Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 5:22 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2001 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 51
Location: Climax, MI U.S.A.
> " The argument I'm seeing in the last post could be summed up as (correct me if I'm wrong): 1) The laws won't be implemented fairly 2) There isn't any evidence of a need for hate crimes laws; in fact the law is already biased against whites."

You summed it up well in the first, but bungled it badly in the second.

> " I still don't see what we're going to do about all the laws that potentially could be unfairly implemented. One would have to repeal them all to avoid unfairness."

So why not plop down another stupid idea, and sign it into law? An admittedly bad solution that even you say could be used unfairly shouldn't even be considered as a law. Why not simply increase the penalties for crimes, if you don't think they're harsh enough? Laws in this country should apply to all people, and all people should be judged equally according to the Law. Hate Crimes Laws would make that impossible.

> "That's a total nonsequitor. The fact that blacks suffer more murders at hands of people of their own race doesn't mean they can't be injured by racism. Not just by whites. By racist attacks."

By what are racist attacks? By what black leadership believes to be racist attacks? By what the media declares are racist attacks? By admitted racist attacks by the offender? There's too many ways to define a racist attack. It gets even worse when Hate Crimes legislation moves into the area of 'hate speech'.

>" If you don't think that racism still wounds this country, you've haven't been watching TV or reading papers. "

Yes, racism in this country exists. And so do race-baiting hate-mongers on both sides, who make a lot of money off of it. And a lot of people who go looking for racism where none exists. If people stopped basing their identity on the color of their skin, some wounds might heal.

> "Makes it inconvenient to be a hispanic businessman."

Also makes it inconvenient to be a Hispanic drug smuggler. Let me ask you something. If more people of an ethnic group commit a crime than another ethnic group, is it discrimination by police to arrest more people from the first ethnic group than from the second? Or do they have to base the number of arrests they make on how many people of that ethnic group they've already arrested, compared to others?

> "Rather I see it as a reason to step up enforcement against the blacks too."

But that's not happening, and Hate Crimes legislation does not encourage it. All crimes should be prosecuted fairly, not based on race, or what the person felt like when they committed the crime.

> " Re kid's speech prohibited at school: who was it that told me the military isn't a place where you can expect free speech? Isn't a school the same deal, where a principle can exercise control over what messages are sent by clothing to promote a good environment for learning?"

No, a school is not the same deal. These kids didn't sign on the dotted line to serve their school. The school is there to serve them. Some control should be exercised over what messages are sent, in school. On that we are agreed. But this has to be done with the Supreme Court's rulings on Equal Access in mind.

>?Aside from that, isn't it speech when a bunch of people surround someone wearing a negative message and promote their own?

Here is where you and I disagree. You are saying that the opinion of the minority in this case, is negative, and the majority, is positive. What's the difference between having pride in what gender a person has sex with, and having pride in what gender a person has sex with? Not that I agree with either approach, but let's face it, a school should not actively promote any minority group, any more than they should promote any majority group.

> "Do you distinguish between discouraged and prohibited?"

Yes. The kid was punished by his school, and is not allowed to wear the shirt. It's prohibited. If it makes you feel better, the kid now walks around with a shirt that says, "Help… I'm being repressed."

> How I wish we were there.

You can help. Treat it like it is.

>Was it Marshall that wrote in the decision in Brown that "do get beyond race, we must first take account of race?"

Yes, it was Marshall who wrote that. We've been taking account of race for some time now, and the situation is only getting worse. It's time to get beyond race. How can people be expected to be colorblind, if their government isn't?




[This message has been edited by Jcseer (edited March 02, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2001 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
We're starting to recycle opinions, so I'll try to limit myself to new stuff or specifics:

"An admittedly bad solution even you say could be used unfairly shouldn't even be considered as a law. Why not simply increase the penalties for crimes, if you don't think they're harsh enough?"

1) Not admittedly bad 2) I repeat, a law is only as good as those who enforce it, no matter what law. Example: slaves were owned when all men were "equal." Even totally race neutral laws or race-issue avoiding laws will be enforced unfairly. They will just appear safer to those who'd sweep these problems under america's rug. 3) I'm trying to increase the punishment for crimes of intimidation and terrorism associated with violence etc from zero to something.

"Laws in this country should apply to all people, and all people should be judged equally according to the Law. Hate Crimes Laws would make that impossible."

Parallel: "People should not be killed. Guns will make that impossible." Rejoinder: the killer, not the gun, is the problem. Point: if hate crimes laws were misused that would just be a symptom of a problem that not having hate crimes laws would not erase. The laws themselves are neutral.

"By what are racist attacks?"

By what a jury believes are racist attacks, guided by the general idea that beyond a reasonable doubt, the victim was targeted because of his/her identity and / or the crime was prompted by a desire to terrorize members of a identity group; mere presence of even certain hatred in the attackers is insufficient to prove a causal relationship.

"There's too many ways to define a racist attack."

Only one once the law is written.

"It gets even worse when Hate Crimes legislation moves into the area of 'hate speech'."

I repeat, speech is not a crime.

"If people stopped basing their identity on the color of their skin, some wounds might heal."

I doubt that racism would vanish if blacks forgot they'd been placed into a different category. I think the racists would remember for them.

"If more people of an ethnic group commit a crime than another ethnic group, is it discrimination by police to arrest more people from the first ethnic group than from the second?"

Depends, of course. If by police work it is shown that individuals are murderers, and then arrested for their crimes, then this is race blind even if all were of one race. But if the police base suspicion on identity alone and pull people over or search them for being black or hispanic, they catch criminals at the cost of civil liberties. You're right that we can catch a lot of hispanic smugglers by harrassing hispanics. But I doubt you'd be pleased to be pulled over for the color of your skin, or would console yourself that you lost your rights for the benefit of society as a whole.

"What's the difference between having pride in what gender a person has sex with, and having pride in what gender a person has sex with?"

In this case, although I personally would allow the student to wear the shirt, it is obvious that the gay students are just trying to make an equal, safe place for themselves in the community and the straight kid is complaining about or mocking this movement. No one has any reason in this country to feel repressed for being straight and statements about their pride, especially when timed thus, are clear critiques of the gay students. Note: You have again confused action with identity. None of the kids to my knowledge ever said they'd ever had sex with anyone.

"A school should not actively promote any minority group, any more than they should promote any majority group."

Gay high school students face tremendous pressure and intolerance from peers and this effort was about equalization, not promotion. The harassment they face justifies the effort.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2001 9:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 51
Location: Climax, MI U.S.A.
> "3) I'm trying to increase the punishment for crimes

The punishments for crimes committed already exist. You can't come up with arbitrary and unproveable provocations for a crime and prosecute them, too.

> "Point: if hate crimes laws were misused that would just be a symptom of a problem that not having hate crimes laws would not erase. The laws themselves are neutral."

2nd Amendment: The right of all citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. ALL CITIZENS. Not group A and B if picked on by group C. Hate Crimes laws cannot be APPLIED neutrally.

BTW, anyone hear what happened to the black man in Pennsylvania who killed somebody in his apartment, and then went to town shooting white people, telling black people that his bullets were reserved for whites only? Did he get prosecuted with a 'hate crime'? Not that it matters. His victims are just as dead.

>" By what a jury believes... victim was targeted because of his/her identity and / ...crime was prompted by... a identity group…"

So in your opinion, should there be a higher punishment for 'worse hate crimes' in which the objective of the defendant was claimed to be to intimidate/terrorize an entire group of people, or should this be prosecuted at the same level as if the defendant merely attacked their victim based on their membership of a determined group of people?

> Me - "There's too many ways to define a racist attack."
> Ian- "Only one once the law is written."

I can't believe that you honestly believe that.

"I repeat, speech is not a crime. "

Under certain proposed Hate Crimes bills, it would be.

> "I doubt that racism would vanish if blacks forgot they'd been placed into a different category. I think the racists would remember for them."

Racism would cease to be a factor if blacks stopped looking at themselves as black people, and forced others to do the same. Instead, black leadership is claiming victim status, and everyone is forced to look at blacks as having an entirely separate culture, dialect, depending on where they lived, and have it shoved down their throat two months out of the year. Example; Blacks are supposed to be proud of their heritage, etc, but it would be considered racist to bring up the fatherless rate of black households.

> "Depends, of course. If by police work it is shown that individuals are murderers... But if the police base suspicion on identity alone ... they catch criminals at the cost of civil liberties.

How do you propose to determine the difference? Because the arrestee told you so?

> "You're right that we can catch a lot of hispanic smugglers by harrassing hispanics... "

> "I certainly wasn't advocating it, but putting a hold on arresting people suspected of drug trafficking who happen to be Hispanic, defeats the purpose of slowing the tide of drugs coming through MEXICO."

> "In this case, although I personally would allow the student to wear the shirt, it is obvious that the gay students are just trying to make an equal, safe place for themselves in the community and the straight kid is complaining about or mocking this movement…

The gay students are going about making a safe place for themselves the wrong way. The kid had a moral disagreement with the entire thing, and it was not a critique of the gay students, but of the whole attitude which pervades gay activists, who seem to believe that the only way to get along is to shame everyone who doesn't agree with them.

>" Note: You have again confused action with identity. None of the kids to my knowledge ever said they'd ever had sex with anyone."

I haven't confused action with identity. I didn't say the kids had sex with anyone, and I've already stated that who you have sex with is not your identity. It's you who seems to think that your feelings toward one sex or another makes you who you are.(Correct me if I'm wrong)

> Gay high school students face tremendous pressure and intolerance from peers and this effort was about equalization, not promotion. The harassment they face justifies the effort.

I hear this line an awful lot. And you know what? Jews didn't get to where they are today by holding 'jewish pride' parades, or shoving their lifestyle down peoples' throats. Or by holding 'Jewish Pride' days at schools. You want to talk persecution, there's still a few left who faced the real thing in Nazi Germany. The school was allowing the local gay movement to PROMOTE A GAY ACTIVIST MOVEMENT. The ACLU would have been all over them if they had "Jesus loves me" banners, buttons and handouts, with people wearing Christian T-shirts all over school, and rightfully so. Equal Access. If one group can't do it, neither can another. I don't think any of the groups mentioned so far should be able to do what they did, and I sure as Hell wouldn't have allowed it to happen in my kids' school.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2001 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jcseer:

2nd Amendment: The right of all citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. ALL CITIZENS. Not group A and B if picked on by group C. Hate Crimes laws cannot be APPLIED neutrally. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My area... Image

Amendment II: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say "ALL citizens", it states (inclusively) "the right of the people".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
BTW, anyone hear what happened to the black man in Pennsylvania who killed somebody in his apartment, and then went to town shooting white people, telling black people that his bullets were reserved for whites only? Did he get prosecuted with a 'hate crime'? Not that it matters. His victims are just as dead.


Yes, heard about it... it got little mention in the media. No, he was not charged with a "hate crime" or even a "racially motivated" crime. ( Al Sharpton, being the wizard of wit that he is, made the statement that African-Americans can't be racists.)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
I hear this line an awful lot. And you know what? Jews didn't get to where they are today by holding 'jewish pride' parades, or shoving their lifestyle down peoples' throats. Or by holding 'Jewish Pride' days at schools. You want to talk persecution, there's still a few left who faced the real thing in Nazi Germany.


Oops, you broke the rule. (The rule being: "He who invokes Hitler or the Holocaust first changes the tone of the debate and automatically loses. Image )

You guys are having a pretty good dialog... please continue, but I caution... keep it civil and debate points.

Thanks...

(back to the catnap... or is that catnip... hmmmm...)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2001 2:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 1070
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by student:

I am a Jew. I am in the first generation of my family born in this country. Doubtless I have lost relatives in the Holocaust. I know I lost an aunt to a Cossack pogrom in the Ukraine.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Panther.

I first invoked the Holocaust on this thread - in the interests of full disclosure of my own biases, granted, but nonetheless, and unapologetically, first.

I saw the emoticon; I know the bit about 'first to invoke Hitler or Holocaust loses the argument' joke - but it's not a joke and can never be to some of us. Nor would I accept that it should be off-limits when appropriate to the discussion, especially in a forum for Tough Issues.

However, you've seen my posts for a year or so now, and I think you can be assured I don't invoke it lightly.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox now.


student

[This message has been edited by student (edited March 02, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2001 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2813
Location: Massachusetts
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by student:
No, Panther.

I first invoked the Holocaust on this thread - in the interests of full disclosure of my own biases, granted, but nonetheless, and unapologetically, first.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I stand corrected. (and no "apology" would be needed or accepted for someone who's been touched by the genocides of the past.)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
I saw the emoticon; I know the bit about 'first to invoke Hitler or Holocaust loses the argument' joke - but it's not a joke and can never be to some of us. Nor would I accept that it should be off-limits when appropriate to the discussion, especially in a forum for Tough Issues.


Didn't mean it to be off limits and I didn't mean it to be a joke.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
However, you've seen my posts for a year or so now, and I think you can be assured I don't invoke it lightly.


Completely understand. My point was for everyone to take care with their posts. If someone makes a statement or takes a position that can be equated to a (choose one) Nazi/Communist/Socialist/Statist/Republican/Democrat/whatever I can understand calling them on it. I just want people to take care in the debating and dialog.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
Okay, I'm off my soapbox now.


Please don't! Fercryinoutloud, you're talkin' to me, the cat with the fold-up soapbox in his back pocket! Image Image

Thanks... and please keep posting. I find your posts to be well thought out and informative.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2001 6:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 12, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 614
Location: Charlottesville, VA USA
There appear to be a couple of issues Jcseer and I will always disagree on:

1) Whether a law (and this would depend on the language of course) not 100% abuse potential free should automatically be disqualified for consideration.
2) Whether black people are responsible for racism.

Future discussion here is probably pointless. But to answer a question about penalties for terrorism to a group, and whether crime was designed to terrorize or just single out: I'd punish them the same since the group is terrorized the same. And I will mention some examples of questionable logic or replying to something I haven't said. Examples:

"You can't come up with arbitrary and unproveable provocations for a crime and prosecute them, too."

What's unprovable about the motivations behind the two cases I cited? They confessed. What's arbitrary?

"2nd Amendment: The right of all citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. ALL CITIZENS. Not group A and B if picked on by group C. Hate Crimes laws cannot be APPLIED neutrally."

Yes they can. They MIGHT not be. What does this have to do with the second amendment?

"...the black man in Pennsylvania who killed [whites only]. Did he get prosecuted with a 'hate crime'?"

We don't even know if that area HAS one. If there is one and he wasn't, the problem would be with the enforcers, not the law.

"Under certain proposed Hate Crimes bills, it [speech] would be [a crime]."

So? There are hundreads of crappy laws introduced all over every year dealing with many topics. We should enact the good ones and reject the bad ones based on individual merit, not throw out all hate crimes laws because one that is lumped in with them (and shouldn't be because it is about hate speech instead) is bad. This is like the idiot drive to classify "assault weapons" and ban them as a class.

"How do you propose to determine the difference? Because the arrestee told you so?"

It's easy. If the police had a reason to stop the arrestee that would have prompted their stopping an arrestee of other races, it wasn't a racist stop. If the cops can't say what made them suspicious except the color of the skin, they're being racist. No reason to imply that arrestees will just be able to whine about racism and then commit crimes freely.

> "...putting a hold on arresting people suspected of drug trafficking who happen to be Hispanic..."

NO ONE EVER SAID to give hispanics a get out of jail free card. Just that being hispanic shouldn't make them a special police target. All I asked for is colorblind and you're going on as if I want criminal minorities to run roughshod over the country.

"The gay students are going about making a safe place for themselves the wrong way. The kid had a moral disagreement with the entire thing, and it was not a critique of the gay students, [how do we know that?] but of the whole attitude which pervades gay activists [stereotype], who seem to believe that the only way to get along is to shame everyone who doesn't agree with them [shouldn't racism be shameful? Why not homophobia?]

"Correct me if I'm wrong." Ok... You've implied or said a number of places that gays think that what they DO makes them who they ARE, and I've replied that they'd be just as gay if they never so much as held someone's hand their whole lives. Let me repeat myself:

Being gay is something one may realize or always know but its not a choice, like being left handed is not a choice. DOING anything gay and using one's left hand is a choice but as good a choice as doing anything straight or righthanded. Lastly it is not what gay people do that determines who they are (straights do gay things and gays do straight things). But the only reason that some gays think that their sexual orientation is a large part of their identity (relative to their handedness etc) is because heterosexuals make it such a big issue, assume they're straight, punish them for being otherwise, and categorize them as abnormal.

"Jews didn't get to where they are today by holding 'jewish pride' parades [etc]. You want to talk persecution, there's still a few left who faced the real thing in Nazi Germany."

All righty, so we're to believe that gay students aren't discriminated against because they aren't rounded up and shot or gassed? "B" is worse, so "A" isn't bad? What do you actually know about what happens to gay kids in high school? Why don't you venture a guess, and then I'll share some true stories for you and see how they match up?

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited March 03, 2001).]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2001 11:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 21, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 100
Location: LA, CA, USA
"But the only reason that some gays think that their sexual orientation is a large
part of their identity (relative to their handedness etc) is because heterosexuals make it such a big issue, assume they're straight, punish them for being otherwise, and categorize them as abnormal."

So the reason that many gays in the annual West Hollwood parade, in a city that is incredibly friendly to them, dress and/ or act in ways that flaunt and advertise their sexual orientation is because staights are punishing them for being abnormal? Do the West Hollywood cheerleaders (gay men in very campy drag) get together and show off in what may well be the most gay-friendly city in the world because heterosexuals are repressing them?

If your claims were true, gay men in West Hollywood wouldn't bother acting in ways that advertised their sexuality, since they live in an extremely gay-friendly environment.

Scaramouche


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2001 5:17 am 
Gaygaygaygaygayg’ayga’ygay’

What a good-ole gay society we live in, eh?

Stay at P’town; stay on Fire Island, stay in San Fran and stick a big frappin humungous rainbow decal on the back of your car for all to see and know.

When I was about thirteen and used to hitchhike I got picked up by this turd who decided to put his hand on the inside of my leg after as soon as we were underway. Instinctively I smashed his nose in with a left backfist, causing him to loose control as I bolted out the door, ran down an alley and hopped a really tall fence while he was still moving. A knee-jerk reaction, maybe, but I know what God put that thing between my legs for.

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!

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.

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.

Now, mind you, I don’t hate them, and don’t discriminate [a word from david], rather tolerate. You want to go off and play in a corner by yourselves that’s your business and I don’t want to know anything. Just don’t get near Papa Bear’s kids.


------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2001 5:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 163
Location: Charlottesville, VA, USA
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So the reason that many gays in the annual West Hollwood parade, in a city that is incredibly friendly to them, dress and/ or act in ways that flaunt and advertise their sexual orientation is because staights are punishing them for being abnormal? Do the West Hollywood cheerleaders (gay men in very campy drag) get together and show off in what may well be the most gay-friendly city in the world because heterosexuals are repressing them?

If your claims were true, gay men in West Hollywood wouldn't bother acting in ways that advertised their sexuality, since they live in an extremely gay-friendly environment.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Extremely gay-friendly" is not the same thing as entirely gay-friendly. It is not the same thing as an environment which is truly blind to sexual orientation. The places where gays and lesbians can feel safe and welcome in this country are few and far between--and yes, usually in cities like Los Angeles.

The large gay populations in cities like San Francisco, New York, and Washington are, in fact, a result of the intolerance and hate gay people encounter throughout this county. Gay people move to these cities looking for an environment of relative acceptance, an environment where they can be relatively open and true about themselves. They move to these cities bearing the scars of hate and discrimination.

In this light, discussions about the acceptance found in cities--like Los Angeles--misses the point. Gays are there because they don't feel accepted and welcome in this country--and they've forged a place for themselves.

If you are interested in the subject of drag you might be interested in reading a book by Kenneth Read. (Other Voices: The Style Of A Male Homosexual Tavern) It's an anthropological study of a gay bar--lots of discussion of drag queens and the source and meaning of what they do.

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. And also to forge an identity with others like themselves, based on the shared oppression, the shared discrimination, the shared pain found in these words.

And gay people have always been stereotyped as limp wristed, fairies, ballerinas, feminine--not true men. So they react to this stereotype in a couple ways. One is to be hyper-masculine. So you saw all the gay men in the 70s with their lumberjack flannel shirts, and mustaches. And today you see the gym bunnies with their chiseled bodies--perfect male physiques.

The other way they react is the exact opposite--drag queens. They take the stereotype and mock it. So you see 6'4" drag queens in ridiculous dresses and too much make up--with their bulging muscles and obvious male physiques. Calling a drag queen a fairy or a pansy... well it's just ridiculous. The power to oppress is gone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2001 6:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 163
Location: Charlottesville, VA, USA
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.

All of which has been shown times over to be false. The gay child molester is a sterotype used to discriminate against gays and lesbians. It's offensive and hurtful.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Quote: [Studies have] failed to prove the hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2001 7:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2000 6:01 am
Posts: 2
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children.


Sure they do. And so do heterosexual men. Most sexual predators are males - and although pedophilia may be a separate issperpetuated against a group of victims less likely to be able to defend themselves.

And if sexual orientation is no factor in sexual abuse, why choose a same sex victim? A sad fact: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
As many as 1 in 5 to 1 in 7 boys are sexually abused. (Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith, 1990; Fromuth & Burkhart, 1987, 1989, in The Male Survivor: The Impact of Sexual Abuse by Matthew Parynik Mendel, 1995, Sage Publications, USA.


No implications here - same sex victim or otherwise - the crime is heinous. Hetero, homo, or bi-sexual - a child molester is the worst kind of criminal. But to state that "homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children" implying the converse that children might actually be safer within these groups is irresponsible and untrue. Ask Plato.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2001 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 2075
Location: Boston, MA
The research indicates that sexual predation by the homosexual population is not proportionally higher relative to the general population. This contrary to some folks' fear that homosexuals are proned than the general population towards sexual predation.

In my 20 plus years of working in community programs -- including child care and youth programs -- I have had to report suspected sexual abuse to police and state agencies as part of my job. Some of these were substantiated after investigation. In all this time, I only had one instance of homosexual predation reported and substantiated. I've lost count of the reported and substantiated hetero sexual predation...

david


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2001 1:12 pm 
If some of youse fellas want to start a gay-lesbo column ask George and take your discussion over there! I have nothing against gays per se, and when I was in high school and college, I sometimes wished all the other guys were gay so I could have all the women to myself!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
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.
Now there ya go. I wasn't implying anything. They WERE a threat to my children and they WERE to me when I was a child therefore I made a statement of what I learned. NO implications here, just a matter of fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
All of which has been shown times over to be false. The gay child molester is a sterotype used to discriminate against gays and lesbians. It's offensive and hurtful.
Does it hurt you? I am not attacking anyone in any way, fashion, shape, or form, in this forum or anywhere else. But why are several people here being so quick to work on the defense of an alternate society when no defense is needed? [And I AM being careful to chose my words in a pc fashion in order to insult and/or hurt no one] I'm sure none of us neither needs nor wants instructions on a lifestyle which many consider a revolting abberation.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
Quote:
And if sexual orientation is no factor in sexual abuse, why choose a same sex victim? A sad fact:
There are enough father and step-father abuses against daughters and step-daughters that would tend to shake that tree a little.

And yes, sex crimes against children are the worst thing going and when one finds out something was attempted against an only flesh and blood daughter in her pre-teen years by another and yet was powerless to act and even powerless to convince others to act, dad's blood roiled and boiled until everything had evaporated except only what comes straight from hell.

I don't need a book of statistics to educate me into the world of perpertrators and other demented sex deviates.

The more you open the can the more worms you find, eh? I mean, what else can you expect in today's discipline-free, sex-driven, free-sex, everything is ok, society. So what are the last decade going to be called? "The gay Nineties?"



------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Hate Crimes Legislation
PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2001 2:51 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Posts: 6020
Location: Mount Dora, Florida
This is a "tough issues" Forum, Al. And, in my estimation, the proper place to discuss these issues.

We are still sidestepping the real issue of discrimination within the martial arts while we focus on the subject in a general way.

Panther may decide that the subject doesn't belong on his forum and ask that it be taken elsewhere. That is his choice.

I personally, would not like to see us dwell on a single type of discrimination.

One area that I will not allow on this site, is the subject of religion or religious beliefs, justifying certain types of behavior or discrimination.



------------------
GEM


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group