Uechi-Ryu.com

Right, George, and I stand corrected in my suggestion. This discussion has failed to focus on the issue of discrimination within the martial arts community, hasn't it.

Allen, first I want you to know I'm not upset. And that I support your right to write MOST things on these forums. This is not a place where one can write anything because we value the community of civil if even heated discussion here. But here are a few things that concern me:

Post 39, with the thumbs down icon, would be recognized as inappropriate in a snap if we switched the language around a bit:

"blackblackblackblack. What a good ole african society we live in, eh? Stay in Harlem, slap a big black pride sticker on your car. When I was 13 I was attacked by this black person. I know what God put that thing between my legs for [not for interracial sex presumably]. If one of those miscreants [not specified whether this means pedophile or black but no attempt made to avoid implying the latter] gets near my children.... The bible says sex is for black to black and white to white [if you find this comparison unfair watch missippi burning again; the bible was used in exactly this manner] and anything else results from a short circuit [mental defect: FYI this concept thrown out by the american psychiatric association in the 70's based on the fact that gays have no recognizable psychopathology other than some have difficulty adjusting to their feelings in an unwelcoming society]. You want to go off and play in a corner by yourselves [stay out of public life!] but just don't get near Papa Bear's kids [implication that the kids have more to fear from a gay person than a straight one.]"

And it was pointed out several times that gays are no more likely to harm kids than straights. [Papillon: this doesn't mean we think the kids would be safer with gays, just that it would make no difference.] So if you want to protect your kids, you'll have to keep gays AND straights away from them. If you worry about only the former it has something to do with them being gay--not being a threat. FYI the greatest threat kids face is from family members, but few fear such because they're not different from ourselves.

Read tim's reference and if you need more look for research by UVA's Charlotte Patterson. She testified in Hawaii and was among those who lead to their realization there that danger to kids cannot be rationally used to justify discrimination.

A little more on sex crimes... there is a big difference between gays/straights and pedophiles. Lusting after children is not part of a usual gay identity just as its not part of a usual straight identity. It indicates a problem that person has. And, many of the reason male pedophiles like little boys (and girls) is BECAUSE they don't look like or act like men; they look small defenseless and presexual. There isn't an explanation I've come across yet, but male male sexual abusers are often straight (!) and would be turned off by anything overtly male (anything post pubescent). Make little sense? I know. That's because its a sickness (one that has nothing to do with being gay).

Re the 43rd post:

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

Why ban us from this discussion? If you don't want to read it, well, don't read it. Straight discussions (the many many jokes that appear on various columns) don't get sent to their own column.

"I wasn't implying anything."

The last line of your earlier post clearly states you want gays kept away from your kids and this makes NO sense unless gays pose a greater risk than straights. Hence the (false) implication that they're more likely to be predators.

"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?"

Yes Allen your words are hurtful. I gave the race parallel so you could see what an equivalent post would sound like to a black person, assuming you have more experience talking about race issues as most of us do. I am quick to defend the "alternate society" because while its no special danger to kids and doesn't deserve to be marginalized, you're attacking it as such.

"And I AM being careful to chose my words in a pc fashion in order to insult and/or hurt no one."

Would you call a gay person a "miscreant" to their face in "pc" conversation? How about calling a lesbian a "lesbo?" Or telling them to stay in their own neighborhoods and away from your kids?

"...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?"

How about the "a little bit of progress towards equality 90's?" The implication here is that gays lack discipline, are defined by their sexual urges, have meaningless sex, and are treated as "ok" when they shouldn't be. I wouldn't call that "PC." I would call it having "pre-judged" a group of people.

Addendum: There is a HUGE list of topics not directly pertaining to the martial arts community allowed on these forums and I suggest this be allowed to be one of them. Afterall, the only reason the thread has taken this turn is because hurtful things were said about gays. When that happens anticipate a reply.

[This message has been edited by Ian (edited March 04, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Post 39, with the thumbs down icon, would be recognized as inappropriate in a snap if we switched the language around a bit:

"blackblackblackblack. What a good ole african society we live in, eh?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nothing to do with blacks, pal! Far from the truth as some of the best people I know and trust are black. Black people are in my house on an almost daily basis sometimes, so don't even get close to laying racist sh!t on me neither!

You are really twistng things around to make it sound different, Ian, but I said it straight and like it is, and don't look for something that's not there.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote No one is disallowing you to post as you feel, as GEM stated a few posts above. However DON'T twist my language aroumnd to suit yourself!

Seeing you want the right and have the right to express an opinion, I ALSO have the right to express mine. What do you see WRONG in that?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Let me repeat what I said in #3199: "I am not attacking anyone in any way, fashion, shape, or form, in this forum or anywhere else."

And I'll repeat myself, I am sorry if I hurt you and what I said was my heart-felt opinion and feelings in general and NOT an attack against you or your beliefs! To me, same-sex stuff is wrong and that is how I fel. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but I definitely do not share your views on this.


Sounds like you want to express your views on homosexuality and you think someone else should not? Groups feel they can say what they want, and that's tolerated most part, but let someone or some other group express opposing views, and oh, boy they are stepping on their rights. That's not right!



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

What disturbs me about the whole concept of hate crimes is just a wee bit too liberal for my tastes.My feelings are that this is just another cause of a very politically active group being rammed down my throat.

Crime is crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. End of conversation,no grey area's do the crime do the time, I don't think any of us disagree with this concept. Punishment should be equal,color, religion,sexual orientation should have no bearing on the sentence.

What disturbs me about this whole concept is that it's based on proving the crime was committed and that the perpetrator hated the victim. Basically the court would have to prove what the perpetrator was thinking or feeling.

Here is an example: I agree will Allen's out look on same sex activities. Don't agree with it find it offensive,morally it's outrageous,would like to see outlawed for reasons that GEM has pointed out should not be discussed on these forms ...on and on rant and rave. There I'm on record as being against these people's beliefs activities etc.

So now one day I blow a fuse and go off the deep end. I kick some guy's @$$,As a result I am charged with assault. It turns out that the victim of my uncontrolled rage is gay.The prosecutor can now ask the judge to tack on a little extra time in the crowbar hotel because I'm on record as being anti gay.

Here's another one that might be even easier to prove. I get in to it with some animal rights fanatic. For those of you who don't know me I have a real problem with these people. My Family lived off the land hunting and trapping the same area for about 180 years. Then these folks started there rant. Need less to say we don't share the same ideology.Here's a link that expresses how the Inuit feel about this movement(much more articulate than I ever will be.
http://www.bluecrow.com/members/guardian/inuit.html

So if I was ever to be charged with assaulting one of these fine people there may be an opportunity to try me under hate crimes given my feelings towards these folks.

How unfortunate,I would suggest just regular punishment and possibly some anger management might be a better solution.

Btw I don't go around assaulting gays or animal activists these are just hypothetical examples of how some one could get prosecuted wrongfully under this legislation.

Laird


[This message has been edited by uglyelk (edited March 04, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by uglyelk (edited March 04, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by uglyelk (edited March 04, 2001).]

"Nothing to do with blacks, pal!"

YES. I know. I NEVER said it had anything to do with blacks. I was just showing what an equivalent post about blacks would sound like. To show you that your post was as offensive to gays as the imaginary post would be to blacks. I *didn't* "get close to laying racist sh!t on [you] AT ALL. No, I wasn't "twistng things around," I was trying to show you what its like to be a gay person reading your post.

"No one is disallowing you to post as you feel, as GEM stated a few posts above."

I didn't say I'd been banned! But you did say we should take our discussion elsewhere and have to get permission for even that. No other topics are treated this way in my experience.

"I ALSO have the right to express mine. What do you see WRONG in that?"

NOTHING. And I would allow you or anyone else to post racist, sexist, anti-religious stuff here too even as I disagreed with it. Content is for moderators and administrators to police. However I will continue responding to posts that prejudge gays or lesbians, make inaccurate assumptions about them or use belittling language toward them.

"I am not attacking anyone in any way, fashion, shape, or form, in this forum or anywhere else."

The words are there, and they're hurtful words. Fact. You could say that black stuff, instead of "same-sex stuff" is "wrong." That would be a criticism no matter how you couched it.

"Sounds like you want to express your views on homosexuality and you think someone else should not?"

I'd rather that racist people NOT post their thoughts here. TRUE. Same with anti-gay feelings. However I won't and can't do anything to stop you. I will reply to you. This doesn't mean I want to limit your speech AT ALL. No one has suggested limiting your speech AT ALL. I've critiqued your speech NOT NOT NOT tried to block it.

Let me paste some material from the military thread that is quite relevant here:

Me: "Before I start I want to point out that incautious posts run a risk of offending **fellow karateka**. Some ones you don't know are gay. Some you DO know are gay and you just don't know it. Others will have gay **friends or family members**. So please consider how important it is to you to make an opinion known, and keep this discussion about policies and not persons or lives. You can always sit on a post a day and reconsider it."

Sensei Mattson: "[we have had] Gay students, friends and associates for as long as I've been teaching. I've witnesses some of our **most senior instructors** living double lives, unaware that their friends knew about their hidden identity while pretending ignorance.... [these gays were] the toughest competitors on the circuit, the best martial artist in the dojo and the friendliest people imaginable." (my emphasis).

I don't want anyone to be censored OR self-censored. But please consider those paragraphs when planning the TONE of future posts. I have had innumerable individuals disagree with me about these issues, and SOME made their concerns known without using any phrasing, assumptions, or language that was disrespectful of me or other people. Their speech was in no way curtailed, and each side learned more about the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quoteJust for the record, UE, same here! I'm not a gay hater, nor do I "go after them," nor do I "work" with those who do. However the need to make this clarification becomes apparant to me after thinking about your quote and the bitter blitz which attempted to twist and distort my message.

I just returned from the intuit website, and will say I am saddened. Most of the time id you leave mother nature alone, it will take care of herself.

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

food for thought:

.........I disapprove of what you say , But I will defend to death your right to say it...Voltaire

You can't control nature, you are part of it....Grey Owl

.....be polite that's my brother....anonymous

Laird

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Papillon:
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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not what is implied by the quote. To say "no special threat" means that they don't pose a threat over and above what straight people pose. It doesn't mean children are safer with gay people--just that gay people pose the same risk (or lack of risk) that straight people pose. Nothing irresponsible or untrue has been said.

Read the link. All issues raised in your post are addressed.

Another Quote: The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

For the record, I am not an advocate for laws/legislation that target for or against any specific group. I do favor the equal application of laws to ensure protection of the rights of all and justice.

Having said the above, it is also my belief that laws are not applied equally. I believe groups and segments in our society do not have justice because they are perceived to be "less then."

It will take years, if ever, for certain folks to change their attitudes and perceptions. I am not sure enacting special laws will contribute to that process. I much rather that we focus on implementing existing laws fairly and equally.

david

[This message has been edited by david (edited March 04, 2001).]

> "Amendment II: … It doesn't say "ALL citizens", it states (inclusively) "the right of the people".

I sincerely apologize for mutilating our Second Amendment. I was trying to make a point, and mutilated it. And here I am getting mad at anti-gun groups for doing basically the same thing. I hope I still got my point across. Our Bill of Rights applies to all American citizens, ie; the people, regardless of what groups they identify themselves with.

> "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.)"

Why am I not surprised. Sharpton's one of my pet peeves. One of the jerks making money from racism.

> 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. )

Again, my sincere apologies. I was only trying to point out that Jews are accepted in our society, and they didn't have to shove their relgion down our throats to be so.

> "keep it civil and debate points."

I think we were doing pretty well up to this point. I see things may have gotten out of hand this weekend, however.

> "There appear to be a couple of issues Jcseer and I will always disagree on: Ø 1) Whether a law (and this would depend on the language of course) not 100% abuse potential free should automatically be disqualified for consideration."

If you think that laws should be passed that have a large potential for abuse, absolutely we will disagree.

> "2) Whether black people are responsible for racism."

I feel that you are mischaracterizing my statements. I don't believe for a second that black people are responsible for racism. I DO believe that people who have found themselves in leadership positions in the 'black community' are not helping the matter any. I DO believe that some people see racism where none exists. I DO see race used as a political weapon, daily.

> "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."

> Complete disagreement here. I've met and talked with people who have left the gay lifestyle. The CDC statistics for gays and disease and harmful choices are terrible. And Ellen's girlfriend left her for a guy after claiming that she was a lesbian after being straight her whole life before getting involved with Ellen.

> "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."

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. Homosexuality was only removed from the APA's list of disorders after a huge amount of lobbying from gay activists. Punishing them is out of the question, but being there to help them, should they choose to accept it, rather than pet their ego, would definitely be in line.

> "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?

I know that I was accused of it, there were some fights and the matter was settled. I know what my uncle told me before he died. I know what both gays and ex-gays have told me. None of it justifies slamming your lifestyle down someone else's throat, using school facilities, and politically destroying anyone who disagrees with you.

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

Please explain. I don't see where there is discrimination in the martial arts. You can choose to be a warrior, whether gay, male, female, white, black or purple. It's not a birthright, it's a calling. And someone being gay, male, female, white, black or purple doesn't make them any more or less dangerous an opponent.

> "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."

I too, believe that should not be discussed here.

> "You are really twistng things around to make it sound different, Ian, but I said it straight and like it is, and don't look for something that's not there."

That may be the way he actually read it. I don't think that he's intentionally twisting your words. It's a possibility that he is gay, and can't look at the subject matter in an objective manner, anymore than you or I can, as heterosexuals.

> "The words are there, and they're hurtful words. Fact. You could say that black stuff, instead of "same-sex stuff" is "wrong." That would be a criticism no matter how you couched it."

But it's a valid criticism to him. He feels that way. Are his feelings invalid simply because you disagree with him?

"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."

People -- all sorts of people, move to cities for many reasons, including but not limited to such employment, the conveniences a
city has to offer, and available entertainment. A whole lot of people, gay and straight, move to L.A. to try to break into the entertainment industry, for example. I've known people in L.A. who've moved here to go to college, to attend a specific martial
arts school, and because of the climate, among other reasons. Gays don't just move to Los Angeles due to a lack of acceptance. Such stereotyping of gays is simply inaccurate.

I find that your tendency to make blanket statements about gays undercuts the credibility of your arguments. I'm
Mexican-American, but I know that people with my sort of ancestry in the U.S. are individuals, and may do the same thing for
different reasons. If I said "Mexican-Americans do X for Y reason," I'd be both grossly stereotyping and saying something that simply cannot be accurate. If I said "all poor Mexican-Americans are impoverished because of oppression by the evil White majority," frankly, I'd be race-baiting and dishonest, and for that matter, completely wrong.

If someone hostile to gays said "gays do X for Y reason," it would be stereotyping and indicative of prejudice and ignorance
and you would criticize them. If someone friendly to gays said "gays do X for Y reasons" it would still be stereotyping and
indicative of different prejudices.

Of course, if you have some hard data to support your blanket statements, I could respect your arguments. For example, you
claim that "Gays are there because they don't feel accepted and welcome in this country--and they've forged a place for
themselves." Has Gallup, Zogby, etc., done any polls that indicate that this is true? Have any sociologists done any
methodologically sound studies that prove this, based on interviews of a huge sample of gays in urban areas?

You might read Chauncey" Gay New York" if you are interested in learning how a strong gay community grew in New York during a time period in which there was little prejudice against men because of their sexual orientation, and where dress and behavior associated with gays were popular and accepted in popular entertainment.

As for "entirely gay-friendly," few places if any are entirely friendly toward anything, except possibly people with lots of
money. Married couples often develop a tendency to not associate much with single people, older people tend to have older
friends, I have experienced a very small amount of racial prejudice, but when I was an overweight kid I got teased for that. I'm
a science fiction fan who goes to cons, and as such am part of a subculture whose members are commonly regarded as socially inept and just plain weird. There is intense bigotry from some toward religious people. People who are going to be unhappy until they live in an "entirely" friendly environment are simply not realistic in their expectations.


Scaramouche