Reasons Oregon gives to vote "yes" on 36 inside . . .

[James R]

Teaching that some committed couples are male-male or female-female rather than male-female is not the same thing as teaching "gay and lesbian sex".

If this was mentioned at all in classrooms, it would be as part of a message of tolerance for difference. Which would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

 

[guthrie]

You could ask them about the research that shows that telling children about homosexuality makes them homosexual. (there isnt any that I know of)
Then ask them why its wrong, and if they start quoting the bible to you, ask about the separation of church and state, and therefore that is not a valid base to ban anything.

 

[RubiksMaster]

Okay, Athelwulf.
Don't base your argument only on the brochure. While some schools do indeed teach gay lifestyles, this measure doesn't guarantee it would happen. We don't, however, want to teach kids amoral values on the basis of being "fair" to minorities. It is very important for a child to have both a mother and a father. While it doesn't necessarily cause homosexuality to grow up in a gay household, it does do other things. I hope the picture of the gloomy girl affected you. Children have been proven to have a higher incedence of delinquince and a hisgher chance of learning disabilities in families without a mother and a father.

Why would Oregonians deprive children of a healthy development?

Look at Europe. In the areas of legalized gay marriage, the rate of divorce skyrocketed.

I would definately vote "yes" on this measure if I could. Gay marriage is wrong, and it goes against the values our nation was founded upon. The only thing I have against the measure is that it puts too much control in the hands of the government. It can be quite risky voting to take away rights. There is, after all, no law that says gay people can get married.

As to guthrie's comment about not quoting the bible because of separation of church and state:
The majority of the population is christian. We christians have the right to quote the bible. If the majority of the population thinks it is wrong because of their religion, let them talk about it! The constitution makes no law against practicing your religion, and no law establishing a state sponsored religion. It is about freedom, not restriction ("freedom of religion, not freedom from religion"). All the liberals I know try to say otherwise because the thought of a God they don't believe in somehow scares them.

That's all for now.

 

[James R]

RubiksMaster:

It is very important for a child to have both a mother and a father. While it doesn't necessarily cause homosexuality to grow up in a gay household, it does do other things.

Like what? And how do you know?

Children have been proven to have a higher incedence of delinquince and a hisgher chance of learning disabilities in families without a mother and a father.

Have comparisons been done between having a single parent and two gay parents?

Why would Oregonians deprive children of a healthy development?

You haven't established that being brought up by gay parents is unhealthy. You're just assuming it.

Look at Europe. In the areas of legalized gay marriage, the rate of divorce skyrocketed.

How do you know that's not because of more lenient divorce laws?

Also, would you prefer to force people to stay in unhappy marriages?

Gay marriage is wrong, and it goes against the values our nation was founded upon.

What values are you thinking of? I think you hold this opinion on religious grounds only.

The majority of the population is christian. We christians have the right to quote the bible. If the majority of the population thinks it is wrong because of their religion, let them talk about it! The constitution makes no law against practicing your religion, and no law establishing a state sponsored religion. It is about freedom, not restriction ("freedom of religion, not freedom from religion"). All the liberals I know try to say otherwise because the thought of a God they don't believe in somehow scares them.

How does removing a right increase freedom, pray tell?

 

[Mystech]

Well, unfortunately it seems that measure 36, along with similar measures in 10 other states all passed on the 2nd. Score one for myopic frightened autocratic right-wing funnies. Getting into fire-arms was a bad hobby for me, I'm counting down the days until I just end up snapping. How is this America the land of the free and brave? We're nothing but a bunch of intolerant bigots and cowards.

("freedom of religion, not freedom from religion")

At what point does freedom of religion become the freedom to impose your religion on others? I'f I've got the freedom to practice any religion I want without persecution, then why won't you respect the fact that my views differ from yours?

How does removing a right increase freedom, pray tell?

By granting him the freedom to nullify the rights of others which make him uncomfortable. It's all fun and games while this dangerous way of going about things is working in favor of his own silly beliefs, but put a measure on the ballot to outlaw worship in Churches and somehow I think he'd get a little pissy.

 

[guthrie]

As to guthrie's comment about not quoting the bible because of separation of church and state:

The majority of the population is christian. We christians have the right to quote the bible. If the majority of the population thinks it is wrong because of their religion, let them talk about it!

And thus endeth any hope of a country governed by law, rather then by human caprice. This is the same approach often used by direct democratists, and tends to get knocked back straight away by republicans and conservatists who say that it will just lead to mob rule and appropriation of everything by the poor. WHich is a rather silly way of looking at it butnever mind.


But, on reading it again, (i'm just back home form nightshift, so a little slow) it seems you are merely complaining about not being allowed to talk about the bible. So whose stopping you? All people want you to do is stop talking about the bible at the same time as you are trying to regulate their private life.

 

[Athelwulf]

RubiksMaster,

We don't, however, want to teach kids amoral values on the basis of being "fair" to minorities.

And this value is amoral how?

It is very important for a child to have both a mother and a father.

So should single-parent families be against the law too?

While it doesn't necessarily cause homosexuality to grow up in a gay household, it does do other things.

What other things?

I hope the picture of the gloomy girl affected you.

It didn't. Not cuz I'm cold-hearted, though, au contrare. That picture was used to influence people who were undecided on the measure and to make sure people's decisions to vote yes were good and reinforced. That girl's parents (who were probably voting yes) were most likely payed to have the picture taken.

It's propaganda. That's all there is to it.

Children have been proven to have a higher incedence of delinquince and a hisgher chance of learning disabilities in families without a mother and a father.

Does this include single-parent families?

Why would Oregonians deprive children of a healthy development?

Like JamesR said, ye'r just assuming that being brought up by gay parents is unhealthy. Therefore, this statement is moot.

Look at Europe. In the areas of legalized gay marriage, the rate of divorce skyrocketed.

Um . . . Maybe cuz all the homosexuals were ending their heterosexual marriages so they could marry someone they actually loved.

I would definately vote "yes" on this measure if I could.

Congrats, ye'r a full-fledged Christian right-winger.

Gay marriage is wrong . . .

Says who?

. . . and it goes against the values our nation was founded upon.

Rome was founded on Roman values. Athens was founded on Greek values. England was founded on Anglo-Saxon values. What about those values?

The only thing I have against the measure is that it puts too much control in the hands of the government.

And yet ya'd vote yes.

There is, after all, no law that says gay people can get married.

There is also no law that says gay people can't get married.

As to guthrie's comment about not quoting the bible because of separation of church and state:
The majority of the population is christian.

And quoting the Bible is only gonna convince Christians—most, if not all, of whom are already convinced.

We christians have the right to quote the bible.

But the Bible does not support an argument, so I suggest ya save those electrical impulses that otherwise would've been directed to yer fingers for something that will support an argument.

If the majority of the population thinks it is wrong because of their religion, let them talk about it! The constitution makes no law against practicing your religion, and no law establishing a state sponsored religion. It is about freedom, not restriction ("freedom of religion, not freedom from religion").

There ya go wasting electrical impulses again.

All the liberals I know try to say otherwise because the thought of a God they don't believe in somehow scares them.

Actually, they're probably saying otherwise cuz they believe the Bible shouldn't influence law.

 

[RubiksMaster]

To Mystech's comment:

At what point does freedom of religion become the freedom to impose your religion on others?

No one is imposing. You just percieve it that way because you are against any form of religion and my constitutional rights.

To JamesR

Have comparisons been done between having a single parent and two gay parents?

Yes they have. The results were similar. That is why children should never be left with one parent.

We would never even have to have this measure in this state if the lebs in Multnomah County hadn't gone beyond their jurisdiction and issued false marriage licenses. I wish we wouldn't have to take away rights to do what is right.

 

[Athelwulf]

No one is imposing.

Hahaha . . . HAHAHAHA! ROTF!

That is why children should never be left with one parent.

And yet no one's putting a measure on the ballot.

We would never even have to have this measure in this state if the lebs in Multnomah County hadn't gone beyond their jurisdiction and issued false marriage licenses.

Ben?!

 

[Mystech]

No one is imposing. You just percieve it that way because you are against any form of religion and my constitutional rights.

What do you mean no one is imposing? Discrimination against me is being written into law at this very moment, barring me from exerting some pretty basic legal rights.

Where in the world did you get the idea that I'm against any form of religion? I'm just against religious views being forced on others.

I don't see where the constitution says "Christian morality shall be the law of the land".

 

[Athelwulf]

Discrimination against me is being written into law at this very moment, barring me from exerting some pretty basic legal rights.

If RubiksMaster is who I think he is (), he'll rebutt by saying that this isn't discriminatory, disallowing gays to marry.

If I'm wrong, RubiksMaster . . . Sorry. If I'm right, . . . well . . . Now ya don't have to waste those electrical impulses again.

 

[Athelwulf]

Well, the local newspaper isn't publishing the letter I was talking about on their site yet. I don't think they ever will. So I have it typed out below. I have withheld the author's name cuz I'm not sure of what could happen to her if her name were on the Internet for all to see.

It's about love

This is the 21st century, not the Roman empire. America has come so far in the last 100 years. All Americans are to be treated equal. We all eat in the same places, shop at the same store, and walk together in life to accomplish our dreams.

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and the freedom of speech. The breakdown of marriage in our nation is caused by the lack of respect, trust and love between partners, not because of their sexual preference.

My sexual preference has nothing to do with me as a mother. My partner and I have four beautiful little girls, and we raise them together as a lesbian couple.

The girls are straight A and B honor roll, and participate in countless sports and outside activities. Anyone who has ever come into contact with my daughters can't believe how well-mannered and respectful they are.

We love our little girls very much. They are very well-rounded young ladies. Love and respect are the basis of raising a family. A family is a bond, not an institution.

I am the biological mother of all four of our girls. While growing up, my parents were not accepting of me even having a black friend, let alone being gay. So not wanting to disappoint my parents, I lived in a closet. I got married and had children like the typical family member. By the time I was 22, I tried to commit suicide three times. There is nothing more miserable than having to live a life that isn't yours.

When I finally got the courage to accept myself for who I am, and to live my life for happiness, I became a happier person, a better mother and for the first time in my life, I felt complete.

The best way to slow the cycle of children raising children is not through the restriction of marriage, but for all parents to pay more attention to their children, and every day make it a point to let them know they are loved and appreciated.

Love does not judge white, black, Hispanic, male or female. Marriage is about love, not government. I urge you to vote no on Measure 36.

 

[Athelwulf]

Okay, there are a few more points I'd like to make concerning RubiksMaster's posts.

While it doesn't necessarily cause homosexuality to grow up in a gay household, it does do other things.

Gimme a link to testimonials, scenarios, studies, statistics, etc. That is, if ya aren't making this up.

Children have been proven to have a higher incedence of delinquince and a hisgher chance of learning disabilities in families without a mother and a father.

I would like to see a link to the website for this particular study.

Why would Oregonians deprive children of a healthy development?

Why would Republicans deprive people of an unalienable right?

Look at Europe. In the areas of legalized gay marriage, the rate of divorce skyrocketed.

I would like to see a link to European marriage statistics.

Gay marriage is wrong . . .

I may be blind, but I didn't see an explaination as to why it is wrong. No one is just gonna take yer word for it.

. . . and it goes against the values our nation was founded upon.

Actually, banning gay marriage goes against the values our nation was founded upon. It alienates the unalienable right to pursue happiness. It's in the Declaration of Independence!

It can be quite risky voting to take away rights.

Ah, so I see that ya realize it takes away rights, banning gay marriage.

There is, after all, no law that says gay people can get married.

The mere fact that all law books are silent on the issue is not grounds to assume it's okay to ban it.

The majority of the population is christian.

How much do ya remember from American History class last year? The country is a melting pot. All sorts of people live here. All sorts of people that don't agree with Christianity.

Oh, and I'd like to see a statistic for this too.

We christians have the right to quote the bible.

And what do ya hope to accomplish with such actions?

If the majority of the population thinks it is wrong because of their religion, let them talk about it!

Talking about it and imposing on others are two different things.

The constitution makes no law against practicing your religion, and no law establishing a state sponsored religion.

The Bill of Rights separates church and state! It's a very simple concept to get, really. This means the government caaaaan't advocate one particular religion. Read it for what it really says.

It is about freedom, not restriction.

Oh, wow! Ya just contradicted yerself! Ya advocate restricting marriage, yet ya say it's about freedom.

I just thought that was funny, was all.

("freedom of religion, not freedom from religion")

Oh, yes. I forgot this country was a theocracy . . . Oh, wait . . . Stupid me, this country iiizzznnn't a theocracy!

I shouldn't be forced to live with a government that bases laws on religious doctrine.

All the liberals I know try to say otherwise because the thought of a God they don't believe in somehow scares them.

Ya can't fear what ya don't believe in.

To Mystech's comment: No one is imposing. You just percieve it that way because you are against any form of religion and my constitutional rights.

It's yer Constitutional right to infringe and alienate other's rights? Ha!

Oh, and I'm still laughing at "No one is imposing".

That is why children should never be left with one parent.

And ye'r worried about a child having two parents of the same sex?!

We would never even have to have this measure in this state if the lebs in Multnomah County hadn't gone beyond their jurisdiction and issued false marriage licenses.

We wouldn't have ever had to abolish segregation in this country if the African Americans in the South hadn't gone and sat in the wrong seat on the bus.

That's what I'm hearing from yer post.

I wish we wouldn't have to take away rights to do what is right.

I wish we could realize that denying rights isn't right.

 

[Mushin]

I live in Georgia where its basically illegal to teach evolution so yeah...

I suppose at this point its a bit pointless to talk about this since all the states with amendments already voted to legislate religious intolerance...but this seems to be blowing things a bit of proportion. I doubt many teachers would actually do that and certainly finding one in mass. that does it does not mean all teachers will start doing it. In spite of the wishes of fundamentalist christians homosexuality is a part of american culture and maybe it does have a place at least to be discussed in a health class. I think ignoring homosexuality is a far worse thing than not discussing it. Much as teaching abstinence in schools instead of actually talking about sex is a far worse thing. In my opinion christians need to get there hands off schools. As a bumper sticker so nicely put it..."Don't pray in my schools and I won't think in your church."

 

[RubiksMaster]

First I want to deal with Mushin's comments:

In my opinion christians need to get there hands off schools. As a bumper sticker so nicely put it..."Don't pray in my schools and I won't think in your church."

People with a belief in God tend to have (note that I said TEND) better judgement in moral descisions. They try to behave like Jesus, which pretty much means less crime. Why do you want people like this to stop telling children what is good, since THEY DON"T EVEN TEACH RELIGION!! They are just looking out for America's future. I think anyone can pray in ANY public place, because of the constitution. You are just intolerant of other cultures. You try to hide this intolerance by supporting the homosexuals.


To Athelwulf, who now knows my real identity (and I, his. Ha ha ha!):
Go to this site:
click here

and this site also

I can find more, but that's for another day. I have things to do right now. Note that they each quote studies and books written by reputable psychologists. Go look them up if you want.

Many of the same downfalls that come with single parent households also hold true for homosexual couples.



Wait, one more thing. You said this about one of my comments:

I shouldn't be forced to live with a government that bases laws on religious doctrine.

Which laws does it base on doctrine??? And when was the last time you heard the president try to establish a national religion??? That is, after all, what the bill of rights protects ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof). Does anyone's religion keep you from practicing yours (or your LACK of religion)? I didn't think so. If you were talking about the gay marriage laws when you said that, THE PEOPLE VOTED, NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!! If any laws are based in religion, it is because the majority of our country is religious. Jeez, liberals always try to hide behind their hatred by pretending to be "constitutional" or "tolerant". Oh, and Athelwulf, you keep forgetting to listen to "The Savage Nation" on the radio. I think you'll get a kick out of it!

 

[Tiassa]

RubiksMaster

The pediatric link is rather quite interesting, and spells the case for normalizing homosexual relationships. Any marginalized group shows symptoms of destabilization resulting from marginalization.

Very interesting. Thank you.

 

[Athelwulf]

RubiksMaster,

First I want to deal with Mushin's comments: You try to hide this intolerance by supporting the homosexuals.

Ya mean Mushin can't actually believe that homosexuals should have equal rights? Ya mean there must be some ulterior motive?

To Athelwulf, who now knows my real identity (and I, his. Ha ha ha!): Note that they each quote studies and books written by reputable psychologists. Go look them up if you want.

I suspect bias. I need hard data.

Many of the same downfalls that come with single parent households also hold true for homosexual couples.

I'm growing up in a single-parent household. I'm turning out okay. And if ya read that article in the Herald and News I posted, ya'd see that there are four girls—two of whom going to our school, by the way—that are growing up in a homosexual-couple household. I'm friends with the two girls that go to our school. I see nothing wrong with them.

All yer claims concerning children brought up in single-parent and homosexual-couple households are ridiculous, no matter what the most-likely-biased studies show.

And I don't see the measure on the ballot.

Which laws does it base on doctrine???

The law that homosexuals cannot marry, of course. If it weren't for the Bible, there wouldn't even be an argument over it.

And when was the last time you heard the president try to establish a national religion???

He said, near the beginning of his first term, that religion "will have an honored place in our plans and laws". http://www.newhumanist.com/bushwhacked.html

Maybe that's not establishing a national religion, but that ties back to the fact that the government (or rather, Bush) makes laws based on the Bible.

Don't give me chances to prove ya wrong so humiliatingly.

Off-topic:

Oh, and Athelwulf, you keep forgetting to listen to "The Savage Nation" on the radio. I think you'll get a kick out of it!

I know, I do keep forgetting. That, and AM radio sucks. My mom and I are thinking of getting satellite radio. When I get it, I'll listen in on one of the conservative-talk stations.

tiassa,

The pediatric link is rather quite interesting, and spells the case for normalizing homosexual relationships. Any marginalized group shows symptoms of destabilization resulting from marginalization.

I'm kinda confused about yer wording. I don't know what ye'r saying. Please elaborate.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Athelwulf

If you take a broad enough view of homosexuality as to produce the stats offered at that link, what we see is a reflection of a subculture marginalized. What is offered to show the inadequacy of gays in fact reflects what happens to any group of people marked and discriminated against by society. If the result weren't so consistent with diverse facets of history, it might actually be cause for political concern. Any rational examination of those statistics only begs deeper questions. For instance:

Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples.

ACP

Apple? Orange. Why not compare heterosexual married couples to homosexual married couples? Oh ... yeah. Right. There's that.

Well, how about heterosexual cohabitation numbers? (It might take a while to find that stat.)

Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years.

ACP

If we really want to do the science, let's allow gays to get married so we can do a real statistical comparison.

I actually recommend that anybody considering these statistics click on the "About Us" link. The American College of Pediatricians makes heterosexual parenting a primary issue, and also includes "life at conception" among their "Core Values".

Or the Position Statements, such as "Social Eugenics":

Social Eugenics

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Report of the Task Force on the Family (Pediatrics, June 2003) is marred by the inclusion of a gratuitous section describing same-gender parenting as the only alternative “family” constellation to be devoid of internal problems. Notably, the Task Force Report admits to a lack of science, and cites articles already judged to be flawed and biased. In addition, the Report admits of no possible problems for the child inherent in this arrangement. This is despite clear statements throughout the remainder of the Report about the importance of stable mother/father marriages, and the risks for children inherent in single parent households, divorced families, stepfamilies, and grandparent-constituted families.

ACP

So, while the American College of Pediatrics criticizes the American Academy of Pediatrics for noting the lack of certain scientific information, they turn around and invent some bad comparisons as a foundation for their objections. Apples? Oranges.

The AAP report to which they refer can be viewed at FindArticles.

• No particular family constellation makes poor or good outcomes for children inevitable

• Marriage is beneficial in many ways.

• Cohabitation is more unstable for children than either married 2-parent or single-mother families and tends to produce worse outcomes for children.

• Living in a 2-parent household is no guarantee of good child outcomes.

• A substantial number of children live with parents who are gay or lesbian. Many of these children are from heterosexual marriages that have dissolved; some are born or adopted into lesbian or gay households. It is estimated that 8 to 10 million citizens in the United States, adults and children, have at least 1 homosexual parent. Because of negative stereotypes and stigmatization, these families may face ostracism and social isolation. Societal (cultural and legal) biases may prevent open disclosure of a parent's sexual orientation to the child, school, friends, family, the community, and the pediatrician. Deprived of opportunities for open discussion, these families may experience some difficulty obtaining ordinary social support. Many opportunities exist to support these families, reduce discrimination, and provide individualized, nonjudgmental care. These families and children appear to be resilient. A substantial number of studies have been done to explore the outcomes for these children, although these studies are hampered by small sample sizes and a homogeneity of the families that have been studied. That research has found that parental sexual orientation per se has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children's mental health or social adjustment. (27-29) Certainly, these children's experiences are unique and some differences should be expected. For example, although there is less research on the subject, children with gay or lesbian parents appear less inclined to conform rigidly to those social roles traditionally defined by gender than do children in the general population. (28)

Pediatrics

The brief paragraph on same-sex parents can be found on page 6.

In the end, all the American College of Pediatricians link that we started with does is highlight certain contrasts without offering much analysis in the way of relevance. What numbers they assert actually focus on the problems of marginalization.

It was a nice attempt on Rubiks' part, but in the end the ACP link turned out to be nothing more than mere politics.
____________________

Notes:

American Academy of Pediatrics. See http://www.aap.org/

American College of Pediatricians. See http://www.acpeds.org/

American Academy of Pediatrics. "Family Pediatrics: Report of the Task Force on the Family". Pediatrics, June 2003. See http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0950/is_6_111/ai_103990579
​

 

[guthrie]

WEll Rubiks master, you've almost got me convinced that you really care about the children. Tell me, did you dislike homosexuals before you found those sites you just posted, or afterwards?
PLus I notice the articles only seem to be arguing against homosexual couples having children, not against infertile marriages. So why not let them marry, just ban them from having children?

As for domestic violence, well, I think my dad, an ex policeman, could tell more about how common it was, especially in the poorer areas of west Lothian, on a friday night, which would add up to it being more common in lower income families. Yet we dont seem to be trying to help them very much. So if your worried about battered homosexuals, why not consider it the same as heterosexual stuff, that what is needed is more exercise of personal responsibility in walking away from the relationship. After all, they're all adults, right?

 

[RubiksMaster]

Athelwulf:

I'm growing up in a single-parent household. I'm turning out okay.

So you're one out of many. You have to look at the general TREND.

Maybe that's not establishing a national religion, but that ties back to the fact that the government (or rather, Bush) makes laws based on the Bible.

Not the Bible, but on the moral practices it teaches (though shalt not
kill thy neighbor, commit adultery, etc). So now it is wrong to be a good person, because being a good person equates to practicing one's religion, which is such a crime, because it interferes with someone else's ability to remain atheistic. Sometimes I don't know what the world is coming to.

I need hard data.

Well, the website quotes the psychologists. Go to the library and pick up their books, read the data, read the analysis, agree with me.

And I don't see the measure on the ballot.

If you're referring to m36, it's been voted for. I guess the majority knows what is right. Thank goodness! Our country is not doomed to be destroyed by the ignorance so charactaristic of the mental disease of liberalism.

If it weren't for the Bible, there wouldn't even be an argument over it.

Actually, there would. Even people who don't read the Bible or go to church know it is not right to let gay people marry.


And about your link to http://www.newhumanist.com/bushwhacked.html, it is REALLY biased! Apparently, a president can't remove abortion, or do anything else moral for that matter, because religion teaches morality, and we can't have ANY expression of religion in our country, because it is unconstitutional.

Yeah, right!

More off topic stuff:

AM radio sucks

Just because it is not in stereo? 1150 AM has the most powerful signal strength (and s/n ratio) on the AM band in our end of the state, so you can't possibly be getting it low quality. If you are referring to the content, it is where all the good talk shows are. If you hate talk shows, then I guess that's it.