Trip and others who may want to read, I've deleted the main section, where I listed pertinent events in Oregon schools that I found on the internet. (On my first search! Isn't Google great?) They very much break the appropriateness rule of the forum. I copied the whole thing, however, and can email it if anyone really wants it.

> I was going to stay out of further discussion, but I can't let this misinformation go through.
>
> >> I've also read that, historically, homosexuality spreads once accepted by a society.
>
> This sentence assumes from the start that homosexuality is a problem.

Huh? Try "RinkChat spreads once accepted by a society" and say the original sentence with that tone to understand how it was meant.

> >> Whether that is from people "coming out" or changing orientations afterward is something that can't really be known.
>
> Well, of *course* it's people coming out of the closet. We currently have a society where many gay people must hide who they are for fear of losing their jobs, getting kicked out of their apartments, getting bashed on the street, and so on. As society slowly gets more accepting of homosexuality and stops seeing it as some mysterious threat, gays feel more comfortable being themselves.
>
> As far as people changing their orientations: really? Could you ever change to homosexual? Of course not. You are what you are.

You would be entirely correct if genes caused behavior. As of yet, there are no known behaviors dictated by genes. Same source as my next bit.

> >> Last I checked, there were more than a hundred separate studies suggesting that there is no genetic cause for homosexuality, and none (well, one since proved in error) suggesting that it is genetic.
>
> This is misinformation. I have to wonder what your source is -- the American Family Association, perhaps? While scientific studies are ongoing, a heavy percentage of mainstream (read: unbiased) scientists do believe that it is genetic, whether or not there is a single "gay gene".

Actually, I was thinking of a recent study conducted by scientists from the Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences at the University of Western Ontario and the Department of Genetics at Stanford Medical School, which concluded that data do not support the presence of a gene influencing sexual orientation. Reported in the Boston Globe, if that matters. An article published in Science magazine stated: "Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated."

Also, mainstream equals unbiased?! *Fits of laughter*

> I have read some studies suggesting that it isn't, but most of them will soon reveal a political agenda that makes you doubt their validity (one said outright that if it can be shown that homosexuality is not genetic but based on environmental factors, we can learn how to prevent it).
>
> >>Other studies (ON ANIMALS) show that it is not difficult to change orientation.
>
> I've never heard of these studies, though homosexuality has been observed throughout the animal kingdom.
>
>In any event, I think the results of the so-called "ex-gay" movement speak for themselves. Of course behavior can be changed. A gay man can marry a woman and have sex with her, for example. That doesn't mean that he isn't still gay; he's simply being untrue to himself. Such a situation is pretty much doomed to failure.

The one I was thinking of at the time was something we covered very briefly in Biology class. It was the original, done with ducks, though from a single internet search I see that it has been done with many other animals as well.

As per the "ex-gay" thing, the only information I can find is that they succeeded.

>[CHOP]

> >>I read the text of the legislation, and it provides only for banning the *promotion* of the acts.
>
> I can't speak to this legislation, since I haven't read it. In general, however, "promotion" has meant "mentioning" in similar past legislation. If you mention homosexuality in a biology or sex education course, some people will immediately cry "You're promoting the homosexual agenda!" (a phrase I've never heard defined, much like "homosexual lifestyle", but never mind that).

Not homosexual agenda, *homosexualITY*

Most of the measure deals with carefully defining that term and others to be only what the dictionary says, without the stretches of meaning that liberals tend to make. From the text: "Promote. To contribute to growth, enlargement, or prosperity of; to forward; to further; to encourage; to advance."

> >>Most of the opponents use only scare tactics and outright lies. [e.g. Gay students will commit suicide, health information pertaining to sex will be censored, gay students will be hunted down by their classmates, gay students will be denied counseling, etc.]
>
> Perhaps you aren't aware that gay teenagers are three times more likely to commit suicide than straight teenagers. That is not a scare tactic or a lie; it is a fact.

Turnabout is fair play. I've attibuted my fact, you do the same for yours. I'll assume for the moment that it is true. From one point of view, the statistic means they need counseling. From another, it means the same with the added knowledge of the inherent dissatisfaction of sinful behavior.

>It's not hard to see why; kids are notoriously cruel to anyone who is different, and in a society where homosexuality is perceived as perverted, gay teens frequently really feel alone. They often can't talk to their parents about it, their churches won't support them, their "friends" won't accept them, and there are few public role models available for them. There are very few places they can go to talk, or to simply not feel alone. To prevent them from hearing any information about it in a sex education course, or to talk to a counselor about it -- two of the things similar past legislation with the "promotion" wording has tried to do -- would indeed only make things worse for a lot of kids.

Indeed. This particular legislation goes to great lengths to avoid those.

> >>I've read a very few coherent arguments against it, as the law can't accurately be called anti-gay. It has no effect on gays, it just stops a certain public school from foisting homosexuality onto students.
>
> The legislation is specifically worded to only affect one high school? I don't believe that.

I was unclear. That school has received the lion's share of the attention because it hosted the most distasteful events. The vast majority of schools do not specifically encourage homosexuality and thus the legislation would have no effect on them.

> >>gab"Hates political scare tactics and lies, regardless of direction"by
>
> Well, using a phrase like "foisting homosexuality onto students" doesn't help your case for hating political scare tactics.

Assuming that one didn't hear about reported events in the schools, you would be correct. Otherwise, mine is a very accurate statement.

> Keep in mind that I don't doubt your honesty on any of these matters; I simply think -- due to the fact that I can't confirm your information on-line, your generalities, and my observation of similar past proposals -- that your facts are in error. And regardless of whether or not one finds homosexuality a sin or what-have-you, presenting misinformation can't help anyone.
>
> -- Trip

Kept in mind.

gabby