Principal Wanted Gay Couples to Get Permission Slips to Attend the Prom [Archive]

Calis

12-05-2004, 01:45 PM

huh ? He isnt that far of- didnt the just elected Oklahoma senator call for the sodomy to be a capital crime ? (I may be of on this - correct me if Im wrong)

Well I remember one of the new Senators for Oklahoma, Coburn I think? He talked about how rampant lesbianism was in Oklahoma schools, so much so that girls weren't allowed to go to the bathroom together.

Something along those lines, remember getting a good laugh from it.

duckman

12-05-2004, 01:48 PM

huh ? He isnt that far of- didnt the just elected Oklahoma senator call for the sodomy to be a capital crime ? (I may be of on this - correct me if Im wrong)Unfortunately, my fellow Oklahomans did. However, there is not, to the best of my knowledge, another politican who is as whacked out as that guy.

Suicane75

12-05-2004, 02:14 PM

Cuckoo

12-05-2004, 02:18 PM

huh ? He isnt that far of- didnt the just elected Oklahoma senator call for the sodomy to be a capital crime ? (I may be of on this - correct me if Im wrong)

I don't know all the facts behind Tom Coburn's comments, although I do know that he has made a number of assinine statements.

But for that to mean that "he isn't that far" off is a ridiculously unintelligent think to say, in my humble opinion. I didn't know we had resorted to indicting entire states based on the ignorant comments of one or even several of its citizens. If that was the case, we could do so for every state in the union.

Shkspr's comments were either meant to be a joke, although they weren't particularly funny, or they were an idiotic insult. If the latter is true, I don't think duckman's response is too out of line.

SirFozzie

12-05-2004, 02:19 PM

This is exactly why I am a homophobic troll who thinks that the church should take over government and force their values upon everybody.

Couldn't have said it better myself :D

Crapshoot

12-05-2004, 02:20 PM

I don't know all the facts behind Tom Coburn's comments, although I do know that he has made a number of assinine statements.

But for that to mean that "he isn't that far" off is a ridiculously unintelligent think to say, in my humble opinion. I didn't know we had resorted to indicting entire states based on the ignorant comments of one or even several of its citizens. If that was the case, we could do so for every state in the union.

Shkspr's comments were either meant to be a joke, although they weren't particularly funny, or they were an idiotic insult. If the latter is true, I don't think duckman's response is too out of line.

Fair enough- my point was that if a senator elected by popular vote makes statements like that (before the election), it seems reasonable to think that the attitude is shared by the majority of the populace in that state.

clintl

12-05-2004, 02:21 PM

This is exactly why public schools need to be disbanded. Noone should be forced to pay to support an institution to educate their kids that so completely go against basic religious teachings for so many. Vouchers equal choice (isn't that what liberals claim to want anyway?) and choice in education would allow you to have your own kids go where your own values are honored. Why is that not a good idea?

Besides what Suicane75 said, I really don't think it serves children's development and education very well to be isolated from viewpoints that are different from those of their parents. Parents will always have more influence over their children than anyone else, but being exposed to new and diverse ideas, and learning how to cope with ideas and values different from their own in a constructive way, is important for their intellectual and moral development.

Cuckoo

12-05-2004, 02:27 PM

Fair enough- my point was that if a senator elected by popular vote makes statements like that (before the election), it seems reasonable to think that the attitude is shared by the majority of the populace in that state.

Well I don't agree with this at all. I have never in my life voted for someone in an election whose every opinion I hold as my own. Tom Coburn was up against Brad Carson in that race. While a fairly conservative Democrat, Carson had a very liberal voting record in the U.S. House, voting against Bush on many issues that Oklahomans felt strongly about.

The campaign was a really, really nasty one. In the end, I think that the Oklahomans voting for Bush helped Coburn win because they were frightened about Carson's past record. Personally, I think Carson's a stand-up guy, but people were willing to overlook some idiotic statements that Coburn made because they wanted the more conservative person in the Senate.

To say that the majority of the shares his attitude on homosexuals is a fallacy in my opinion. Oklahoma is a conservative state, there's no doubting that. There are a lot of religious people who have moral objections to homosexuality. But I think a lot of people would be surprised about how progressively many view the subject. I would say that the overwhelming sentiment is that while the majority may not agree with homosexuality, they are certainly not bigoted or homophobic or whatever the popular term to use now may be.

duckman

12-05-2004, 02:31 PM

Good post, Cuckoo!

Suicane75

12-05-2004, 02:32 PM

If a guy says something like that, and still gets voted in, well then I think it is a fair assesment to make. Just my 2 cents.

Cuckoo

12-05-2004, 02:44 PM

If a guy says something like that, and still gets voted in, well then I think it is a fair assesment to make. Just my 2 cents.

Well then, I'll be happy to assume that every quote made by every politician from the state of New Jersey are your opinions and those of the majority of your state as well.

Suicane75

12-05-2004, 02:46 PM

Well then, I'll be happy to assume that every quote made by every politician from the state of New Jersey are your opinions and those of the majority of your state as well.

No it's not, but if a guy from NJ says that Aliens are gonna attack us and he'll stop the aliens and he still gets elected then i think it would be fair to say that a majority of New Jersians are friggin nuts.

Crapshoot

12-05-2004, 02:47 PM

Well then, I'll be happy to assume that every quote made by every politician from the state of New Jersey are your opinions and those of the majority of your state as well.

Cuckoo, If not accepted, its certainly condoned by the majority of voters in the state. If a politician says he hates black people and still gets elected, would it not be a reasonable conclusion to draw that his views are either shared or condoned ?

duckman

12-05-2004, 02:57 PM

^^Haha...
TROLL! ;)

Cuckoo

12-05-2004, 03:00 PM

Cuckoo, If not accepted, its certainly condoned by the majority of voters in the state. If a politician says he hates black people and still gets elected, would it not be a reasonable conclusion to draw that his views are either shared or condoned ?

No, it is not reasonable at all, in my opinion. First of all, to my knowledge, Tom Coburn never said he hates gays. I feel confident he said he's against homosexuality, and I know he made some stupid comments about lesbians in schools which may or may not have been in jest. I strongly believe that if the majority of Oklahomans had thought that Tom Coburn hated homosexuals, they would not have voted for him. Just because they allowed for some stupid comments that he made does not mean they share every one of his views.

There were two candidates for the U.S. Senate, and the vast majority of Oklahoma voted for President Bush. Does it not make sense to you guys that people may have voted for Tom Coburn because they support President Bush and want him to have his party in control of the Senate? In the end, I think that they weighed the positives and negatives of each candidate and decided that despite his comments, Coburn would best further the agenda of the man they overwhelming supported, Bush.

I honestly can't believe that you guys truly believe that means the majority of Oklahoma hates homosexuals. If that's what you think, then I'm just speechless and wouldn't even know how to begin to address it.

Cuckoo

12-05-2004, 03:03 PM

No it's not, but if a guy from NJ says that Aliens are gonna attack us and he'll stop the aliens and he still gets elected then i think it would be fair to say that a majority of New Jersians are friggin nuts.

Not if the opponent felt like the Aliens were going to breed, hatch babies, and infiltrate the White House. They would either not vote or they would vote for the one who was least nuts. :)

Do you see my point? Oklahomans voted on priorities, I think. Their priorities in this election were not centered on stupid comments about beliefs that a candidate may or may not actually believe. They were centered on the support of a conservative national platform (as a majority, obviously not every Oklahoman is a conservative), and they felt like Coburn would better represent those priorities than Carson, regardless of his crazy views on some subjects.

Suicane75

12-05-2004, 03:10 PM

Cuckoo

12-05-2004, 03:21 PM

Eh, i can sort of see your point, but I hope you can see mine. I would never vote for a guy who said something so far against my beliefs no matter what else he provided. And Aliens dont hatch, they give birth just like us, only it only takes like 2 hours from insemenation to birth. :)

I do see your point. I think I just get defensive when I hear people with this view of Oklahomans as a bunch of ignorant bigots. I've lived here for a long time, and I know for a fact that it's not the case (as a whole of course; I'm not saying there aren't ignorant bigots here because there most definitely are, and I'm often ashamed by them). I would bet that Christy Todd Whitman said some pretty stupid things in her life, but New Jersey still elected her. :)

Like you, I would never vote for a guy who said something so far against my beliefs. I would simply not vote in the particular race. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the vote totals in the Carson/Coburn race were significantly lower than those of the Presidential race. Although that's probably common, I think the bitterness of that particular campaign and the horrible things brought to light about both guys made a lot of people not vote.

As for the Aliens... pics plz, k thx. :D

Bubba Wheels

12-05-2004, 04:25 PM

Couldn't have said it better myself :D

Neat trick! You can slander anybody doing that one. Fact is, though, its the exact opposite I'm after. I want government OUT of education completely! Think about it. The whole public school model is archaic and out of date. It has become a giant, unwieldly mass that does EXACTLY what you slander me with, attempting to use government to jam social engineering down everyone's throats!

We live in a new age, new millenium, why not a completely new model for education? The old model that we still follow is based on a time when we as a country were basically White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants and these schools reflected that. The Bible was actually used as a text-book for reading and writing up into the 1920s. The model was originally to promote exactly what you accuse me of wanting, Bible-teaching in the classroom! Horrors!

Why not just totally decentralize, let all the new, diverse interests looking for their own special interests seek them out and get them in specialized settings? Think of it, no more inflicting the Pledge of Allegiance of those who don't want it, totally secular classrooms with no mention of God, ect...

For those who want a more traditional approach where reading, writing, ect... are still considered important in education and the mention of 'God' is not something to be feared and dreaded, they can have that! Everybody gets their own special needs met? What would be wrong with that?

Sharpieman

12-05-2004, 04:52 PM

Well I remember one of the new Senators for Oklahoma, Coburn I think? He talked about how rampant lesbianism was in Oklahoma schools, so much so that girls weren't allowed to go to the bathroom together.

Something along those lines, remember getting a good laugh from it.
Even though it was a crazy and totally wrong comment, it was hilarious.

SirFozzie

12-05-2004, 05:01 PM

Neat trick! You can slander anybody doing that one.

Here's a free hint, Chuckles. It ain't slander if it's true.

(ok.. so your words weren't, but boy, is the sentiment behind it true.

Bubba Wheels

12-05-2004, 05:10 PM

Here's a free hint, Chuckles. It ain't slander if it's true.

(ok.. so your words weren't, but boy, is the sentiment behind it true.

Ha! Who's trolling now? Anybody can rework something into an inflammatory context, which you prove in spades. You didn't even address my main point (privatizing schools to allow MORE diversity) you just take the most combative response you can and explode with it. You, sir, be a troll.

Shkspr

12-05-2004, 06:32 PM

Go fuck yourself.

Well played. One can only hope you have as distinguished a literary career ahead of you as the last august personage to invite me via the internet to do that.

Now, since this has evolved (recognizing that evolution does not always indicate FORWARD progress) into a discussion of whether or not I wish to disparage the entire population of Okahoma as a bunch of beer-swilling homophobic rednecks (for the record, I do not), let me see if I can make myself more clear. While I was, indeed, referring to the honorable Senator Coburn in my catty little aside, I don't believe for a moment that his views on the subject of homosexual activity are particularly far away from his fellow officeholders.

Brad Carson, James Inhofe, Don Nichols, Ernest Istook, Frank Lucas, Steve Largent, Wes Watkins, JC Watts - every single one of them has voted where possible against gay rights, to ban gay marriage, to prevent gays from adopting, or some combination thereof. It is, frankly, disingenuous to assert that their voting records on homosexual civil rights could mesh so neatly with one another and be out of lockstep with the populace on this issue. Hell, the only Democrat of the bunch (Carson) was the first member of the Oklahoma delegation to call for a ban on gay marriage. I'm not going to make any blanket claims about the intelligence, morality, or judgment of any Oklahoma voter out there...but I think that if I came out against gay rights and had the backing of the Republican machine in Oklahoma that I'd be elected over almost any pro-gay rights candidate the Democrats coupld put out there.

I am, however, open to listen to anyone who wants to talk crap about Alabamans. I hate those guys.

duckman

12-05-2004, 06:51 PM

Well played. One can only hope you have as distinguished a literary career ahead of you as the last august personage to invite me via the internet to do that.
My apologies.

duckman

12-05-2004, 07:04 PM

huh ? He isnt that far of- didnt the just elected Oklahoma senator call for the sodomy to be a capital crime ? (I may be of on this - correct me if Im wrong)
To reply to the sodomy claim. It would be impossible to make the act a capital offense since the Supreme Court ruled that such laws are unconstitutional.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

Cuckoo

12-05-2004, 07:28 PM

I'm not going to make any blanket claims about the intelligence, morality, or judgment of any Oklahoma voter out there...but I think that if I came out against gay rights and had the backing of the Republican machine in Oklahoma that I'd be elected over almost any pro-gay rights candidate the Democrats coupld put out there.

But don't you see that's exactly what you did? This thread began as a comment on an irrational position toward homosexual students at a school. You stated that a "homophobe" of that type would certainly flourish in the Oklahoma political environment, and for that to happen, it seems you imply that the Oklahoma voter would have to agree in large part with a bigoted philosophy.

I don't know you, Shkspr, nor have I even conversed with you very often on this board, so I'm not sure if what I'm going to say applies to you or not, but based on this thread, it would seem to.

Far too many times, people mistakenly equate the concept of having a moral objection against homosexuality with a homophobic and bigoted hatred of homosexuals. These two stances are far, far different, and I really wish people would understand that.

Now, one can get into the argument about what constitutes discrimination for the one billionth time on this board. I suspect you would say that not allowing homosexuals to marry would fit that definition and would be akin to the principal's actions in the afforementioned article. Honestly, that's not a subject I wish to debate as I would assume it would be fruitless and overly emotional like many of the hot-button topical discussions around here.

The only thing I wished to address is the notion that a state of conservative politics must equate to one of intolerance and bigotry. For me, that's what your initial post as well as your qualification seem to imply, and I think it's dead wrong.

While I do believe that a conservative politician would win more often than not against a more liberal one in the state of Oklahoma, I hold to the notion that Oklahomans would no more tolerate a person who advocated irrational hatred or mistreatment of gays than they would someone who advocated an overwhelming moral support of homosexuality.

Sharpieman

12-05-2004, 07:41 PM

While I do believe that a conservative politician would win more often than not against a more liberal one in the state of Oklahoma, I hold to the notion that Oklahomans would no more tolerate a person who advocated irrational hatred or mistreatment of gays than they would someone who advocated an overwhelming moral support of homosexuality.
But I guess Oklahomans don't have a problem with electing a person who has irrational and ignorant beliefs about homosexual behavior.

Schmidty

12-05-2004, 07:49 PM

Amazing. Liberals are totally for freedom of speech and thought, right?..................

Oh wait. No they aren't. They're more into mind-control than Ashcroft ever was.

By the way, I am largely for gay-rights, although I am starting to re-think admitting that when it links me to anti-religious bigots like the majority of people on this board. Not allowed to have beliefs anymore in this country unless you accept EVERYTHING (which defeats the purpouse of devotion and faith in a lot of cases).

stevew

12-05-2004, 07:51 PM

But I guess Oklahomans don't have a problem with electing a person who has irrational and ignorant beliefs about homosexual behavior.

Hey, you guys keep voting for Pelosi.

cuervo72

12-05-2004, 08:06 PM

Besides what Suicane75 said, I really don't think it serves children's development and education very well to be isolated from viewpoints that are different from those of their parents. Parents will always have more influence over their children than anyone else, but being exposed to new and diverse ideas, and learning how to cope with ideas and values different from their own in a constructive way, is important for their intellectual and moral development.

I realize it's a much different set of circumstances, but for whatever reason when I read "new and diverse ideas" following "Parents will always have more influence over their children than anyone else", the first thing that came to mind was drug use/experimentation; something that is generally viewed as damaging or morally distasteful, which for some is also the case with homosexuality (drugs more universally). I think that it also puts a strong test to the parental influence supposition - if parents aren't properly on-guard, kids could too easily be tempted by drugs/alcohol (I [i]don'[/t] believe they could easily be sold on being gay of course if that's not already who they were :) ).

I guess the point is that if you come from a background where you frown on homosexuality, you're not going to find value in your children being exposed to it (not a particularly groundbreaking point I realize...).

Mike D

12-05-2004, 08:22 PM

But I guess Oklahomans don't have a problem with electing a person who has irrational and ignorant beliefs about homosexual behavior.

So, what have you explained to your children about homosexual behaviour to make them less ignorant?

oliegirl

12-05-2004, 08:25 PM

Far too many times, people mistakenly equate the concept of having a moral objection against homosexuality with a homophobic and bigoted hatred of homosexuals. These two stances are far, far different, and I really wish people would understand that.

I agree totally with this statement...personally, I don't have a problem with granting insurance benefits, etc...to gay couples, but I don't think that the union of a gay couple should be called a marriage ceremony, that is just my personal opinion. I don't think I can say that I agree with the gay lifestyle, but that does not mean that I hate gays. Some very good friends of mine are gay, are raising a child together (and doing a great job), and are wonderful people. Voting against gay rights, or voting against gay marriage does NOT make you a homophobe or someone who hates gays.

Cuckoo

12-05-2004, 08:36 PM

But I guess Oklahomans don't have a problem with electing a person who has irrational and ignorant beliefs about homosexual behavior.

Since, you quoted me, I suppose I should respond to this. Please go back and read my other posts in this thread because I already addressed a response to your supposition.

Short answer would be: Correct. When it fits with their greater priorities of a national conservative agenda, they are willing to overlook those beliefs, especially when it is questionable as to whether they are actually that candidate's beliefs.

Sharpieman

12-05-2004, 08:40 PM

Interesting...Personally I couldn't imagine even taking someone like that seriously.

Cuckoo

12-05-2004, 09:01 PM

Interesting...Personally I couldn't imagine even taking someone like that seriously.

That's okay. I can't take Ted Kennedy seriously, but the keep electing him up there. :D

clintl

12-05-2004, 09:18 PM

I realize it's a much different set of circumstances, but for whatever reason when I read "new and diverse ideas" following "Parents will always have more influence over their children than anyone else", the first thing that came to mind was drug use/experimentation; something that is generally viewed as damaging or morally distasteful, which for some is also the case with homosexuality (drugs more universally). I think that it also puts a strong test to the parental influence supposition - if parents aren't properly on-guard, kids could too easily be tempted by drugs/alcohol (I [i]don'[/t] believe they could easily be sold on being gay of course if that's not already who they were :) ).

I guess the point is that if you come from a background where you frown on homosexuality, you're not going to find value in your children being exposed to it (not a particularly groundbreaking point I realize...).

By the time kids are old enough to go to the prom, if they aren't ready to be exposed to the fact that not everyone in the world has the same values as their parents do, their parents have not adequately prepared them for real life. By this time, they should be thinking pretty independently, and be able to form their own opinions. And if those opinions are different from the parents' (and some differences are inevitable), the parents are just going to have to live with it. Obviously, there are many areas (like drug experimentation/use and sexual activity) where parents still need to monitor their kids and maintain discipline, but I don't it's appropriate to extend that to thought control at this age level.

sooner333

12-05-2004, 09:31 PM

I don't remember Tom Coburn ever saying that sodomy should be a capital crime. I do remember hearing that he would support the death penalty on abortionists (of course, if abortion was illegal). I do remember him talking about the rampant lesbianism in a part of the state and said something along the lines of the girls not going to the bathroom together. But, I don't remember him saying sodomy should be a capital crime.

sooner333

12-05-2004, 09:32 PM

Dola- Keep in mind also that both the Democratic candidate and the GOP candidate supported the constitutional amendment against gay marriage...so it's not like there was a wide range of choices in the homosexual agenda in the senate race.

cuervo72

12-05-2004, 09:36 PM

By the time kids are old enough to go to the prom, if they aren't ready to be exposed to the fact that not everyone in the world has the same values as their parents do, their parents have not adequately prepared them for real life. By this time, they should be thinking pretty independently, and be able to form their own opinions. And if those opinions are different from the parents' (and some differences are inevitable), the parents are just going to have to live with it. Obviously, there are many areas (like drug experimentation/use and sexual activity) where parents still need to monitor their kids and maintain discipline, but I don't it's appropriate to extend that to thought control at this age level.

Ahh, I did forget about the fact that this was for the prom, didn't I. Yes, kids by then know what is going on, it really shouldn't be an issue at that point.

Glengoyne

12-05-2004, 09:49 PM

Shkspr

12-05-2004, 10:16 PM

But don't you see that's exactly what you did? {...}

I don't believe I DID do that, mostly because I believe I can decry the election practices of a community while accepting the people who made those decisions as learned, reasoned people. In fact, that "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach is PRECISELY what you're accusing me of being unable to contemplate wrt homosexuality and gays.

Cuckoo

12-05-2004, 10:32 PM

I don't believe I DID do that, mostly because I believe I can decry the election practices of a community while accepting the people who made those decisions as learned, reasoned people. In fact, that "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach is PRECISELY what you're accusing me of being unable to contemplate wrt homosexuality and gays.

Fair enough. Where I see the difference lying is the fact that you have just now actually made it sound like you "love the sinner" in that comparison.

In your first post, you qualified nothing. You simply made the connection between an irrational position on homosexuals to the Oklahoma political environment. A reasonable person could conclude you were thereby insulting the Oklahoma voters since you did not state otherwise.

In your second post, you went into much more detail as opposed to your original one-line cutdown. But your contempt for Oklahoma politicians and those who elected them was still quite obvious, at least that's the way it seemed to me.

Just the very fact that you placed your comment within a discussion of an obviously misguided policy makes it hard to buy into any assertion you may make that you aren't intending to call Oklahomans misguided at the same time.

Perhaps you are meaning to call them misguided (in their voting), just not bigoted. I'm not really sure. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt either way, but what I feel you're ignoring is that throughout all of your qualifications, the implications that first upset myself and some others have remained.

BigJohn&TheLions

12-06-2004, 02:40 AM

I didn't even realize that gay couples were now attending high school functions. Times have changed a lot.

I'm with you here. I am shocked that it seems to be almost acceptable in H.S. These kids are missing out on so much in life. Like when you are in your early 20 and start to find out who from school came out. "Hey, you hear about Steve?"

Sharpieman

12-06-2004, 02:53 AM

I would have to concur with the sentiment that it is fairly common for people to vote for someone withwhom they fundamentally disagree with on a number of issues. I just did it with my vote for president.

As for ignorance and biggotry, those issues cross party lines, and it is foolish to think otherwise. In CA the people passed anti-gay marriage legislation in 2002, a more democratic leaning state is harder to find. Also this year, measures doing the same passed in a number of states by far wider margins than the President won by, and in Oregon where the people voted for Kerry and to ban gay marriage.

As for the original topic. I think it is a pretty ludicrous notion to ask these students to get permission slips. I think the school has to be pretty much hands off, unless there are prominent displays of affection on campus. I believe that is something most schools ban regardless of sexual orientation. The shcool should take no position on the subject.

I agree with the last paragraph totally. As for left-leaning states or states that for kerry voting to ban gay marriage-Its just a matter of time when a gay couple challenges the state law. I think banning gay marriage is not a issue for the masses to decide. The courts should take a long look at these bans, because the way I see it, its in direct conflict to what this country champions-equal rights for all. Its never been a issue of morality, its a civil rights issue. Maybe in 10-20 years gays will have the right to marry because we will realize that gay marriage bans are in conflict with our own principles.

Glengoyne

12-06-2004, 03:36 AM

I agree with you Sharpieman. I will continue to vote against any measure that bans gay marriage unless it actually creates an equal mechanism like Civil Unions. I don't buy the separate but equal arguments against civil unions, just like I don't buy that "marriage" is hurt by including gays. I figure that it is identical to marriage today and in 50 years it will be effectively considered marriage anyway. The government should treat all individuals equally, and it especially shouldn't differentiate between individuals based on sexuality.

edit: I do hope it doesn't take 20 years to convey those rights to gays.

Crapshoot

12-06-2004, 09:10 AM

I don't think I can say that I agree with the gay lifestyle, but that does not mean that I hate gays. Some very good friends of mine are gay, are raising a child together (and doing a great job), and are wonderful people. Voting against gay rights, or voting against gay marriage does NOT make you a homophobe or someone who hates gays.

Every time I hear about this "gay lifestyle", I wonder what exactly people imagine- do all gay people sit around in fedoras and flamboyant clothes or act like people from Will and Grace ? If not, how on earth is it a "lifestyle" ? Im opposed to female "lifestyle" Olliegirl- its not that I hate women or am a mysognist, I just dont' think they should have equal rights. How is that different from your arguement ?

oliegirl

12-06-2004, 01:05 PM

Every time I hear about this "gay lifestyle", I wonder what exactly people imagine- do all gay people sit around in fedoras and flamboyant clothes or act like people from Will and Grace ? If not, how on earth is it a "lifestyle" ? Im opposed to female "lifestyle" Olliegirl- its not that I hate women or am a mysognist, I just dont' think they should have equal rights. How is that different from your arguement ?

The gay people who I know personally (so I can have an honest opinon based on first hand knowledge) live in a predomentally gay area, the child attends a school in this area where there is a large percentage of single parents and same sex parents. All of their friends are gay couples, and as a result of all of this, the child is not exposed to what I consider to be traditional families.

Saying that a woman shouldn't have the same rights is a totally different argument. The rights gays are fighting for are things that come along with marriage...right to inherit, right of power of attorney, right to ins. benefits, etc...I said in my original post that I think they should have those things but I don't think that the union between 2 women or 2 men should be called marriage.

Crapshoot

12-06-2004, 01:30 PM

The gay people who I know personally (so I can have an honest opinon based on first hand knowledge) live in a predomentally gay area, the child attends a school in this area where there is a large percentage of single parents and same sex parents. All of their friends are gay couples, and as a result of all of this, the child is not exposed to what I consider to be traditional families.

Saying that a woman shouldn't have the same rights is a totally different argument. The rights gays are fighting for are things that come along with marriage...right to inherit, right of power of attorney, right to ins. benefits, etc...I said in my original post that I think they should have those things but I don't think that the union between 2 women or 2 men should be called marriage.

Why is that then ? Do you view marriage in civil law as a religous concept ? Im genuinely trying to understand the logic of saying you can't call it "marriage". No is one saying that a church should recognize it as marriage- but you seem to be arguing that the Judeo-Christian definition holds purview of the word "marriage".

sachmo71

12-06-2004, 01:39 PM

I'm with you here. I am shocked that it seems to be almost acceptable in H.S. These kids are missing out on so much in life. Like when you are in your early 20 and start to find out who from school came out. "Hey, you hear about Steve?"

What are they missing out on? By now they should be fully aware of what sex they are attracted to, choice or not.

I believe the opposite. These kids are, at the very least, able to be with the person they are attracted to. The kids in my class had to pretend they were heterosexual, or not show a preferance at all.

oliegirl

12-06-2004, 01:59 PM

Why is that then ? Do you view marriage in civil law as a religous concept ? Im genuinely trying to understand the logic of saying you can't call it "marriage". No is one saying that a church should recognize it as marriage- but you seem to be arguing that the Judeo-Christian definition holds purview of the word "marriage".

Yes, I do. It's a sacrament...and I think that when you consider a marriage as something taking place in a church, where you are standing before God and promising to be faithful to one another that it is definitely something that is religious. I believe in the separation of church and state, but I also think that there are some things, such as marriage, that are so intertwined with religion and government that you can't fully separate them. I think a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, I am not so opposed to it that it would sway how I voted, but I have voted the same party since I was 18 and don't see myself changing that anytime soon.

Crapshoot

12-06-2004, 02:19 PM

Yes, I do. It's a sacrament...and I think that when you consider a marriage as something taking place in a church, where you are standing before God and promising to be faithful to one another that it is definitely something that is religious. I believe in the separation of church and state, but I also think that there are some things, such as marriage, that are so intertwined with religion and government that you can't fully separate them. I think a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, I am not so opposed to it that it would sway how I voted, but I have voted the same party since I was 18 and don't see myself changing that anytime soon.

That would be great and all, but your arguement lies wholely on the belief that marriage (as defined by the government for its purposes) i) is religous- which it cannot be by definition- that's religious law and not civil law. By definition, the religous arguement by itself is not enough- or even relevant and ii) the idea that marriage is a Judeo-Christian concept alone. Cultures have practiced marriages for thousands of years before the advent of the latest mythologies- why does Christianity have some overwhelming right to the word ?

BucDawg40

12-06-2004, 02:29 PM

why does Christianity have some overwhelming right to the word ?

Because there are lots of them 'round these parts. Therefore, they hold dominion over our language.

Blackadar

12-06-2004, 02:39 PM

Yes, I do. It's a sacrament...and I think that when you consider a marriage as something taking place in a church, where you are standing before God and promising to be faithful to one another that it is definitely something that is religious. I believe in the separation of church and state, but I also think that there are some things, such as marriage, that are so intertwined with religion and government that you can't fully separate them. I think a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, I am not so opposed to it that it would sway how I voted, but I have voted the same party since I was 18 and don't see myself changing that anytime soon.

Hmmm...

So are you saying that because my wife and I are of very different religions and we didn't get married in a church or other holy site, our marriage isn't legal? Or recognized by God? Or, if we didn't believe in God, it's not legal?

I'm missing the point here.

BigJohn&TheLions

12-06-2004, 04:38 PM

Proms suck. They always have. They always will. Why should homosexual students be allowed to go with who they want and have a gay old time when heterosexual students go through the hell that we all were forced to endure. Inn fact it could be worse than ever for the straight kids, since their night will suck even more in comparison...

I just can't wait to hear the first discrimination case against a straight kid who turns down a gay kid. Think about it, by turning him down the straight kid is denying him his right to practice his sexuality. And the only reason he is turning him down is because he is gay.

Karlifornia

12-06-2004, 06:37 PM

Why not just totally decentralize, let all the new, diverse interests looking for their own special interests seek them out and get them in specialized settings? Think of it, no more inflicting the Pledge of Allegiance of those who don't want it, totally secular classrooms with no mention of God, ect...

Why don't we just adopt total segregation. I think that learning about new cultures by interacting with people who are different from yourself is just shitty! If I had my way, I'd go to school with nothing but atheistic, indie-rock loving mulattoes. That way, I'd be totally unable to say that I've ever experienced anything outside of my little shell.

Hey man-People can already find their own specialized settings. It's called freedom. We don't need any changes to the law.

Crapshoot

12-06-2004, 11:47 PM

Actually, pains me as it does- I think Bubba has a point - Im in favor of vouchers, if not the complete waiver of the Dep of Education as Bubba and some of his buddies would like however.

On the other point - Im still curious as to Olliegirl's take on what Blackadar and I both argued.

oliegirl

12-07-2004, 07:04 AM

why does Christianity have some overwhelming right to the word ?

Because we live in America, which is a democracy (or the closest thing to it), and as long as we have a right to vote on issues such as these, the ideas of the majority will be put into place. 11 out of 11 states voted against gay marriage 2 months ago, you are in the minority on this issue - at least right now.

So are you saying that because my wife and I are of very different religions and we didn't get married in a church or other holy site, our marriage isn't legal? Or recognized by God? Or, if we didn't believe in God, it's not legal?

I'm missing the point here.

Of course not, but he asked me how I felt about the issue and why I had made the comments that I made. Marriage is different to alot of people, to me it has religious meaning to it as well. If it doesn't for you, then that is fine. You will probably vote for gay marriage, and I will vote against it, at least for now.

Blackadar

12-07-2004, 07:19 AM

Of course not, but he asked me how I felt about the issue and why I had made the comments that I made. Marriage is different to alot of people, to me it has religious meaning to it as well. If it doesn't for you, then that is fine. You will probably vote for gay marriage, and I will vote against it, at least for now.

I'm just pointing out that by your criteria, a strong case could be made that my wife and I aren't married. Does that give you the right to vote on our marriage?

oliegirl

12-07-2004, 07:58 AM

I'm just pointing out that by your criteria, a strong case could be made that my wife and I aren't married. Does that give you the right to vote on our marriage?

IF gay marriage was the "norm", and heterosexual couples were fighting for the right to be "married" and I was of the opinion that the union between 2 hetero people should not be called marriage, and if this was put before the people to vote on it, then yes, I, along with millions of other people, would have the right to vote on your marriage.

I am not saying the system is perfect. And I am not saying that I dont' think gay couples should be denied all the rights they are asking for that come along with being married, I am only saying that I dont' think the union should be called marriage.