Uechi-Ryu.com

"I've met and talked with people who have left the gay lifestyle."

The problems associated with "exgay" ministries are well known. John Paulk, who appeared "cured" on the cover of newsweek, was busted in a gay bar. Two prominent ex-gays and leaders of the movement admitted to each other they were in love and acknowledged their whole experience with exgay was lying to themselves. But its not so surprising. People come in shades of gay like shades of tall. Why couldn't they find straight feelings if they were motivated by enough self hatred because of the pressures they face to deny who they are? Then there are the bisexuals who just find the right woman. The overall point is that the number becoming straight again are DWARFED by the number who admit they're tired of pretending or trying to be straight. One could point out how many straights "become" gay, but that doesn't mean straightness isn't a stable inborn characteristic, or one people should get help changing.

"The CDC statistics for gays and disease and harmful choices are terrible"

Unsafe and promiscuous sex with people one doesn't know the HIV status of spreads HIV, not gay sex. A monogamous relationship between two tested men or women is harmless. Lastly, AIDS is overwhelmingly a heterosexual disease, but this does not indict heterosexuality as unhealthy.

"Since there's no concrete scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic, it's a pretty safe bet to say they've got issues that need to be dealt with." [and they need help].

There's no gene locus for left handedness either, but it's not a disease. Cite ANY evidence that gays have a problem, please, before you require them to PROVE they're not ill. Etiology (nature or nuture) does not tell us what is sick or healthy anyway.

"I will not, however, invite a homosexual into my home and eat with them, or allow them to be alone with my children."

I believe it was Panther who said earlier he likes people to be honest about their discrimination so he knows where they stand. So it is with me.

Re: use of slurs by minorities: they do it to render the insults harmless. If they adopt every slur, bigots can't find words to insult them. But the fact is it doesn't work perfectly, so they still sense an attack when others use the words. In any case, its a response to an unfriendly environment, and that's where the real problem is.

"Pedophilia and Homosexuality are not proven to be interdependent psychosis."

So you're calling the latter a psychosis? A severe mental disorder? And why say the connection hasn't been proven yet, as if that's likely to happen or as if there's a relationship there, but not a proven one? How offensive would it be to say, "blackness and crime are not proven to be interdependent problems"?

"That may be the way he actually read it."

What did I say was there that wasn't? I made a COMPARISON to racism; I didn't say he was racist.

[Scaramouche: Tim was making a generalization, and there are problems with that, but he can't address every nuance of gay life in america in short posts. And I don't think he'd complain about someone saying gays do x for y unless it was an offensive assumption. Re: your last points, its true that no one's life is perfect, but few groups face more discrimination from the gov't or teasing in school or hate crimes attacks than gays this day and age.]

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited March 05, 2001).]

> "It seems that this “now” “liberal” “permissive” generation allows certain people to speak their mind but it is not pc for others. Screw that and I’m sick of it!

I understand your frustration.

> "If one of those miscreants ever ever gets near any of my children and tries to destroy their life and fuk them up it won’t get up because I am going to loose it real fast, and when I get going I don’t stop."

And then you end up in jail, and your kids will be going without their father. Where do you think you'll end up next? I understand your concern, though I think calling someone a miscreant based soley upon who they have sex with is wrong. I work with gays, I talk to them just like anyone else. A dear family member of mine was gay, and passed away about ten years ago. I will even hang out with them (though not alone). I will not, however, invite a homosexual into my home and eat with them, or allow them to be alone with my children, or discuss matters even remotely sexual (and that applies to my heterosexual friends, too. If they respect me, they wouldn't do things like that anyway) with them.

> "I like Ike and what he stand for, the bible, sex is for man to woman and woman to man, and anything else results from a short-circuit."

I think it's best to keep the Bible and religion out of these discussions. It's a hotbed enough without them.

> "Now, mind you, I don’t hate them, and don’t discriminate [a word from david], rather tolerate."

I think the word descriminate has gotten a bad rap lately. I discriminate against pineapple on pizza, and I discriminate against predators of children. I tolerate most people, but I will not tolerate certain behaviors.

> "You want to go off and play in a corner by yourselves that’s your business and I don’t want to know anything."

I agree with you, though I think you could have worded that better. I used that kind of language when I told my heterosexual roomate that he'd have to go to a hotel to mess around with another woman. (He was married)

> "Words like nigger and faggot and queer hurt. They are used as weapons to intimidate and oppress. Black people and gay people use these words too, though. Why? It is an attempt to co-opt these words, to take the hurt and pain from them."

It's none of my business, as I find all those words offensive, but it seems stupid for someone to say the 'n' word, and then tell someone else they can't use that word because of their skin color. Kind of like a Christian cussing up a storm, and then acting offended when someone else says "G__ ____".

> "Allen's post implies that gay people are more likely to molest young children than straight people. That gay people prey on children, that they're somehow a threat to children."

Although he expressed himself in what I believe to be a poor manner, I don't think that was his intended implication. It could also be that he believes that they might have a negative influence on his kids. It could be a moral/religious issue. (Also, in San Francisco, it's well known that there are places kids in somewhat healthy families are encouraged to run away from home and stay at, if they 'feel' that they're gay, and their parents 'just wouldn't understand'.)

On a side note, Pedophilia and Homosexuality are not proven to be interdependent psychosis. However, it is understandable to have that confusion present when groups like GLTF and PFLAG associate themselves with and help groups like NAMBLA.

> "If some of youse fellas want to start a gay-lesbo column ask George and take your discussion over there!"

I don't think that would be an appropriate subject for a martial-arts oriented website, do you?

> "The problems associated with "exgay" ministries are well known."

The problem you seem to have is in acknowledging the existence of those who truly have left the gay lifestyle, and are truly happy. You're deluding yourself. And you're insulting to those who have left it. You also seem unaware that people have left the gay lifestyle without religion entering the picture at all. You make it out so they don't exist, don't count, and certainly aren't equal to gays in any respect. In comparison, if someone were to say "gays don't exist", they'd be deluding themselves, too.

> "The overall point is that the number becoming straight again are DWARFED by the number who admit they're tired of pretending or trying to be straight."

So what? The number of people who stay straight their entire lives dwarfs millions of times over, the number who have ever lived a gay lifestyle. Does that make gays irrelevant? I also find it insulting that you say they are merely 'pretending' to be straight.

> "Unsafe and promiscuous sex with people one doesn't know the HIV status of spreads HIV, not gay sex."

Who said anything about AIDs, Ian? You're jumping the gun a bit, aren't you? Besides AIDs, you have a much higher than average proportion of domestic violence, alchoholism, drug abuse, and the list goes on… Pretending the problem doesn't exist gets you nowhere.

> "There's no gene locus for left handedness either, but it's not a disease."

Being left-handed doesn't cause one's behavior to differ from those around them. It's a common argument heard all too often. It's an attempt to make the problem seem to not be a problem, or at the least, seem no different. It's called spin in my book.

> "I believe it was Panther who said earlier he likes people to be honest about their discrimination so he knows where they stand. So it is with me."

I'm all about honesty. A homosexual's lifestyle choices are unacceptable to me, and I won't expose my family to that. Call it discrimination, call it moral standards, call it whatever you want. I don't care what you think, because I'm going to do what I feel I need to do to help my kids grow up prepared to lead a happy, productive life.

> "Re: use of slurs by minorities: … In any case, its a response to an unfriendly environment, and that's where the real problem is."

Pardon me, but that's a load of manure. The real problem is that there are a lot of people with thin skin. It's also clearly hypocritical, racist and self-denigrating.

Me --(for reference) "Pedophilia and Homosexuality are not proven to be interdependent psychosis."

> "So you're calling the latter a psychosis? A severe mental disorder?"

I'm calling both of them that. So did the APA before they dropped it due to political pressure.

> "And why say the connection hasn't been proven yet, as if that's likely to happen or as if there's a relationship there, but not a proven one?"

I didn't say the word yet. You're seeing words that aren't there. I said it the same as when I say that homosexuality is not proven to be genetic. Put a yet there, too, if it makes you feel better.

> "How offensive would it be to say, "blackness and crime are not proven to be interdependent problems"?"

Not only that, but it would be inaccurate. However, we all know that inner-city crime, the fatherless rate of black inner-city children, and the inner-city drug culture are related. But nobody wants to talk about that, right? Not only would it not be appropriate for this thread, but it would offend Al Sharpton, the feminists, and those who want to see narcotics legalized. Terrible, just terrible.



[This message has been edited by Jcseer (edited March 06, 2001).]

Forgive my ignorance. But what does the above article have to with wth the topic of this discussion?

off-topic discussions belong, IMHO, off-line.

The question should not be about how certain people feel about certain minority groups, the question is about if minority groups are receiving enough protection under current laws. If they are, then the current laws should suffice. If they are not, what is the answer? Is the answer to enforce the laws better or enact new laws?

Many of the voices in this forum have swayed towards the side of "neither," That the system in place is fine and hate crimes laws would only serve to make a difficult process for muddled and more difficult.

Now, with all the ballyhooing about how people feel about gays we seem to have lost the heart of the argument. The proposed laws cover more than gay hate, they include black hate, white hate, staight hate, hate -- which was defined by my philosophy professor as "wishing ill will upon someone else or the self"

IMHO not all crimes are crimes of hate. Some are crimes of lust, others of power, other of fear, most are crimes of coveting. So then the question in my mind is: do crimes that involve hate require special punishments.

Since incarceration is obviously highly in-effective and full of other troubles then I think that hate crimes legislation should mean that if an individual in charged with the additional penalty of "hate" then the additional "penalty" should be required to be under psychological supervision for the length of their punishment/parole.

But who in the world is going to want to pay for that? Prisons already cost too much and are too full. That would mean paying for 3 square meals a day & a shrink???

Ah...but what if the shrink helps with the hate? isn't that cheaper than putting them in jail for the next offense?

as the forum states...tough issue.

dana

GEM-sensei (and everyone else...),

These are indeed "tough issues" and everyone posting has their positions and opinions. I've already stated that I'm against "hate crimes" laws. That doesn't and shouldn't lead anyone to believe that I'm in any way for discrimination or treating people badly because of certain traits.

I wouldn't want this thread to be moved anywhere else or stopped because of the "uncomfortable" content that has and will occur. It's a tough issue and this is where such discussions belong.

However, I hope that people can keep the discussion and debate going without being insulting and abusing. In that regard, I again request everyone to please realize that what might seem to them to be a simple writing of their feelings and beliefs can seem to be insulting, abusing and hurtful to someone else. No finger-pointing, because it could fall on both sides.

Now this thread has turned to a specific "hate" or discrimination. While I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, remember that the original topic was the need (or lack thereof) of "hate crimes" legislation. I don't see any need for special status over and above the fact that the action was in and of itself a crime that deserves to be punished. Others disagree.

"The problem you seem to have is in acknowledging the existence of those who truly have left the gay lifestyle, and are truly happy. You're deluding yourself."

Actually, for those people who date or marry whomever they chose without being influenced by shame caused by manipulative acquaintances or cultures, I don't care what they do. I already pointed out some men who previously dated men end up just dating women, without saying this was bad, so I'm not deluding myself. This doesn't change who they are or were. What I do have a problem with is ministries that use shame and threats of hell to make normal, gay men or normal, lesbian women hate themselves and try to force themselves to be something they're not. True this can happen without religion, and I've spoken to or read pieces by people who've wasted 1, 2, 3, 4 up to 8 decades of their life trying to be straight. Gays and lesbians try to do this to themselves and realize only later they were just hurting themselves is well documented. It's a fact up for discussion but not dispute.

"The number of people who stay straight their entire lives dwarfs millions of times over, the number who have ever lived a gay lifestyle."

The more recent figures on this were in the range of 1-3, but this was for exclusive homosexuality. Kinsey found closer to 10% but used different definitions. So maybe by "millions" you meant "fifty"? If instead you were referring to the fact that the idea of a gay identity is new, well, it was harder to be out in past times. "Faggot" actually means a bundle of sticks, used for starting a fire, since gays were burned as an "opener" at witch burnings. Closer to the present, two lesbians were sentanced to execution in Somalia about two weeks ago. So the data on who was out and proud past v present, USA v other, is apples and oranges. What's straight anyway--that include the numerous straights with adolescent gay encounters, or situational homosexuality in all male settings?

"I find it insulting that you say they are merely 'pretending' to be straight."

Too bad. Before gays come out they're pretending to be straight. If you doubt me on this I can cite about 80-100 cases, the number of gay people I've talked to about this. That this is part of their lives is too well known to be disputed, although you're welcome to be upset about it.

"Besides AIDs, you have a much higher than average proportion of domestic violence, alchoholism, drug abuse, and the list goes on. Pretending the problem doesn't exist gets you nowhere."

Who's pretending? Why don't you cite a source and I'll look into it. Let me quote a retired UVA professor on this, however: "Of course we have problems. If we didn't, how could we say that we really had a reason to complain about how we're treated?"

"Being left-handed doesn't cause one's behavior to differ from those around them."

Yes it does--they use their left hand. You've just decided that using the nonstandard hand is normal and dating the nonstandard gender is diseased (that's your "spin"). Now you just need an explanation. Mine, for why I believe both are fine, is the fact that I've never met convincing data otherwise. And you don't require a group of people to prove they're normal or good enough for civil rights. You have to make a case they ARE sick, or SHOULDN'T serve in the military, etc. And through all your posts I've not once seen an explanation of your discrimination, just statements to the effect that you believe in it.

"I'm all about honesty. A homosexual's lifestyle choices are unacceptable to me, and I won't expose my family to that ... I'm going to do what... I need to do to help my kids grow up prepared to lead a happy, productive life."

Hmmm... 1) aren't there homosexuals who haven't done any gay "lifestyle" stuff; 2) what do you do about hiding gay people from your family when your dear family IS homosexual in some cases? 3) You want evidence that gay/lesbian doesn't impair a happy productive life? Let me introduce you to about twenty UVA physicians and professors, very high functioning, happy, and many in happy couples with happy children. But frankly, it's been a long while since I heard someone talk about protecting their kids from gays as if they're contaigious.

"Pardon me, but that's a load of manure. The real problem is that there are a lot of people with thin skin."

I s'pose black people and gays ought to chuckle when whites and homophobes call them niggers and faggots? That's tragicomic, Jcseer.

"It's also clearly hypocritical, racist and self-denigrating."

MOST people can figure out that the use of "nigger" by blacks is different from its use by whites. Most can comprehend that its not racist because it seeks to deflate racist words. And in that attempt, its a celebration of difference along the lines "the blacker the berry the sweeter the juice." In this regard, I'll trust the huge contingent of blacks and gays who do this over those who analyze them without the benefit of their experiences.

"I'm calling both of them that [psychoses]. So did the APA before they dropped it due to political pressure."

LOL. Upcoming headline--New York Times, 3/01: "Self proclaimed expert in psychiatry of sexual orientation corrects entire nation of experts." Makes it sound as if psychiatrists would call schizophrenia a normal variant if they were lobbied for a few months. I'll repeat: maybe you should hang out with dozens of them and read their literature before you dismiss them as weakminded fools. Actually, they're the experts, and when it was clear there was no discernable negative psychologic impact of being gay, they dropped the idea of gay being a disease. Decline in functioning is one of the basic criteria for disorders like shizophrenia. [Scientists used to think that blacks and women were genetically inferior and less intelligent than white men. It wasn't lobbying that lead to this changing, either.]

You and I are always going to disagree on this stuff, I'd wager. But I've always thought of America as a place where people are equal and treated equally until there's substantial proof that they ought to be considered second class, diseased, or undesirable. I've yet to see the slightest beginning of such proof here or on the military thread. So unless we have that issue to discuss, why don't we agree to disagree, and let history decide?

Ian, I am not going to discuss this matter for awhile, not with you. A source you can look into is the government's Center for Disease Control website. This discussion is getting too heated. It's obviously a very personal matter for us both.

Kudos to Panther for trying to keep the thread on topic and civil, and kudos for those who have pulled back from the brink of too much heat.

student

A bit of searching yielded the following results: first I skimmed the first 200 documents pertaining to homosexuality. They covered HIV >> hepatitis > other STD's > over health issues such as breast cancer screening for lesbians. Socioeconomic status, domestic violence and alcoholism did not come up, so I looked under topics like their domestic violence summary, and found no mention again of homosexuality. Searches like homosexuality AND alcoholism or homosexuality AND domestic violence or violence yielded no significant results again. Perhaps someone with a specific citation could offer it for review.

I was left with the information I went in with, a few notable points of which I will list below:

1) Re: violence, gays are being killed today (for being gay, over and above non-hate crimes) at the same rate as lynchings at the peak of the civil rights movement (Time).

2) The problem of domestic violence among gays is poorly understood/understudied (see references under my self defense article) but we cannot expect them to be immune from this extremely common social problem.

3) Re: socioeconomic status, I have read that the gay movement is sometimes alternatively described in the media (and frequently described by anti gay groups) as lower class/dregs of society or upper class/ too politically powerful, depending on the message needing to be sent.

4) In research in several sources on a paper for undergrad work at UVA I found that, liberal attitudes towards gays and sexuality in general, and rates of self professed gay identity, demonstrated a good correlation with level of education. Naturally there are people who are straight or opposed to homosexuality with extensive educations, but this trend is all the info I have on socioeconomic status and sexual orientation.

Addendum: in a general internet search looking for research on these matters I found: "Two UC Davis researchers (G Herek and Eric Glunt) found that the least homophobic persons were: politically liberal, young, highly educated, female, and most importantly, knew a gay or lesbian person."

A study conducted at U GA involving 64 white heterosexual men found that after comparing their responses to a homophobia survey and straight and gay pornography, 80% of the homophobic men and 34% of the non-homophobic men had moderate or definite arousal to homosexual images. (Adams, Wright, Lohr: "Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?" J Abnormal Psychology 105, 1996, pg 440-445).

The 1988 LA County Task Force on Runaway and Homseless Youth "report and recommendations of the task force" estimated that 25-35% of street children in that county are non heterosexual.

The same year the Seattle Commission on children and Youth of Seattle estimated that 40% of seattle street children are nonhetero.

A US Health and Human Services report indicated that "gay adolescents were 2-3 timesmore likely than peers to attempt suicide, accounting for as many as 30% of completed youth suicides each year."

I also located a site that discusses conversion therapy: http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religioustolerance.org%2Fhom_fixe.htm

and nature v nuture: http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.religioustolerance.org%2Fhom_fixe.htm

both from this page, with its general slant obvious from the address: http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/msub_homosexuality_misc.htm

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited March 09, 2001).]

Re: the decision to classify a homosexual orientation as normal, from the people who would know:
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/orient.html