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.

>> 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.

>> 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".

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.

>>On "How to vote" rather than "who to vote for," there is a measure on the Oregon ballot which would effectively ban public schools from promoting homosexuality. It was made in response to events at Grant High School in Portland, where, among many other things you can read if you really want to, students were advised to try gay sex at least twice and shown videos pertaining to just that.

I strongly doubt this, for several reasons. (1) Most damningly, I just did a search on {+"Grant High School" +Portland} and looked at the first 100 sites shown and found nothing that looked remotely like this. If this information was correct, I guarantee that it would show up prominently in a computer search. I also tried the first several pages of sites shown in searches for {+Portland +"high school" +homosexuality}, {+Oregon +"high school" +homosexuality}, and simply {"Grant High School"}, with no success. (2) The language you use suggests that this is not something that is being shown to students. A high school student can find, among other things s/he can read if s/he really wants to, a book detailing why Jews should be eliminated; the student would simply have to go to the library and read "Mein Kampf". (3) Gay organizations would simply not try to push such materials on children. Although many conservatives fear "recruitment", that does not occur. Homosexuality is not pederasty.

>>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).

>>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. 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.

>>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.

>>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.

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