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. 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
Bowser, Ahhh...I too forgot to say hello...hey, Bowser.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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? 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
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).]
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. 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ 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).]
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).]
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: I'll even skip the equating of education and indoctrination. I'll skip the "further[ing] the homosexual agenda." And I'll skip the "much-needed accountability", as well. Because when I look down at the ballot text: 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: 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
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.
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).]
Bowser, 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. 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. 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).]
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
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.
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
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.
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.
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". 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ 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).]
Bowser, 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? 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". How quickly you forget the facts that were shown to you, by Boris- which were DEFINED BY NATURE. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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. 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. 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. 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
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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).]
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.
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.
Bowser-- If I'm impressed, don't take that sarcastically. Many points to consider ... But I must start, emphatically, with this: 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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 ... 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. 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. 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: Hmmm ... I'm being told what I cannot say. That's honesty? 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? 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. 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. 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. 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ------------------ We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
