[ridicter]

Originally Posted by LiveTodayLez08

This just adds to the reason why I want to leave.
I'm conflicted.
I like the state sometimes but then stuff like this is like, "Eh, they wouldn't want me anyway."

I hear ya. I have this conflict pretty often. I'm out of state right now, and I wax and wane between wanting to go back. (I'm sure the Arkansan inferiority complex in some will say, "Well if you don't want us, we don't want you! So there.") The culture can sometimes be stifling and backwards on a slew of fronts (not just as far as gay tolerance): e.g., I still have to argue with people about global warming when every other state is working to ameliorate the problem and every university of note in the nation has environmental sustainability programs.

It all ties to together with education levels and cultural interaction levels. There are obstinate elements to the population that keep progress at bay across all sorts of levels: improvement of education (e.g., stifling science like evolution, taught to all medical doctors, biologists, ecologists, physicists, etc), cultural diversity/acceptance......all of which in turn attracts or repels hi tech industries and promotes or deters knowledge-based economic development. Really, it all ties together.

That said, I really, really like the state's unique heritage, natural beauty, and particularly the cities Little Rock/Conway/Fayetteville/Hot Springs/ Eureka Springs.

I also know Arkansans who went to some of this nation's best universities: MIT, Cal-Tech, Harvard, Yale, Carnegie Mellon, etc, who don't plan on returning because of the lack of opportunities and sometimes stifling/anti-progress culture.

And I'm not against conservatism at all, I'm just against the southern brand of conservatism, which is impassioned and often irrational. I rather like the David Brooks and William Buckley brand of conservatism, and there are many conservatives along this vein I respect deeply, although I may not always agree with them.

[RTTNFAM]

Originally Posted by LiveTodayLez08

Ha, it's okay. I won't ever have to deal with grandkids. =]
Arkansas Families First :: FAQs

"Does this affect private adoption?
Yes! This would absolutely affect both public and private adoption."

I think I convinced a woman today to vote against the act. She wasn't for gay and lesbian adoption but I didn't feel like "outing" myself. I just told her it would affect both private and public adoptions.

Ok I went there, but I had to follow many links from there to get what was considered the "full text" of the proposed Act1 which I found at this link

Arkansas Families First :: Proposed Initiative Full Text

This full text seems really lacking in enough information for anyone on either side of the issue to make an infomred decision. I did not however see anything that indicated that Act1 would affect private adoptions and it states that it does not affect guardianships (section 2).

[PurpleLove08]

Originally Posted by bchris02

One question. Why is it the AFC is taking this roundabout way at making sure gay people aren't able to raise kids? Why not just ban same-sex adoption?

They are afraid of the court battles if they just say ONLY heterosexuals can adopt.

[PurpleLove08]

Originally Posted by RTTNFAM

Ok I went there, but I had to follow many links from there to get what was considered the "full text" of the proposed Act1 which I found at this link

Arkansas Families First :: Proposed Initiative Full Text

This full text seems really lacking in enough information for anyone on either side of the issue to make an infomred decision. I did not however see anything that indicated that Act1 would affect private adoptions and it states that it does not affect guardianships (section 2).

The woman I was in line with while waiting to vote said, "If in doubt, vote no."

Once it's in law, it will be pretty hard to overturn it.
I felt like voting no was the best thing to do for the children of Arkansas, the unmarried people of Arkansas, and the LGBT community of Arkansas.

[PurpleLove08]

Originally Posted by ridicter

I hear ya. I have this conflict pretty often. I'm out of state right now, and I wax and wane between wanting to go back. (I'm sure the Arkansan inferiority complex in some will say, "Well if you don't want us, we don't want you! So there.") The culture can sometimes be stifling and backwards on a slew of fronts (not just as far as gay tolerance): e.g., I still have to argue with people about global warming when every other state is working to ameliorate the problem and every university of note in the nation has environmental sustainability programs.

It all ties to together with education levels and cultural interaction levels. There are obstinate elements to the population that keep progress at bay across all sorts of levels: improvement of education (e.g., stifling science like evolution, taught to all medical doctors, biologists, ecologists, physicists, etc), cultural diversity/acceptance......all of which in turn attracts or repels hi tech industries and promotes or deters knowledge-based economic development. Really, it all ties together.

^^I agree!!
I was on the Arkansas Climate Change website not too long ago and they had some stat that showed a VERY high percentage of Arkansans that don't believe in global warming.
It also showed Arkansas would be one of the states hit hardest by climate change.
Even if I didn't believe in global warming, what would be so wrong in using less natural resources and investing in renewable energy, electric cars, etc.?

I definitley think the more conservative states repel business but at the same time SOME businesses are attracted to that but I would think states that are more welcoming/tolerant would attract more businesses. Companies want their employees to live in a state that they feel welcome in, regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Originally Posted by ridicter

I also know Arkansans who went to some of this nation's best universities: MIT, Cal-Tech, Harvard, Yale, Carnegie Mellon, etc, who don't plan on returning because of the lack of opportunities and sometimes stifling/anti-progress culture.

A lot of my more intelligent friends plan to get their free college education here and just leave. These are kids with 30+ on the ACT and can bring a lot to the state. Some of them are majoring in international relations, medicine, engineering, etc.
The last thing Arkansas needs is more educated people leaving the state.

I know if this Act passes, it will seal the deal on whether or not I am staying after college or not.

[bchris02]

Originally Posted by LiveTodayLez08

Even if I didn't believe in global warming, what would be so wrong in using less natural resources and investing in renewable energy, electric cars, etc.?

Its "unAmerican"

[luvarkansas]

Originally Posted by RTTNFAM

Ok I went there, but I had to follow many links from there to get what was considered the "full text" of the proposed Act1 which I found at this link

Arkansas Families First :: Proposed Initiative Full Text

This full text seems really lacking in enough information for anyone on either side of the issue to make an infomred decision. I did not however see anything that indicated that Act1 would affect private adoptions and it states that it does not affect guardianships (section 2).

If what you say is true, it's just another case of people telling lies, half-truths, and quoting statistics in order to sway people's opinions.

I am of the mind that foster children need to be in a stable home environment, and a married couple's home has more chance of providing that than any other home. There are always exceptions, of course, and foster care has serious problems already, but why make it worse? Gay and unmarried relationships, a very high percentage of the time, are NOT stable, no matter what anyone thinks about the morality/immorality of them.

I've hesitated to jump into this mess, but I really wanted RTTNFAM to know that he/she is not alone in her opinion. And neither one of us hold that opinion because of hate, so it's not going to do anyone any good to start accusing us of that, except maybe to make the accuser feel better.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by luvarkansas

If what you say is true, it's just another case of people telling lies, half-truths, and quoting statistics in order to sway people's opinions.

I am of the mind that foster children need to be in a stable home environment, and a married couple's home has more chance of providing that than any other home. There are always exceptions, of course, and foster care has serious problems already, but why make it worse? Gay and unmarried relationships, a very high percentage of the time, are NOT stable, no matter what anyone thinks about the morality/immorality of them.

I've hesitated to jump into this mess, but I really wanted RTTNFAM to know that he/she is not alone in her opinion. And neither one of us hold that opinion because of hate, so it's not going to do anyone any good to start accusing us of that, except maybe to make the accuser feel better.

I fully understand what you are saying but I think I have to vote "no" as there is such a need for foster homes. I am not one who feels all foster homes have to have a mommy and a daddy. We have a very good friend (I have mentioned this before) in NM who went to our church. He fosters Native Indian boys from about 10 years old to adulthood. If there is a saint on earth, LLoyd is it...There are other women and men who can do a better job than keeping these kids in usuitable homes or group homes.

What I wish, they issue would separate the foster home, from the adopted home. That is anther issue for another time.

NIta

[RTTNFAM]

Originally Posted by LiveTodayLez08

The woman I was in line with while waiting to vote said, "If in doubt, vote no."

Once it's in law, it will be pretty hard to overturn it.
I felt like voting no was the best thing to do for the children of Arkansas, the unmarried people of Arkansas, and the LGBT community of Arkansas.

And I feel the best thing is to vote yes, there I am afraid we will never see eye to eye, but that is OK.

I am more aggrivated that I have people telling me all these "facts" about Act 1, that in the wording of Act1 itself, is not stated. I am not pointing that statement just at you, so please don't take that as a personal attack, I have plenty of people in my life trying to tell me my opinion is wrong on this subject lol, by pointing out all the horrible things it will do, but that the measure itself never states! It seems both sides are trying to sensationalize this measure to best suit their needs, and to me no one is coming out on top as being completely right. I will have to vote with my faith in mind.

Originally Posted by luvarkansas

If what you say is true, it's just another case of people telling lies, half-truths, and quoting statistics in order to sway people's opinions.

I am of the mind that foster children need to be in a stable home environment, and a married couple's home has more chance of providing that than any other home. There are always exceptions, of course, and foster care has serious problems already, but why make it worse? Gay and unmarried relationships, a very high percentage of the time, are NOT stable, no matter what anyone thinks about the morality/immorality of them.

I've hesitated to jump into this mess, but I really wanted RTTNFAM to know that he/she is not alone in her opinion. And neither one of us hold that opinion because of hate, so it's not going to do anyone any good to start accusing us of that, except maybe to make the accuser feel better.

Thank you! It's nice to know I am not alone!

Originally Posted by nmnita

I fully understand what you are saying but I think I have to vote "no" as there is such a need for foster homes. I am not one who feels all foster homes have to have a mommy and a daddy. We have a very good friend (I have mentioned this before) in NM who went to our church. He fosters Native Indian boys from about 10 years old to adulthood. If there is a saint on earth, LLoyd is it...There are other women and men who can do a better job than keeping these kids in usuitable homes or group homes.

What I wish, they issue would separate the foster home, from the adopted home. That is anther issue for another time.

NIta

I can understand where you are coming from Nita, it is just other parts of this Act that I can not ignore.

[PurpleLove08]

Eh...I've just kind of accepted that it will probably pass. Oh well.
I can't say that I didn't try.