Another round in Oregon?
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
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????
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????
Rambler--
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
------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
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
------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
"...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.
* 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.
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.
But he must be gay, right? After all, once you're gay, it's only a short hop over to pedophilia and bestialism, right?
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.
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."
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.)
It's very simple. But I point out your post from 8/20, 1.17 am:
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.
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
------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
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.
But he must be gay, right? After all, once you're gay, it's only a short hop over to pedophilia and bestialism, right?
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.
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."
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.)
It's very simple. But I point out your post from 8/20, 1.17 am:
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.
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
------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
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???
-------------
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???
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.
"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.
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.
<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.
Bowser--
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.
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:
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.
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:
Unless, of course, the suicidal is gay.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
So ... you were surprised when your parents behaved in a manner you found reasonable and communicative when you were a teenager?
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
------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
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.
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:
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.
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:
Unless, of course, the suicidal is gay.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
So ... you were surprised when your parents behaved in a manner you found reasonable and communicative when you were a teenager?
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
------------------
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
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.
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
Registered Member
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
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
Bowser--
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.
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?
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?
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.)
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 ...?
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?
Nice answer; you dodged the question. Where, then, should a child seek advice if they feel they can't get it from their folks?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
------------------
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).]
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.
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?
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?
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.)
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 ...?
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?
Nice answer; you dodged the question. Where, then, should a child seek advice if they feel they can't get it from their folks?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
------------------
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).]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot
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.
<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.
Bowser--
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.
Well, first off, I think it's hilarious the way you answered. 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.
* 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.
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.
* 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.
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
------------------
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).]
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.
Well, first off, I think it's hilarious the way you answered.
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.
* 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.
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.
* 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.
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
------------------
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).]
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.
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.
Though I hope you understand that I wonder about yours.
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
------------------
Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths.--Denis Diderot