion-dollar surplus for the candidates to argue over constitute purchasing?

In 1992, out of state concerns (fuel, textile, pharmaceutical) outspent grass-roots to prevent marijuana decriminalization in Oregon. Out of state concerns (railroads, fuel companies) also outspent grass-roots in a fight over the number of trailers attached to your truck in Oregon. The anti-marijuana concerns won; the anti-triples group, as I recall, did not. (Correct me on that last one, as needed.)

I'm just curious what's left to try to score with this measure? The whole state? Nope. The schools? Nope. Hmmm ... where will the constituency allow y'all to discriminate? Looks like it's county-to-county and town-to-town again.

As far as the next ballot is concerned, I'd like to run you through a simple series of idealized steps, just for kicks:

* Mr Jones tells Johnny (age 10) it's OK to be gay, so we fire him. OK, gay advocacy is out.
* Next week, Ms Jackson tells Johnny about watersports and how much fun it is when she and her husband piss on each other. Guess what? You have no law like you do about the gays. OK, pass a law and fire Ms Jackson for watersports talk.
* Week after, Johnny hears about coprophilia from Mr James. New law, OK, fire Mr James.
* Week after, Johnny hears about oral sex from Ms Jolson. New law.
* Week after, Johnny hears about doggie-style. It's just kickin', says Mr Josephson. New law.
* And so forth and so forth until we're down to missionary heterosexual intercourse intended solely for reproduction. New law? Or is it enough that you've finally proscribed speech so much that one can only describe reproductive, missionary heterosexuality to students. Or sex isn't part of schools at all, biology or otherwise.

Why not focus on sexuality in general? Why not address sexual mores as applies to people? Why not order the schools to limit their sex ed to reproductive biology only, and leave it to the parents (even while we bear Lysander Spooner in mind) to raise or screw up their children on that level? In other words, why start with such a broad, exclusionary restriction? Does a prohibition about watersports somehow not apply to both hetero- and homosexual intercourse?

Why make twice the effort to return to Puritanism?

Or is it, simply, that everyone knows that society at large won't stand to be told how to have sex?

I guess I just don't understand what makes one person's opinion the criteria for dividing society.

That, and I don't see how one's sexuality predetermines the quality of employee they will be.

In 1997 or so, the Washington legislature passed a law that allows your employer to lie about you intentionally in a job reference. (There's no ifs, ands, or buts, about it, either.) Why not start with a law like that, except that it allows employers to lie about homosexuals. That way, you can chase them all out of the economy without actually firing them. Why not just write child-stalker laws that make it illegal for a gay man to speak to a child?

I mean, I know Mabon's not out to burn the gays in concentration camps--it costs too much and it's bad PR--but his solutions lead us no closer to resolving moral crises in our society. In fact, I think Mabon's ilk inflame our troubles.

Honestly? I'd say "Good luck" to your future ballot endeavors, as such, but I think you know what I mean. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser

11-14-00, 06:42 AM

<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> LOL! Hey, I missed this stuff while I was away.

A message can be placed in the faces of a great many people if you have the money to purchase the resources. Considering the amount of support which Measure 9 rallied by simply being on the ballot, I imagine that a little advertising for that measure would have gathered the winning votes. You tell me if 1.5 million can't influence the opinions of people.

Another thing that bothered me about the opponents' campaign against Measure 9 was their message on TV which asserted that, if M9 passed, there would be no AIDS education in our public schools. Do you believe that?

I disagree with you about your assumption that Measure 9 would have forced the schools to encourage an opinion other than an objective observation. The measure would have prevented the schools from promoting, encouraging, or sanctioning homosexuality. For certain, it would have prevented our schools from promoting a subjective opinion that homoseuality is good. Also, the evidence of religious restrictions which so many opponents claimed to be "clear" could not be found in the text of the Measure itself. I understand your point about its source, but that wasn't reflected in the measure itself.

<hr>
"I'm just curious what's left to try to score with this measure? The whole state? Nope. The schools? Nope. Hmmm ... where will the constituency allow y'all to discriminate? Looks like it's county-to-county and town-to-town again."
<hr>

Well, I believe that this last measure needs to be reworded. There were some problems which need to be fixed. Untill it reaches the ballot, it will be an ongoing public campaign.

<hr>
"Why not focus on sexuality in general? Why not address sexual mores as applies to people? Why not order the schools to limit their sex ed to reproductive biology only, and leave it to the parents (even while we bear Lysander Spooner in mind) to raise or screw up their children on that level? In other words, why start with such a broad, exclusionary restriction? Does a prohibition about watersports somehow not apply to both hetero- and homosexual intercourse?"
<hr>

And that just might pass with a majority vote, Tiassa. Why can't we teach the human reproductive cycle whithout going into the depths of sexual perversion?

I believe that homosexuals are noticed here because their sexuality has become a public issue. Honestly, does it belong in our school curriculum? Can we talk about homosexuality without promoting it?

<hr>
"I guess I just don't understand what makes one person's opinion the criteria for dividing society."
<hr>

I agree with the above statement, but I see it from the other point of view.

<hr>
"That, and I don't see how one's sexuality predetermines the quality of employee they will be."
<hr>

It shouldn't, but how much of ourselves should we share? Do you smoke pot with your coworkers during your breaks? Should a dope smoking teacher share the mechanics of a bong with his students.

Look, it's about sexual preference and personal values. I think the point that is being driven home is that half of Oregon doesn't like homosexual behavior. The truth of this is evident when you recognize that they voted for Measure 9 without the encouragment of a well-funded campaign.

It will hit the next ballot, but not as we have seen in the past.

------------------
It's all very large.

Tiassa

11-14-00, 04:17 PM

Bowser--

Another thing that bothered me about the opponents' campaign against Measure 9 was their message on TV which asserted that, if M9 passed, there would be no AIDS education in our public schools. Do you believe that?

I think it's that just about anyone can make the connections to crystallize the argument about AIDS education. That's the point, that no sharp-talking lawyer is required to show this allegedly logical progression. Suffice to say that any proper HIV and AIDS education involves sensitivity to homosexuality. Rather, we could choose to leave the 1980's out of AIDS-related education, and skip the whole debacle when Reagan believed--Africa notwithstanding--that AIDS was God's punishment for homosexuality, but I think the history of how to create an epidemic is important to teach people.

I think the social history of AIDS will have to discuss, in addition to the demonization of Ryan White, and the terrorization of AIDS patients in the 80's will eventually spill over into homosexuality. Fear of HIV fueled much homophobia in the 1980's.

Yes, I think Measure 9 of 2000 would definitely hinder an AIDS education. Prevent it? Only in smaller districts without the resources to work around such silly restrictions.

Well, I believe that this last measure needs to be reworded. There were some problems which need to be fixed. Untill it reaches the ballot, it will be an ongoing public campaign.

How many times should Mr Mabon re-write his measure? How many times should it be rejected before the OCA realizes they're just wrong?

I believe that homosexuals are noticed here because their sexuality has become a public issue. Honestly, does it belong in our school curriculum? Can we talk about homosexuality without promoting it?

* Homosexuality is only a pubic issue because people have, for so long, chosen to perceive gays as "others". Just like the Castro, just like today--when gay people asks people to treat them equally, they mean it. That they're gay should not be the first and only reason to deny them. That heterosexual moralists have made this their cause is the choice of heterosexual moralists. But as long as homosexuals are marginalized, they will ask to be included in society and treated equally. It does not seem, though, as if the heterosexual moralists are asking the gays to apologize for being gay; apparently, such is unforgivable to the point of legislation. It does, however, seem that heterosexual moralists are asking gays to apologize because the heterosexual moralists are homophobic.

It shouldn't, but how much of ourselves should we share? Do you smoke pot with your coworkers during your breaks? Should a dope smoking teacher share the mechanics of a bong with his students.

* As much as we're comfortable with.
* No, I don't. But neither are the teachers having gay sex with their students, or have you forgotten to mention the lunchtime bathhouses in the high-school gymnasia?
* Mechanics of a bong? Depends. I think the Drug War's bogus, and that marijuana is a victim of massive disinformation. Presently, the answer is no. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be a question merely because, well ... would you let the kids build a still? But only because they're minors, and that's a fair line to draw in a legalized drug world.

Look, it's about sexual preference and personal values. I think the point that is being driven home is that half of Oregon doesn't like homosexual behavior. The truth of this is evident when you recognize that they voted for Measure 9 without the encouragment of a well-funded campaign.

How many campaigns has Mabon failed to win?

You're right, though, it's about sexual preference and personal values. As in yours for you, mine for me, and Johnny Flamer's for Johnny Flamer. We have decency standards, period. I don't see how homosexuality isn't included in sexual decency standards. Indecent liberties are indecent liberties. Sexual communication is sexual communication. Why do you insist on categorizing people even further based on your own personal values? And only so you can prohibit and restrict that category you invent?

One of the pains a leftist such as myself generally endures is the smarmy taunt of Capitalism. However, in this case, such a taunt comes to my aid. For it is not my fault that Mabon and Company can't raise money. This is America, the OCA just apparently need to spend more. Or, I could simply say that people are a lot more willing to donate money in defense of liberty. It's one of the problems of being the persecutor; your allies know that they could become your targets.

The fact is that Mabon's campaigns are born to lose. No amount of rewriting will change that fact. Mabon's campaigns are wrong. No amount of money will change that fact.

Personal anecdote: When I was 11 I was playing dodgeball and got knocked senseless. A classmate dragged me off the floor in a quasi-heroic moment (you had to be 11 and there, y'know?) Anyway, he and I might have become friends, except you could see his regard for me change, a shift in his very expression when someone mentioned that I have Asian descent; strangely, I was conditioned to the idea that it showed nakedly on my face, but whaddaya gonna do? From that change of facial expression forward--literally, the day after dodgeball--he was a violent assailant whose deeds would, in the later 1990's, have scored big points with the hate-crime folks. After all, he thought I was cool until he learned I was slightly not white.

Personal anecdote, likewise: A guy wanted to beat me up because he thought I was sleeping with his girlfriend. It hadn't happened, and wasn't. But he was one of those--seemingly very typical--types that couldn't understand how two people of opposing genders could associate so frequently without a business pretense without having sex. So she told him I was her gay shopping buddy. Nice move, dear, for he has thereafter held the sentiment that he needs to kick my ass because I'm gay.

In either case, what is the difference in who or what I am before and after the other person's perception of otherness? My friend's boyfriend is no longer her boyfriend, but that's what happens when you have the mentality of an 11 year-old, eh?

I'll give you a hint: the only difference between before and after when I was 11 and it was ethnicity was the opinion of the guy who didn't like me. The only difference when I was 23 and it was homosexuality was that the guy had a new reason to dislike me, despite the fact that he neither had one to begin with, nor needed one except to fulfill his own craven psychological needs. In other words, the difference was with the other people. The only difference about me is that I have one more person disliking me for ethnic reasons, and one more person disliking me because he thinks I'm gay.

Mr Jones the teacher is gay. The only difference to consider about his quality of life as a teacher and a human being is your knowledge that he is gay. Before you knew, he was a fine teacher. Now that you know? Well, apparently, he's unqualified to teach because you've decided he wants to rape your son? How do you know he's gay? Does it matter? If he stands up on Coming Out Day and announces himself at a rally, it gives you no right to discriminate. If it comes up because kids are egging his car or tagging his house, you have no right to discriminate. If it comes up because he's inappropriate to a child, it matters not whether he's homosexual or heterosexual in his advance.

You're just looking for one more thing to hold against people. Why?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot

Bowser

11-18-00, 02:05 PM

Uh, oh...

MAYOR VERA KATZ, COMMISSIONER DAN SALTZMAN PROPOSE ADDING PROTECTIONS FOR GENDER IDENTITY INTO CITY CIVIL RIGHTS ORDINANCE

Katz Asks Police Bureau to Collect Data on Hate Crimes

Relating to Age, Disability, and Gender Identity

PORTLAND -- Mayor Vera Katz and Commissioner Dan Saltzman are seeking feedback on their proposal to add protection against discrimination on the basis of gender identity into the City�s civil rights ordinance.

"Civil rights laws are about protecting the vulnerable -- that�s why we added source of income, gays and lesbians, and other minority groups in the past," said Katz. "The transgendered community is probably the most misunderstood group in the community and currently endures direct discrimination, harassment, and sometimes violent abuse, unprotected by state or federal civil rights laws. It is time for the City to do the right thing and work to protect them as much as possible." Many other cities around the country have established protections for transgendered people in the last decade.

The City�s Civil Rights Ordinance currently prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and source of income, in addition to standard state and federal protections against discrimination for race, religion, color, sex, marital status, familial status, national origin, age, mental, or physical disability. Katz and Saltzman propose adding "gender identity" as a protected class. Gender identity is defined as a person�s actual or perceived sex, including a person�s identity, appearance or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person�s sex at birth.

"Nothing could be more important than ensuring the basic civil rights of all citizens," said Commissioner Dan Saltzman. "This action by City Council will clarify the basic and fundamental guarantee of civil rights to every Portland citizen."

Katz and Saltzman will forward their proposed ordinance to City Council for a formal hearing December 13, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. in City Hall�s Council Chambers. Details on the proposed code changes can be found on the Mayor�s website at http://www.ci.portland.or.us/mayor. There is also a link to a page for people to provide feedback, in which people are asked to include "transgender civil rights" as the subject line. The proposed ordinance will also be available on the site early next week.

"Transsexual and transgendered people have long sought a recognition of their human rights and a place of dignity and safety in this society," said Lori Buckwalter, Executive Director of IT�S TIME OREGON! and gender rights advocate. "By this act, the City of Portland affirms its commitment to their aspirations and to the fullest diversity of all its citizens."

The proposed ordinance provides guidance on how the new ordinance would work in the context of employment and in the use of facilities such as bathrooms and locker rooms, because these situations typically create the biggest initial questions where gender identity becomes protected under a City law.

For instance, the ordinance sets appropriate standards which respect privacy interests for all in the use of gender-specific facilities such as locker rooms. The ordinance also requires reasonable accommodations to be made for people in the use of bathrooms and locker rooms in the process of gender transition. Research from other cities what have enacted similar laws shows that this can be accomplished through unisex bathrooms which are increasingly common due to ADA requirements, or by having an available "in use" sign.

Under the draft code changes, employers may enact and enforce workplace dress appropriate to a person�s consistently expressed gender. There are also exceptions for religious facilities, and owner-occupied rental housing, and competitive sports.

The implementing ordinance will also direct the Portland Police Bureau to develop procedures which will allow the bureau to collect hate crimes information relating to disability, age, and gender identity. Oregon State criminal intimidation statutes do not cover these groups, yet anecdotal information locally and some national studies show such hate crimes activities do occur.

"I want our Police Bureau to go beyond state law requirements and track crimes committed against all of those who are vulnerable to hate crimes in our city," said Mayor Katz. "If we show a pattern of criminal activity against those groups, that data will be ammunition for them to gain protections at a state level as they deserve."

Katz and the City Attorney�s Office began working on the "gender identity" addition several years ago, but questions about whether transgendered people were already covered under "sexual orientation" and legal challenges to the city�s civil rights ordinance as a whole, stalled the changes. Additionally, over the past year, the City has in essence run a pilot program of its own, through affirmative action, to ensure the City itself delivered equal treatment for transgendered people.

Minneapolis, MN was the first city in the U.S. to include transgendered people in their human rights laws in 1975. Since then many other cities around the have followed suit, including: Atlanta, GA; Ann Arbor, MI; Louisville, KY; Tucson, AZ; New Orleans, LA; Pittsburgh, PA; Iowa City, IA; Cambridge, MA; Toledo, OH; Evanston, IL; and Seattle, WA. Here in Oregon, Benton County already includes protection for transgender people.

The Metropolitan Human Rights Center (MHRC) has already begun soliciting feedback from the transgendered community and is working to facilitate testimony for those who may not feel comfortable doing so in public. To make arrangements for testimony, individuals can call MHRC Executive Director Amalia Alarcon-Gaddie at 503-823-5136.

[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited November 18, 2000).]