Clear Cut: The Story Of Philomath, Oregon

[SIG220]

Oregon has unfortunately been transformed a lot by all of the immigration into the state from other more liberal states, especially California.   The state is now seriously divided politically on many issues, with Republicans controlling rural areas, and Democrats controlling all of the major urban areas.  

In the 2006 election, Democrats won control of both houses of the legislature, and also the governorship too.   One of the first things the legislature did last year was to give special rights to gay couples to have civil unions, which gives them equivalent legal rights as married couples.   This new law was to go into effect yesterday, but a legal challenge has fortunately blocked it from being implemented.   Voters had previously past a referendum a couple of years ago outlawing gay marriage in the state, so the legislature was unable to make gay marriage legal.

The issue of using Indian related names as school mascots has continued to be a big issue, with a committee set up by the state's Department of Education recommending that all 15 schools with such mascots be required to give them up by September of 2009, even if the schools and their communities did not want to.  The State Superintendent of Schools, a liberal Democrat, will be making the final decision on this issue soon.

You can read about it here:

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=30535&sid=1&fid=1

These schools complain that these changes will cost them many thousands of dollars to implement, and also reject the charge that they are racists by calling their sports teams "Braves" or "Warriors".   In fact, they say that they are honoring Indians by doing this.

SIG 220

[Chairboy]

Yeah, we don't want any of the gays getting married because then all of our heterosexual marriages will catch fire.

...I'm gonna have to say I'm not a huge fan of fellow Oregonian Sig's post.

[bongaroo]

thats what i don't understand about people against gay marriage.  is it going to hurt your marriage?  no.  Is it going to corrupt and warp your poor little childrens minds?  no.  so whats the big deal.  it's their buisness and since it doesn't harm yours why get your panties in a wad?

[Chairboy]

The United States has a fine tradition of sticking our noses in each other's business.  The two-faced'ness of it is great too.  The same folks that tell other people to mind their own business turn around and say the government better damn well make a constitutional amendment to force their beliefs on someone else.  My favorite "counter argument" is when the anti-gay marriage folks say "Well, they're FORCING their gay marriage on US!".   Nah, not unless you're getting naked with them on their honeymoon.

My question: If we have to put up with marriage, then why don't they?  

My theory: The folks who object to gay marriage are the same ones that want to be able to keep trumpeting the immorality of gays and don't want them to do anything that'll hurt that line.

[Tac]

bungaroo, because it is the first step to something more dangerous.

If 2 adults of the same gender want to live together, touch each other, etc that is within their own rights as individuals. However, having the law recognize same-sex marriages AS a family (marriage=forming a family) opens a can of worms.

Many of these couples will eventually want to feel 'like a family' and want to adopt a kid.

That is the problem. You would be opening a legal loophole where innocent kids who have not created their own sexual identity will be placed in these homes.

Any and all children learn and emulate social and sexual behavior from the adults that care for them... placing them in these homes has a very high risk of these kids taking that behavior with them from home to school (getting picked on by the other kids and likely being ostracized, difficulty forming relationships with either gender, etc) from school to college and on to professional environments.

They may be doing the kids a good thing by adopting them in the short run but in the long run they may end up hurting their futures deeply.

Personally i'd say let homosexual couples register as a couple for tax reasons (as they are a household if they live together) but do not grant them recognition of marriage or as a family or allow them to adopt. They are what they are: 2 consenting adults minding their own business. When a 3rd person (kid) is involved who is not their own (genetically) they cease to be 2 consenting adults and become 2 consenting adults trying to get an innocent kid into their home.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Tac
Many of these couples will eventually want to feel 'like a family' and want to adopt a kid.

That is the problem.

I think I'd worry more about couples where one or both is a closet pedophile adopting a child before this would register on the scope. Or alcoholics. Or bigots.

*IF* (and this seems a stretch) a gay couple had an agenda of adopting a child to promote homosexual sexuality to it, I could equate it to the aforementioned disfunctionality. I didn't become heterosexual *because* my father slept with my mother. All that assured was that I was conceived and not a bastard. What made me a functional rather disfunctional member of society was being raised in a loving and caring enviroment.

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Yeah, we don't want any of the gays getting married because then all of our heterosexual marriages will catch fire.

...I'm gonna have to say I'm not a huge fan of fellow Oregonian Sig's post.

So you don't believe in democracy??

The people had the chance to vote, and gay marriage lost, as it has in most states across the nation.

SIG 220

[Arlo]

Originally posted by SIG220
So you don't believe in democracy??

The people had the chance to vote, and gay marriage lost, as it has in most states across the nation.

SIG 220

If people took a vote and your marriage was outlawed/anulled (no longer legally qualifying for recognition as a marriage) for some moral perception (maybe someone presented proof you had premarital sex) would that be right? Fair? Don't you believe in democracy?

Just looking for the defining litmus here.

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Chairboy
The United States has a fine tradition of sticking our noses in each other's bu My favorite "counter argument" is when the anti-gay marriage folks say "Well, they're FORCING their gay marriage on US!".  

Well, but since the people of Oregon have voted AGAINST Gay Marriage, imposing it on the public in defiance of such a vote is indeed forcing it on the people.

The clear majority of Oregonians don't want it.

More Liberals need to be imported into the state in order for this to change.

SIG 220

[Arlo]

Originally posted by SIG220
Well, but since the people of Oregon have voted AGAINST Gay Marriage, imposing it on the public in defiance of such a vote is indeed forcing it on the people.

The clear majority of Oregonians don't want it.

More Liberals need to be imported into the state in order for this to change.

SIG 220

If the populance voted to reinstitute negro slavery would that be a liberal or conservative standpoint and should it be upheld in either case, in your opinion?

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Arlo
If people took a vote and your marriage was outlawed/anulled (no longer legally qualifying for recognition as a marriage) for some moral perception (maybe someone presented proof you had premarital sex) would that be right? Fair? Don't you believe in democracy?

Just looking for the defining litmus here.

That is comparing Apples and Oranges.   Taking away a right that has existed for thousands of years is different than granting a new right.

I have no objection to the state having a Civil Unions law that gives equivalent rights, as long as it does not give special rights only to homosexuals, as the current law that is on legal hold does.

SIG 220

[Tac]

Originally posted by Arlo
I think I'd worry more about couples where one or both is a closet pedophile adopting a child before this would register on the scope. Or alcoholics. Or bigots.

*IF* (and this seems a stretch) a gay couple had an agenda of adopting a child to promote homosexual sexuality to it, I could equate it to the aforementioned disfunctionality. I didn't become heterosexual *because* my father slept with my mother. All that assured was that I was conceived and not a bastard. What made me a functional rather disfunctional member of society was being raised in a loving and caring enviroment.

Well Arlo, in the case of such heterosexual couples adopting a kid planning to abuse him/her .. there is really no way to tell really. That is a sort of issue taken to the extreme for this argument...its like saying they might be adopted by a potential serial killer or something.

And im not saying the homosexual couples would adopt a kid to turn him/her into becoming a homosexual. I'm saying that kids are monkey see monkey do when they are very young. If its ok for dad1 to kiss dad2 why cant i kiss my friend at school that's my same gender? i wonder what its like to have a mom/dad ... etc. The kid may not be homosexual but the mannerisms, gestures, behaviour.. that is all learned at home from the parents. Kids don't develop their own social behaviour, they emulate it. It is why I bet almost everyone here has been told at one point in their life that 'you smirk/smile like your dad' or 'you have your mom's stare', etc. You've been copying it since you were a kid!

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Arlo
If the populance voted to reinstitute negro slavery would that be a liberal or conservative standpoint and should it be upheld in either case, in your opinion?

Comparing Gays Rights to the suffering and abuse that Black Americans suffered under slavery is an insult to all Black Americans, in my opinion.

SIG 220

[Arlo]

Originally posted by SIG220
That is comparing Apples and Oranges.   Taking away a right that has existed for thousands of years is different than granting a new right. [1]

I have no objection to the state having a Civil Unions law that gives equivalent rights, as long as it does not give special rights only to homosexuals, as the current law that is on legal hold does. [2]

SIG 220

[1] A vote's a vote. If you claim supporting a law based on the local demographics makes it a morally defendable position based on democracy .. alone ... then your apples and oranges are already mixed.

[2] Special rights? The current law on legal hold offers a gay couple something a heterosexual married couple can't legally do? If not then it's still equal rights.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by SIG220
Comparing Gays Rights to the suffering and abuse that Black Americans suffered under slavery is an insult to all Black Americans, in my opinion.

SIG 220

You've a right to your opinion, I reckon. Would you still feel it an insult to say prejudice is prejudice no matter what the rationalization behind that?