As usual, I come late into the fray. I think a lot of quality things have been posted here today (and a few that I won't address).

My response was, as usual, quite long, so I will simply link to it here: http://dones.blogspot.com/2005/04/another-gay-marriage-post.html

Sorry, I can't figure out how to make the link work. I tried PHP and HTML :( Anyways...

Enjoy!

I noticed in the article that although this has not been discussed the gay community is concerned. These so called christians such as Bush do not need ideas. The answers this morning were absolutely approriate and correct.

The so called christians are keeping a watchful eye on evolution. Why do I refer to the anti gay crowd as so called christians? As I was taught God and the son of God were about love and kindness for all and not the kind of beings that would meddle.

It's all about misinterpretation, power,politics and money. Too many are allowing power hungry big name evangelical christians(?) to push emotional buttons with misinterpretations. Then send them money and make them rich. Next in the name of God they participate in Washington political corruption to influence politicians who lie to everybody.

It seems to me if these folks are so concerned about the teachings and the Ten Commandments go to work in Washington DC. Tom Delay and GW bush tell lies yet the so called christians send them money and vote for these politicians. Something wrong with this picture...seems a bit bogus to me.

45 years ago at the age of 15 it became apparent to me that the church was hypocritical. I didn't look back and I know that God and Jesus provided forgiveness because big expensive church buildings were not important. Love is in the heart and mind was the message I received. Spiritual guidance can be found in mother nature and father sun.

Once again I was taught that God and the son of God were about love and kindness for all and not the kind of beings that would meddle.

OK, this is great, is the city council trying to pass something that they don't want us to know about? I smell diversion!

soooo tired.

I will also admit that I am burnt out on this topic of "gays" and how they live/lead their lives.

I feel like "gays" have been put into this category that makes them so alien and obscure--and we talk about them like they don't hear us or aren't around.

My brother is gay. Some of my friends are gay. A few of the teachers I work with are gay. Bus drivers are gay. Politicians are gay. Priests are gay. Musicians are gay. Athletes are gay. Your neighbors may be gay.

It's a part of life and I really wish they wouldn't be categorized as though they don't speak English and we have to validate what rights in life they can enjoy.

We're talking about people here folks, not objects--and "these people" are all around us.

Sorry for the rant...only two cups of coffee so far this morning and my students are about to arrive in my class...wait, that was the bell. Here we go!

If two men or two women who practic homosexuality desire to be treated the same as a heterosexual couple, why don't they act like one? I don't think the forms mention the sexual orientation of the "adopters" (but I have never seen them). Special rights and considerations are frequently requested by homosexuals, but not needed as the rights resevered for all couples also apply to them. Pretty soon we will begin to monitor the number of homosexual adoptions and have them constantly compared to heterosexual adoptions, even though only a fraction of the population practices homosexuality.

As for merrill, I strongly suggest you actually study the Bible before you demonize Christians. There are other passages such as "all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" that explain exactly what you are arguing against. The first step of moral relativism is to remove absolutes; you are well on your way Father Sun. At some point you start to infringe on my first amendment right to the "free exercise of my religion" when I want to pray at work (good thing I don't work for the government, then the ACLU would have me fired). Christians, it's time to stand up to this rhetoric and voice your opinion no matter how "narrow-minded" it is.

original_bob is also correct...

...though the topic may be old, it is better than cheese opinions or "what do you do on a sunday afternoon?"

I work for the government and meditate/pray at work quite often. The ACLU isn't after my job.

If a homosexual couple wants to adopt, there's no reason why they shouldn't be allowed. I don't buy into the thought that a child needs a female mom and a male dad. Every person has biological parents of opposite sexes (at least I think), but both males and females can perform the familial and societal role of mom and/or dad.

Remember the horse in the dean's office in "Animal House"? Today's question is like that. We've beaten it to death. Let's fire up the chainsaw and get rid of it. Yes, your favorite cheese or your Sunday afternoon activities are questions hardly worthy of protracted thought. But there are so many other current, relevant topics we could discuss.

"How do you think the make up of the City Commission will affect Lawrence?"

"What should be the spending priorities for the new school bonds?"

"How significant is it that the newly selected Iraqi president is a Kurd?"

"Is the volunteer citizens' group observing the US-Mexican border in Arizona a good idea?"

"Should Congress have given The Tiger Woods Foundation a $100,000 grant?"

"Would John Bolton be a good US ambassador to the UN?"

"Was the recent vote in Zimbabwe legitimate?"

"Should identification be required in order to vote?"

You all know how I feel about this one. Its probably my fault that this is today's question. Sorry all.... but it does have merit.

And to sort of continue on with what I was saying yesterday, I think that we all feel our way of life is misunderstood and misrepresented. Whether you are gay, straight, christian, athiest, lib or conservative someone else has an opposing opinion about the way you live your life. My problem is why doesn't everyone just take that scrutiny and turn it around on themselves? If people take the christians on here to task its probably because they feel that the way christians are "judging" them is unwarranted. Just like those same christians feel presecuted by all the anti-christian rhetoric. It just keeps cycling back on us. I wish we could take our microscopic eye and turn it inwards and spend some more time wondering about the mysteries of ourselves. Oh man, my logic only makes me realize that I spend too much time on this board!

Thank you Fangorn

1: Par for the course, unfortunately. 2: As long as it's not on administration, then I'm probably okay with it. 3: Interesting. I would have assumed it would be a Shi'a 4: If it's volunteer, who cares. If they all come back with sunstroke, though, I'm gonna laugh at them. 5: ? 6: ? 7: Hell yes.

To be honest, world politics and news have started to depress me, so I've stopped following as closely. I think it started when the presidential campaign started going in earnest.

Fangorn:

The new city commission certainly won't overturn the smoking ban, much to my chagrin. As to the rest of the issues in Lawrence, to be honest until the smoking ban I didn't pay much attention to local politics. So, I don't believe I'm quite qualified to argue those without doing some research.

As to the bonds priorities, I thought the 54mil$ was earmarked for replacing SJHS? Are you referring to the 8.?mil$ for upgrading classrooms and communications? Or did I not read the bond issues correctly?

I do not think they should ban gays from adoption. If they are willing to provide a good home for a kid in need of one, then the better off that kid will be in the long run.

As it stands now, any loser can have a kid. In fact, it is usually because of these loser's that we have so many kids in need of adoption. I tend to think that people need to apply for a permit before being allowed to have a child because there are too many worthless people having them.

Carmenilla: Many people throughout my life have suggested I possess any number of interesting character flaws. Backing away from controversial subjects has never been one of them. I got sick of the name-calling yesterday. Instead of just complaining about it, I tried to quantify it to back up my assertion, really hoping that we could expurgate it. When today's topic just picked up where yesterday's left off and the very first post continued the contentious tone, I thought a "cooling off" period and new subject might be nice. A few others have expressed an interest in having a different topic. I've tried to suggest a few. Or more precisely, I'm trying to point out that there are, in fact, a plethora of other relevant issues to discuss.

bthom37: You are correct about the $54million. As for the $8million, what kind of "upgrade" would be beneficial? What communications tools are most needed? That's the kind of thrust I was seeking.

ms_canada! I'm so glad you're still here. I just asked about you yesterday.

"Will Florida's proposed expansion of "self-defense" rights lead to shoot-outs?"

"Are recent changes in 'No Child Left Behind' really an improvement?"

"Is Daylight Saving Time still needed?"

"How much should a gallon of gas cost?"

"Will the up-coming launch of the space shuttle Discovery be safe?"

ms_canada: The dance has been rescheduled to the end of this month (all for my sake, if you can believe it). I am going to be on base on the originally scheduled date. I'll be wearing my mess dress uniform to the dance. It's essentially a tuxedo version of the service dress uniform that's worn only for certain ceremonies and other special occasions.

I had also wondered why ssauble singled me out. I don't think I've been particularly affrontive in my posts. And certainly there were at least two other "pro-amendment" people whose posts were harder-hitting than mine. The intensity of his (I'm assuming also) first post took me quite unawares.

I pondered the whole exchange after I went to bed and felt very convicted. I don't tend to quote a lot of Scripture on this forum. In fact, I think I've quoted more movie lines than Bible verses. But I was wrong for the way I used God's Word yesterday. It was not out of concern for ssauble's soul, but in order to win an argument. The Scriptures are called a "sword" in a few places, but I used them as a club. ssauble, if you are reading this, I am sorry, and I ask for your forgiveness.

Interesting thoughts Carmenilla.

However since Fangorn mentioned Animal House, why don't we all state what our favorite part of the movie was. My favorite part was the "Guess what I am joke". A Zit!!! That gets me everytime.

Have a good day.

Fangorn:

As to how the 8mil$ should be spent, I came to KU from RI so I'm not in the best position to judge the LHS/FSHS situations. But off the top of my head (so if any of these are currently being done, that's awesome), I would say that providing computer lab time afterschool would be helpful to accomplishing projects & research, etc. Discussion boards for certain classes would be nice (although, to be honest, these are more of a theoretical good thing until you reach grad school). An intranet for the schools, accessible to both administrators and students, more computers, and perhaps improved computer science classes. A radio station, even? (my HS in RI had one, and it was pretty cool)

Now onto your other q's:

I don't think the law will lead to more shoot-outs. Having read the law, it's pretty specific as to what situations are covered, and I think a lot of the publicity has been misguided.

Don't know enough to give an educated (ha!) opinion.

DST is an anachronism, (wow, I'm rocking the puns all of a sudden), and I don't think it adds much to our daily lives.

A gallon of gas should cost what the market will pay, as with any other good. Having said that, there should be significantly more funding and incentives towards alternate fuels.

Not being a rocket scientist, I don't know. I do think today is an exciting time in spaceflight, with more commercial ventures and with other nations trying to get in on the action.

ms_canada I know how christians think. I know what the bible says. I've read it, its a wonderful book. But that is all it is too me. I am just one of those kooky people who believes that there can be no one true religion. I really think you are exceptionally sweet but you're barking up the wrong tree here with me.....And Fangorn you STILL didn't answer the question. But I'll answer one of yours.

I'd love to see the price of gas stay under 2 dollars. Then there is part of me that wishes the price would skyrocket more and more and no one could afford it. Then we would be forced to walk (ya know, excercise) and take more time in nature and maybe be less aggresssive because there is no road-rage. Geez, did I just turn into Lulu or something. Ahhh! Anyway, we all might live a little longer if we were forced to give up our cars and lose our "spare tires". But boy, would my feet hurt!

extreme_makeover: get an airhorn like those often used at college football games. . . oh, and some ear plugs. The next time he starts in on you, give him a good three-second blast. You may have to do this one or two more times. Once you've damaged both ears, spending time with his audiologist may curtail his time to nag you. ;)

craigers: I always liked the closing still shots of the movie where we're told what each character went on to do with his/her life. That mash-potatoes-as-zit gag was hilarious, too. I miss John Belusie!

bthom37: I'm not sure I've ever met anyone from Rhode Island before. I think one of my class members at the academy may have been, but I'll need to check. What were your radio station's hours of operation? Who ran it? What was its wattage?

Carmenilla: On their 1983 album "State of Cunfusion", The Kinks had a song called "Definite Maybe". I'm afraid my answer would fall somewhere in this category. // How big a problem do you think "road rage" is in our area? (or in the US?) Have you ever been the object of someone's road rage? // I think Lulu's posts were often intended to provoke. Yours are clearly intended to participate in discussion by asking and answering.

Well, fangorn, I graduated in 97, so I don't really remember too much about the station. It was on 90.7 IIRC, and had a range (depending on atmospheric conditions) of 15-20 miles. Hours were 7-9am, then 5-11 at night (again, IIRC). Here's a link to the school: http://www.portsmouthabbey.org/

And, FWIW, there's only 3 Rhode Islanders in this town (me, my ex, and a guy I met at a party) that I know of.

there are significant differences between gay-parented and hetero-parented children. Among them:

+A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.

• Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. However the sons of lesbians exhibit "an opposite pattern" and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.

• Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to "sex-typed cultural norms." And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.

it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents.

sorry for the no link. i kept trying to log on and thought for a moment reader reaction banned me as it wasn't letting me through. i started having visions this place turned into larryville. i have to erase my history everytime i post. anyone else having this problem? didn't think so.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,29901,00.html

I agree with Carmenilla: let's see the sources and citations for those claims, lunacydetector.

(So we can determine whether the findings are reproduceable in other studies across populations other than the ones used for your quoted findings, or if the claims come from one-off studies whose conclusions can't be reproduced; i.e., are they scientific, or ideologically motivated....)

(Also, how are you defining "significantly greater" in this context? Statistically significant, or ideologically significant?)

Didn't Ving Rhames say that in "Pulp Fiction too"? Man. Tarantino copies everything!

Lunacy, have some humanity. A wanted child is a loved child. We just need some more loving parents whatever their sexual orientation.

I feel as a parent that people who want to adopt any child should be have background checks. They should be fully checked out for abuse charges of any kind to other children or their partner married or not. Look at the case awhile back where the foster parents abused all the kids by starving them, keeping them locked up etc. Those kids were badly abused I'm sure it will take sometime until they trust anyone again.

Parenting is hard enough and people who want to adopt should truely want kids. They should be given as much support from the agency, maybe take some parenting type classes and.

There are children out there who would love to have a family to live with. Love comes in all shapes, sizes, and colors. People should not be judged on their sexual orientation, the color of their skin or whether theres going to be a mom and a dad, two dads, or two moms raising them.

Children want and need to be loved and taken care of. A child should be taught as a child to love and to not hate. All these kids want is to be loved by someone.

What kids need most are involved, engaged parents. It doesn't matter what you look like, who your partner is (or if you even have a partner), or how much money you make - good parents are good parents.

I for one will be livid if our Congress starts pushing this type of bill.

Interesting. I dislike using media links for information in forums as so many are scientifically suspect. Also, I find Fox News one of the largest offenders. The source provided by lunacydetector refers to a study published in the American Sociological Review out of Univ. of Penn.

The article provides a good example of the dangers perpetuated by researchers when they research a problem without absolute objectivity - something much more dificult to do in the social sciences rather than the physical. Those seriously interested in today's question should read the article - it should be discussed as it raises many important points (and underlying questions). If that coffee group is still going it would make a fine topic for discussion.

I'm changrinned to admit that I doubted that a reference lunacydetector provided might be of great value to the question since from my own perspective his/her posts were more "lunacy" than "detector". I stand corrected and apologize.

There's certainly nothing unexpected by what it would reveal, if it is true. To say that a child raised by parents that are, themselves, different from the common standards of behavior, would then exhibit traits that are outside of the normal standards of behavior should be almost a logical conclusion. To say that homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals would be a flawed, erroneous statement. To say that men are the same as women, blacks are the same as whites, conservatives are the same as liberals, I am the same as you, you are the same as him, those would all be erroneous statements as well.

To say that any of those differences mean a thing would be an erroneous statement. You would, undoubtedly, find similar differences were you to compare any two groups with different blanket traits. The question, then, is whether any of those differences are very significant, or worthy of being worried over. I don't personally feel that they are, but fully admit that I feel the blurring of societal rules and standards to be a good thing and not bad.

The interesting thing I saw is that, even in cases of sexual experimentation with the same gender, it still didn't change the way they defined themselves, as a general rule. What it implies, to my eyes, is that even through curiosity, your basic orientation is not truly altered. Again, though, this stands to reason. If there are homosexuals who go through one to several hetero relations before re-orienting (usually due to societal pressures to not be gay) then there are undoubtedly going to be some heterosexuals who do the same.

Before you spout from a tattered pulpit, "Oh, the persecution of American Christians!" (which in itself, a paradox), realize your place in time and suspend your existence. What exactly has threatened you and your faith with the Lord?

There is merit in your observation, Merrill. The survival of American churches pivots on monetary gain. Nor does God play politics. Those who use his name in such vain only to inflict their own will, will face the utmost judgment. They, in affect, are committing a grave sin: Hubris.

I also agree with whoever said, "There is a crime behind every profit."

Furthermore, this I submit:

"5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

For those who back a war out of fear, let me remind you, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Every zealot is a liar, and his conviction a lie. I said that.

Fanghorn, I see you've an admiration of Mark Twain and perhaps consider him wise. Though, it seems you have not read his works or you would have been familiar with his "Letters From The Earth." Likewise, you seem to not have read The Bible, either, or else you would be familiar to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

You are a sinner, Fanghorn. How dare you judge? Vile and disdain is the only impression you leave.

I pray you will find God.

ms_canada: I had already prepared a response that included Paul's words to the Romans. I will defer to your suggestion of restraint, but I do want to post two brief items from what I wrote.

While Mark Twain is interesting and probably the first truly American writer, I don't consider him particularly wise. I do consider him an excellent writer, but wisdom and wit are not the same thing.

I read Greek and Hebrew, but my Aramaic is a bit rusty.

Do not presume that I excluded myself as a sinner, ms_canada. Please speak without haste.

In addition, what relevance has Paul's words within this discussion? Please make your point accurately.

My intent was to bring about this question: Since we are all sinners, why do you so continously judge?

Which portion of my post was foolish?

Fangorn - pay no attention to this foolish person

ms_canada: "We are all sinners. But some of us have been saved by the grace of God."

Who are you to judge who has been saved? You, yourself, are not capable of judging your own salvation. That is God's doing. Striving for salvation is on-going since we are imperfect. Salvation is as on-going as the struggle to follow the footsteps of Christ.

Accepting Christ as Lord is only the beginning.

ssauble: if you spoke without haste, you would have realized ms_canada's point was that, as a Christian, I already know I am a sinner. She made her point accurately to those who bothered actually to read it. Likewise if you had read my first post of today with any kind of understanding, you would have seen that I was referring to Twain's skill as a writer, not his wisdom as a sage.

Living a Christian life is a process, of growth, of learning, of struggling (as you wrote) to "follow the footsteps of Christ". Salvation, on the other hand, is not a process. It is an event that happens when a person accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord. "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth man confesses, resulting in salvation." A person can (and should) know if they are saved. And it is possible to recognize the salvation of others. "You will know them by their fruit."

Now back to the question. It would be incredibly foolish for the state to prohibit gays from adopting. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be paying the state to raise children that are going to be adopted by caring, loving parents without criminal records, regardless of anything else about them!

If you even dare suggest that Kansas should prohibit gays from adopting, then you have absolutely no right to complain that your taxes are too high! Luckily, there aren't as many of you as there are proponents of the marriage desecration amendment.

Pointless?

No where in The Bible does it say that you've a right to judge.

The only thing futile is the fatal error of your conviction.

I likewise respect Twain, I just found it ironic that you would reference him the manner that you chose.

I find it strange that one can shout their salvation while giving way to judging. I find it hypocritical, and so does everyone else on here.

"You will know them by their fruit." I hope your hands weild wisely.

i have to admit, that i as a Catholic look not just to Scripture alone, but also to the Church and its living Tradition of interpreting Scripture.

say someone 100 years ago wrote: "I never said you stole money."

you'd think everyone would know what these six simple words mean.

+perhaps the person who wrote it meant to say: "I never said you stole money." implying someone else said it.

+maybe he meant: "I never SAID you stole money." he thought or suspected it, but he never said it.

+or, "I never said you STOLE money." he meant you lost the money, or you squandered it, or something else but you didn't steal it.

+or, "I never said you stole MONEY." perhaps you stole his car, or his dog, but not his money.

which could be open to misinterpretations, a six-worded sentence or the Bible?

alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.

in light of God's law, when we violate his teachings, we in fact violate our very humanity by misusing the faculties he "entrusted" us with. One of those faculties, of course, is sexuality.

...just some thoughts to ponder.

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

"Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more matters of this life?"

"For I. . .have already judged him who has so committed this."

(btw, those are all from the Bible.)

I did not "shout" my salvation, ssauble. You denied it existed or was even knowable. I refuted you with Scripture. Additionally, I have never been arrogant enough to presume to speak for all Christians or even all conservatives, let alone "everyone else one here".

ms_canada: You and I have not always agreed on every subject. But today I should have listened to your wisdom. I have made a porcine offering of pearls and have received exactly what Jesus warned. I acted foolishly and will remember the lesson.