Another round in Oregon?

[Tiassa]

So, uh, here we go again.

In many, many posts through Exosci, I refer to a nightmare election season in Oregon, in 1992: Measure Nine.

The Grandson of Nine, has apparently raised its spectral, demonic face.

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. The most naked dangers of this proposal are the ones of which Mabon himself is most proud; in a telephone interview with NWCN, Mabon touted that the new law would protect children from homosexuality by prohibiting school counselors from advising gay-suspect teens from being comfortable with themselves--the counselors could tell them how many gay people AIDS kills a year, but cannot tell them to be comfortable with themselves. The counselors will be obliged to regard and describe homosexual behavior as perverse, dangerous, morally corrupt, and socially detrimental. And that is just for starters.

I forsee problems with textbook content in science and health classes, at the very least, and with frames of reference in history and other social studies' classes. Oscar Wilde? Hey, we read him in Catholic School, but they might not be appropriate for public schools because the author was a gay man who called Lord Alfred "Bossy" (a factoid I never wanted to know, but was presented as a trivia question on Valentine's Day, so I've learned my lesson about drinking in bars in February ....) Truman Capote? Remember that buying or paying license fees for educational films written, produced, or starring homosexuals is paying them, as is using novels, textbooks, or newspapers written, edited, or published by a homosexual. If the kids know the PE teacher's a dyke, do you have to fire her? After all, allowing her to make a living is endorsing her lifestyle. (I can vouch that I would have lost five teachers in junior high school, one of whom is among the most important to me.)

So here we go again. I wish the State of Oregon the best of luck and hope and peace. I lived there from '91 to '96, and never heard the end of this stupid fight. May truth prevail and the OCA be banished back to the willfully hateful shadows they call home.

thanx,
Tiassa

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

 

[Oxygen]

I shudder to think of the way this is going. I am not homosexual, but I'm not Jewish either, and I certainly don't approve of the Nazi's way of handling their problem with Jews. There was this three sentence statement that summed up the Nazi's plan for the Jews in the Reich. If we replace the word "Jews" with "homosexuals", it takes a turn that I never thought I'd see possible in my country:

You may not live among us as homosexuals.
You may not live among us.
You may not live.

To believe that all homosexuals are creepy pedophiles just waiting to sneak our children off into a back room and make them do unspeakable things is as ridiculous as the mindset that pervaded this country all the way up to the mid 20th century (although it's still here, it's not as widespread) that all black men lusted after white women and therefore couldn't be trusted in their company.

 

[Bowser]

Well, that is a shame. But at the very least, we still have a democracy. Let the majority decide the social value of open homosexuality. Worse yet, let us assume responsibility for the lives of our children.

Better to march by choice than for the desires of the few. What's so frightening about a majority vote?

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



[This message has been edited by Bowser (edited August 15, 2000).]

 

[Letticia]

Bowser:

I hate to remind you, but Germany in 1932 WAS a democracy. Majority decided. Smart Jews voted with their feet.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

Better to march by choice than for the desires of the few. What's so frightening about a majority vote?

Excellent question ... truer words, I've heard none.

In fact, they're so true I hereby propose the renunciation of the Bill of Rights; many of these "Constitutional" excuses merely suspend the right of the majority to have their way.

The majority should be able to vote to "shut people up" based on specific criteria. After all, diversity of ideas is dangerous.

The majority should be able to vote to live in a peaceful society, without anyone shooting their nasty, nasty guns. Hey, we can get rid of the nasty boom-sticks altogether!

The majority should be able to vote for laws that make a person guilty by assumption. Hey, we haven't had a good witch trial in a while.

I've got it! In Oregon, we can reinvent the old 3/5 Rule. That is, it's okay to be gay, but you're only worth 60% of someone who contributes to world overpopulation. That way, you can still be gay and exist in society; we'll pay you only 60%, to boot!

(Yes, I'm being sarcastic ...)

But I think the question is legitimate. I do, however, think the answer is as naked as I've chosen to express it.

thanx,
Tiassa

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

 

[Bowser]

The Germans didn't vote for dictatorship; the opportunity was given to Hitler by President Hindenburg. Hindenburg made Hitler Chacellor of Germany in an effort to save Germany from being torn apart by the Communists and the Nationalists. Once made Chancellor, Hitler then eliminated his opposition. He then worked at destroying the Republic while building the Third Riech.

I think that if the Germans had really voted, they would have been communist and not Nazis. However, their vote was not really in play. It was more politics in government and the crisis of the time which placed the Nazis in power.

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

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

 

[Bowser]

Tiassa,

"But I think the question is legitimate. I do, however, think the answer is as naked as I've chosen to express it."

The only other option is to leave those decisions to the few. But then, that would be a dictatorship. Better to be a slave to my fellow citizens than the likes of Hitler or Stalin. Right?

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

 

[Flash]

Bowser,

You've got to be kidding, right?

Ok, have you thought about the many teens who have committed or attempted suicide because of such prejudice teachings? Or does that matter since they fall among the "minority"?

 

[Bowser]

Flash,

"Ok, have you thought about the many teens who have committed or attempted suicide because of such prejudice teachings?"

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

The question is still the same: As a society, who has more right to influence social standards and to enact laws which govern the education of our children?

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

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

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser,

Better to be a slave to my fellow citizens than the likes of Hitler or Stalin. Right?

Assuming slavery, indebtedness, and bondage are the paramount manifestations of the human endeavor, sure, I'll buy that. After all, we've tried as hard as we can, and we can't do any better ...? (I know, sounds strange to me, too.)

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

 

[Bowser]

Tiassa,

It's an imperfect world, but that keeps it interesting. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

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

 

[Tiassa]

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

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

 

[Bowser]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Tiassa]

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

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

 

[Bowser]

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]

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

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

 

[Bowser]

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).]