Clear Cut: The Story Of Philomath, Oregon

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Tac
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!

Can a homosexual be the child of a straight couple that exhibit no "gay" mannerisms?

Can a heterosexual exhibit "gay" mannerisms when brought up by a heterosexual couple that exhibit no such tendencies?

Can someone have a genetic mannerism?

Yes to both the first two through having met examples firsthand.

Yes to the third for having had a mannerism recognized in me from a relative that died before I was born.

As such I find your particular argument lacking (though such an argument is not uniquely yours, I understand).

[Chairboy]

There's no data to suggest that kids who grow up in gay households are more likely to become gay, so that's a pretty weak argument.

Sig220, on an unrelated note, how did you feel about the courts overturning the assisted suicide law that we voted in?  Just curious to see how evenly applied your outrage at judicial intervention is.  Your stance seems to have flip-flopped a little, this was the text I responded to:

This new law was to go into effect yesterday, but a legal challenge has fortunately blocked it from being implemented.

In one post, you dislike judges overruling the voters, in another, you advocate it.  Which one is correct?

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Arlo
Can a homosexual be the child of a straight couple that exhibit no "gay" mannerisms?

Can a heterosexual exhibit "gay" mannerisms when brought up by a heterosexual couple that exhibit no such tendencies?

Can someone have a genetic mannerism?

Yes to both the first two through having met examples firsthand.

Yes to the third for having had a mannerism recognized in me from a relative that died before I was born.

As such I find your particular argument lacking (though such an argument is not uniquely yours, I understand).

This suddenly reminded me of the age-old question;What came first, the chicken, or the egg?

Obviously, since Human Reproduction involves' a Male/Female couple to naturally produce a child, And at least a sperm from a male, and an egg from a female in the case of test-tube babies, Then in fact, ALL homosexual men/women have come from some kind of Heterosexual background....Even in the cases' of Lesbian women who go to the sperm bank, and undergo artificial insemination.

Y'all seem to be tossing two subjects' around in this thread. One seems' to be States' rights and the wishes of the voters/constituents. The other seems to be the Morality of whether or not Homosexuality should even be tolorated to the extent that it is, in today's society.

For the question of States' rights, I would say that If the Federal Gov't. didn't tell Arizona to strike the law they just instituted that goes' after those who employ Illegal aliens', Then they should let Oregon chart it's own course, as well.

I think the subject of Morality will have to be answered with the phrase, "To each, his own..." Because everything is judged in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

In the non-Politically correct world, Many(A large percentage of the population) are not only against gay marriage...They are against homosexuality whatsoever. Many believe that Homosexuality is nothing more than a Mental disorder, and not something that is recognized as a sexual trait. But in some places(at least legally) it is accepted. Not everywhere, though...

...But in the same token, there are people who now consider it IMMORAL (Yes, as in, not right) to take your son and teach him how to use a firearm, and kill animals' with it (Hunting, of course) even if it is to feed yourself. They regard it as a regression to barbarism. (The slaughterhouses' that supply the various grocery chains' go unmentioned here.) They feel that only a crazed lunatic could consider owning a firearm...or an automobile with a 400 H.P. V-8...Or letting their' children engage in gladiatorial combat on a field covered in chalk lines (Football, for you Soccer Moms).

Morality is constantly being redefined. It will never be in one definition. There are far too many that will dispute one version from another. People will always hate Gays. That seems to be the only constant. It's how many that do, that will change.

[bustr]

This is the only article that speaks from the foundations point of view. All the others paint them as a mean spirited conservitive christian homophobic foundation. Which seems to be what this thread has degenerated to also.

http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2003/jan03/logging-foundation.shtml


This article points out the position of the trusts board and their demand to the school system. The foundation is a private conservitive foundation of christian values, and they can do what ever the want with their money and make what ever requirments they want for eligibilty to receive their grants just the same. Unless, it becomes against the law to be christian, conservitive and beleive homosexuality is a sin as defined in the bible. Until then this foundation can do what they want.

The original demographics and cricumstances of the region that the foundation was created for is gone and has been replaced by more liberly minded white collor citizens who do not support the principles the foundation was created on.

Should the foundation be forced to continue supporting a community that no longer has the same values as the founder and current trustees? Seems that disagreeing with non christian\conservitives is grounds again for cries for being evil, homophobic and all the other derogitory chracterizations of conservitives and christians.

I think it was a loosing argument to demand changes of any public school system back towards conservitive and christian principels. I admire the foundation for standing to it's principels. Too many conservitive and christian groups are afraid of being branded all those names liberals have in their arsenals of adhominen attacks.

[lazs2]

this thread is about gay marriage?

Gays have every right that anyone else has to get married.. they do it all the time.   They just have to do it by the rules.

They can't marry their daughter or the dog or a dead person or someone of the same gender.

Now.. If they want to make some kind of contract with someone of the same gender.. they are free to do that.   If they want the contract to have all the same rights as a legal marriage....

Well.. they need to do the work.    they need to convince people that they deserve each and every right.. that it is to our benifiet and workable..   that we are willing to pay for it.  

But that is not what they want.. they want to piggyback on the rights granted to marriage and just throw out a couple of the rules.

They need to start with a fresh sheet of paper is all.  

lazs

[indy007]

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

I know gay couples that are way more qualified to have children than straight couples. Sexual preference doesn't have anything to do with parenting skills, and trying to equate the 2 is BS.

Say you've got 2 gay guys. They both make upwards of $80k a year, have perfect credit, no criminal records, pay their taxes, and do community service.

On the other side, you've got a hetero trailer trash couple, below the poverty level, domestic violence, and histories of alcoholism.

According to you, the second couple is more qualified to adopt and raise a child?

[lazs2]

Indy.. would you say that it is a good thing that many boys today are raised by single women or even two women?

Almost universally it is agreed that the best way to raise a child is with one male and one female parent.

this is a generalization that works.   Even tho it is not 100%.. it is the best their is and should not be tampered with lightly.

If you simply say that now marriage is redifined.. you don't just get the touchy feelie "domestic partner" thing..   you get every right that is marriage.

And that is what the gays want.. they want the freebies.   they want to get everything that marriage gets.   they want to be recognized as a legit marriage that can't be discriminated against based on being two of the same gender.

I say let em have a contract or a different form of marriage and they can work on each right individually instead of the lazy and harmful piggy back method.

Why not let parents marry their kids to get some of the benifiets?   why the prejudice against that?   or dogs?  some people really love their dogs..  a man  (or woman) and their dog make great parents.

lazs

[bongaroo]

Originally posted by lazs2
Well.. they need to do the work.    they need to convince people that they deserve each and every right.. that it is to our benifiet and workable..   that we are willing to pay for it.  

lazs

what exactly needs to be to your benefit and what are "we" paying for it?  just don't quite follow your meaning here bud

[bongaroo]

Originally posted by Tac
bungaroo

just for future reference I'd normally stop reading what you have to say if your going to start off like this.  why should anyone take your views seriously if you start the argument by mocking.

luckily for you i went on to read and respond, but normally only 13 year olds have arguments that way and i'd like to think for a civil discussion we could get past crap like that

[indy007]

Originally posted by lazs2
Indy.. would you say that it is a good thing that many boys today are raised by single women or even two women?

Single mother or father are both bad imho. In my personal experiences, the children are way more screwed up. I'd say 2 parents in a stable relationship are going to do a better job overall, regardless of gender. There are single parents that do a good job, but I only know a few.

If you're looking for a male role-model in a lesbian relationship, then go attend a WNBA game. More bull-dykes than you can shake a stick at, and more testosterone than guys I know.

[Tac]

Originally posted by bongaroo
just for future reference I'd normally stop reading what you have to say if your going to start off like this.  why should anyone take your views seriously if you start the argument by mocking.

luckily for you i went on to read and respond, but normally only 13 year olds have arguments that way and i'd like to think for a civil discussion we could get past crap like that

That was an accidental typo it was not intentional.

You even had me googlin' the word now lol.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungaroo

?

[FrodeMk3]

Rpm, as to your original post, I believe you are right in the assertion that any organization that grant's a scholorship has the right to disperse those funds' as they see fit...or not to, if such is the case. They have the right to enforce any requirement's that are laid forth in they're charter.

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Arlo
]
Special rights? The current law on legal hold offers a gay couple something a heterosexual married couple can't legally do?

Yes.  The Civil Union law specifically only applies to gay couples.   It is a law created only for them, and only grants them rights.  

It does not allow heterosexual couples to form a Civil Union.  You must be a gay couple.  If the law applied to all citizens equally, then I would certainly support it.

The law is clearly unconstitutional as it is currently written.

SIG 220

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Arlo
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?

For your information, slavery never even existed in Oregon.   So how could it be even be brought back?  

These silly hypotheticals you are coming up with are irrelevant

If you want to go ahead and believe that the vast majority of Americans are prejudiced, go ahead.   It is a free country, and you can believe what you want to.

SIG 220

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Chairboy

Sig220, on an unrelated note, how did you feel about the courts overturning the assisted suicide law that we voted in?  Just curious to see how evenly applied your outrage at judicial intervention is.  Your stance seems to have flip-flopped a little, this was the text I responded to:

In one post, you dislike judges overruling the voters, in another, you advocate it.  Which one is correct?

If you knew anything about politics here in Oregon, you would know that the Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury has been extremely abusive of his powers, and has used them to advance his own political agenda a number of times regarding the state's signature gathering process.  

He did not have valid grounds to deny the signatures to put Ralph Nader on the ballot back in 2004, but he did anyway.   And the same is true how he threw out so many signatures that were gathered to put this matter to a vote of the people.

I believe in Democracy.   I believe that the people should be allowed to vote on this issue.   The Judge in this case is concerned that Bradbury violated the law in blocking a vote taking place.  If the majority of Oregonians want this law, I certainly have no problem in it becoming law.

As for me flip flopping, you are making no sense at all.  What previous statement that I made have I contradicted??   You are making stuff up now, in order to attack me.   And honest people do not use that sort of underhanded tactic.

Your tactic of even inserting comments about someone's else's remarks here into this message directed at me is yet another low-down tactic of trying to make it appear that I said anything about the other issue, when I actually did not make any such comment like the one that you refer to.

Words to more properly describe you as a person are not allowed here on this forum.

SIG 220