Uechi-Ryu.com

Ian,
Thanks for your comments, I will check out the links you posted when I get a chance.

You wrote-
"An interesting but invalidated argument stemming from Freud's work. As you probably know, Frued developed his theories based on interactions with members of the primarily upper class of Victorian european society in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He believed what he saw and all the neuroses about sex represented human truth, but this is far from reality. Is it surprising culture has reassessed homosexuality?"

I have never studied Freud extensively, just enouph to know the guy was a flake and (in my opinion) borderline madman.

For my part, this opinion comes not only from what I have read or from my religious beliefs, but also from homosexual men I have known personally. This seems to be the case in every example I am aware of on a personal level. I have not ruled out the possibility that this behavior could stem from a genetic defect in some cases, but even then, in my opinion, it would not excuse the actions of those affected.

You wrote-
Neither of us are going to change our minds on this... My suggestion is, ask a gay person before you make up your mind. NOT (just) one who felt ill enough to seek a quasi religious cure.

You are probably right here, neither of us sounds as if we will change our minds at this point. And as I have stated before, I have been personally involved in several cases. I know of the type of cases in which homosexuality has been attempted to be cured. I know that some success has been claimed in the matter, but why should it be able to be completely cured? There is no cure for heterosexuality is there? As I have said, we are all tempted in our own ways and have our own demons to overcome. We can't "cure" away all of our problems, but we can try to deal with them to the best of our abilities

You wrote-
Notice that you give heterosexuals a way to act on their feelings (aka "temptations") within marriage--is this a fair setup for people who can't get married (with some exceptions now)?

What about a married person who has a higher sex drive? A married man for instance who has real trouble sticking to one women? How about a women who's husband has been in a car wreck and no longer is able to function as a man?

There are many situations like this that could be considered. My answer is this, No, I don't believe that we have the right to fulfill our personal needs and/or desires in all situations.

You wrote-
Now let's make SOME kind of a case against same sex parents to support this statement as it applies to same sexers? Try the work of Charlotte Patterson (UVA) on this. Or, cite whatever, keeping in mind it would be easier for anyone to show poorer outcomes with black parents than white. And this means.....??

Well, where do we draw the line? Should we give a baby to anyone willing to sign an agreement that they will not burn it with cigerettes, or should there be some sort of moral standard that an applicant has to meet? I have posted my feeling about this before. A homosexual could be a great parent on many levels. But in my opinion, being a proud, self proclaimed homosexual should rule out this person on moral grounds and because of phycological effects on the child. I am fully aware that others will disagree, I am just stateing my opinion.

You wrote-
But the fact of the matter is that heterosexual cultural mores have been changing all the time. And if they hadn't:
--women would be property at marriage
--Often at 12-15 years of age to an older man
--wouldn't have rights / options outside of home / childbearing
--couldn't refuse sex or be "raped" by a husband
--couldn't control fertility
--couldn't choose mates or choose to leave em
--could be killed or beaten or whatever for various offenses such as adultery

These have changed and will continue to change throughout history and cultures. All of these things still take place in other cultures throughout the world.

This helps to prove my point. Truth is not relative, it is absolute. If this is not the case, then you should have no objection whatsoever to the above examples.

You wrote-(about bestiality)
It always involves an animal; animals can't consent. That's the point.

Who says animals can't consent, havent you ever seen a dog hump a leg? (My bad attempt at humor) I get the thing about consenting adults. I am not proposing that gay people are predatory. However, I can oppose the actions of another even when they are not directly related to me, because of the negative effect on society as a whole.

I remember reading a story about a muslim women here in the states who went to a judge because she only wanted her husband to be able to beat her once a week. She did want him to be able to beat her, just not everyday.

Well, I object to the fact that he was beating her at all, does this mean I am out of line?

Another point- just because you love someone, you don't have to support their actions.
I can love a fat person without supporting the fact that they are eating themselves to death.
I can love a smoker without supporting the fact that they are destroying their health.
I can love a thief without supporting the fact that he steals.
I can love a homosexual without supporting the fact that he is participating in what is (in my opinion) sinful, perverted, and destructive behavior.


Ethan

First, I've been civil in the face of as yet unsubstantiated attacks. Before you flout terms like "cure," and "defect" around, why don't you.... support them? We understand that people aren't going to come on this forum or others and speak negatively of racial minorities without some kind of support. I ask that you present your ideas with a solid theoretical base and not as you have, which is a negative opinion without data or expertise, in other words, a prejudice. Now on to your comments:

"I have never studied Freud extensively, just enouph to know the guy was a flake and (in my opinion) borderline madman."

It's his theory that you're endorsing.

"This seems to be the case in every example I am aware of on a personal level."

Well, something tells me you're seeking out troubled gay people, or, only troubled gay people seek you out. "Several cases," doesn't really mean squat. To ruin your streak, I happen to get along a lot better with my father than my mother, who was out of the house during my upbringing. I was never abused, although I several times threatened and once assaulted by heterosexual / christian individuals. And I knew zilch about homosexuality and had met zero gay people when I had my first crush. Just the way I was made. As president of a student activist group at UVA, and as someone who's been out since age 18, I could introduce you to dozens and dozens of people who can explicitly refute your theory. I've never met one to substantiate it. Has it ever occured to you that when a father is withdrawn from his gay son, that this could be an effect and not a cause?

You wouldn't make a decision about shotokan's effectiveness based on meeting "several" people and who felt their shotokan was insufficient and were considering change. Or so I presume.

"There is no cure for heterosexuality is there?"

No there sure isn't. And neither should anyone be looking for a cure. It's not a problem, and it doesn't resolve with therapy. Just like homosexuality.

"What about a married person who has a higher sex drive?"

Well, that married person CHOSE their mate. You're not allowing gay people to have a chance to be intimate with ANYONE. And that married person has SOMETHING. You are asking for total celibacy, which strikes most people as absurd. Hey, why don't you eat only broccoli, because I want you to?

"Should we give a baby to anyone willing to sign an agreement that they will not burn it with cigerettes, or should there be some sort of moral standard that an applicant has to meet?"

Here you're implying that letting gay parents adopt is a step on the road to torturing babies and having zero standards, an insult which IMHO has no place in a discussion unless you can substantiate it at ALL. I will respond to intelligent arguments; baseless insults, I will ignore, except to say that I feel holding baseless prejudices should rule out a foster parent as a good choice, except that this would involve excessive government intrusion and investigation into private lives and opinions.

"Truth is not relative, it is absolute. If this is not the case, then you should have no objection whatsoever to the above examples."

Of course I feel my examples are of bad situations, that's why I made them. But I feel you should acknowledge that in every instance, there were confidant supporters of those concepts who cited absolute truth and biblical precedent. Our understanding of truth is imperfect. Before you strip away the rights of an entire class based on an opinion, I feel like you ought to bring something, ANYTHING to the discussion to support your, well, prejudice.

"Well, I object to the fact that he was beating her at all, does this mean I am out of line?"

You're trying to make a point about cultural relativism. It's failing. You need to have some kind of coherent, consistent ethical structure backing up your ideas. And while you do have one--conservative religious thought--I hold that it is irrelevant to USA policy decisions. State something concrete. For example, when you imply that gay people have a "negative effect on society as a whole," you need to explain why. If you want to cite some negative aspects of some parts of gay culture (risky pormiscious sex would be one), you need to prove they are essential to homosexuality. An analogy:

A racist could claim that the disproportionately jailed black segment of society has a "negative effect" on society as a whole and could even complain about rap and gang culture, and the celebration of violence. He could then claim this disqualifies blacks from parenting adopted kids. HOWEVER, while these things ARE connected with some blacks, they are not integral to black culture which is diverse, and the majority of blacks are capable parents. Just like risky sex IS detrimental to society BUT there are many gay people who are far safer than many heterosexuals. (I am one).

"I can love a homosexual without supporting the fact that he is participating in what is (in my opinion) sinful, perverted, and destructive behavior."

I'm somehow not feeling the love there, dude. This is what I mean about prejudice. I understand you feel this way, but understand how I feel: this is not the way to address a stranger who's been civil to you. There are any number of nasty things an atheist could say about your beliefs and THEY would have some scientific backing. But this is a place for discussion and not name calling. Get it?

_________________
--Ian

I must remain on the sidelines in this discussion, as I think it needs a moderator.

On the one hand, it's so easy for discussions like these to cause emotional hijacking. When that happens, nobody wins.

On the other hand, both Ethan and Ian are saying things that many think but few would come out and say. I've played devil's advocate to both arguments. If you look around various threads, you will find me passionately taking both sides - just to get some thoughts and ideas out in the open. I've gone toe-to-toe with Ian about some of his beliefs, and yet have been accused of favoring him because he is a student.

I'm rambling a bit here...

Basically I want you two to feel free to express yourselves, but be respectful in the process. And understand that when you allow someone to say what they think, they sometimes will say things that hurt without intention. But how else are you going to deal with hidden thoughts around you if you don't allow them to come out? And those thoughts WON'T come out if you pounce on them whenever they are uttered. That's not constructive.

Thanks in advance for being good to each other, and for enlightening us all. And others feel free to express yourselves as well.

- Bill

I am enjoying this thoughtful discussion.


Yes - we all have temptations to overcome. Of late one of my worst temptations has been over-indulgence in chocolate as it appears in various forms (mocha, dark, milk, syrup, chips, fudge, etc.) Did I mention mocha?

However one place I get hung up on is the idea that while everyone is going to commit what many people call "sins" some people get legal protections and some people don't.

In particular the some 1300 legal protections (as established by case law) that come with civil marriage.

I would hope that churches that do not wish to recognize homosexual behavior continue to have the right to exlude homosexuals from getting married in their churches. That's freedom of religion. However - for our country to deny legal protections to some and give them to others at a civil level really bothers me.

A heterosexual adulterer (male or female) can get married and divorced multiple times and still carry rights to property, children, estates, trusts, insurance benefits, social security, etc.

A homosexual adulterer gets rights to....nothing.

Why the disparity?

Why not have civil marriage open to two consenting adults and let religious groups consecrate religious marriages for only those people who wish to live their lives within the confines of the dogma of that religion?

_________________
Did you show compassion today?

to the VSD forum, where "Oldfist" can moderate the participants.

In some ways, the religious views expressed here, remind me of the "Kbash" discussions, where "strawman" arguments abound. Time to focus on the details (and facts)of the argument instead of laying down prejudicial statements as facts, then attempting to build an argument around that statement.

Puts anyone attempting to enter this discussion at a great disadvantage, since the natural response to a statement like:



would be something that could get the poster "banned".

Since the original focus of this thread was:

I suggest that we have gone way off track by accusing or defending homosexual behavior as a cause for marriages failing. (Although I believe a prominent governor Did get divorced after his wife discovered he was having an affair with another man)

_________________
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"

Wow. What thought provoking posts. Marraige, sex, religion. Many thoughts going through my head - more than I could write and more than probably anyone would want to read. But lots of emotion. I really enjoyed all the posts.

For the most part up I was brought up in my youth religious and then became super-religious in my early early twenties. I was quite happy with it. The religion I belong to asks a very active role of its members. I chose to be celibate as I could before marraige - no sexual intercourse, a few occassional oil spills here and there, none premeditated. Did the whole missionary thing for 2 years. etc.

I mentally made a list of all the qualities I wanted in a wife. Educated, the type of background she was from, health issues (diabetes was out - all my grandparents were diabetc and no history of diabetes was a must), certain hobbies, certain fitness level. Finally met her. I got married at 28. Had sexual intercourse for the first time. Very controlled cerebral marraige.

Within weeks my wife and I couldn't stand each other. I knew it because I read it in her journal. But poof - 5 months in, we were both thinking of divorce but.....but she is pregnant. I am too duty bound to leave. We both do the RIGHT thing.

The first year of marraige was hard. We did not get along well. I was super religious - she was the most religious person I have ever met to this date , with no exagerration. She was constantly trying to make me better - always had some correction for me. True story - she would correct how I held the hymn book for us in church - according to her it has to be held at a certain level so that you can see the chorister.

I was working 6 days per week to support us. I spent about 20 hours, more or less, per week in church callings. I was executive secretary to the Bishop, I taught the 12 year old Sunday school class, I was a ward missionary and I had 2 other callings. Sunday usually required 6-8 hours of meetings for me. Just so you know I never have been paid one penny for anything I have ever done in the church. Its all 100% voluntary - every position anyone serves. All my days and all my nights were taken up. I was quite tired all the time.

My wife was VERY VERY VERY dissatisfied with my lack of attention. I did show her much more attention before we were married (our dating story is a whole othe issue). It took effort. But I was so busy I was just too tired most days to do anything else. She was very unhappy. In her journal she wrote about how unhappy she was, how she felt God tricked her into marrying me, how everyone would be better off if I was dead.

I was not abusive - I never called her names, struck her etc. I just was not giving her all the attention she wanted. She used to get quite a bit prior to marraige from other guys.

For me I was tired from the get go about never being good enough. Never fit enough, never religious enough. I wanted to get released from several of my church callings - if I dropped 3 church duties I would still have 3 left. But this bothered my wife as a sign I was not sincere in my religous beliefes and she prayed fervently for my soul.

That was about 16 years ago. We have 4 children today. One of my greatest pleasures is the many times people have told me what a great dad I am. I try so hard - coaching basketball, reading to them, spending time with them. Camped out this weekend for the 9th straight year with my oldest son - spent a long cold night in a sleeping bag. Those campouts really make me much more religious - I spend all night praying for morning.

I love my children and they are the best thign to happen to me and about the only good thing in my life right now.

Our sex life is pretty much nil and I think we are both fine with it. The first year of marraige it was as busy as anyone gets - what do you expect from 2 virgins getting together? Then after the first child it dropped to the ol' 3-5 times per week. Around our 12 year of marraige I stumbled across her aforementioned journals and realized how much she hated me and how much we often did not even like each other over the past decade plus. After reading that the sex life petered away.

As the old saying goes, the course of marital sex life:
Tri-weekly
Try weekly
Try weakly

During my dating period I found girls I felt something for - but they never met all my list of criteria. Would things have been different if I had followed my heart instead of my head? I don't know. I know guys who do that and are unhappy.

I am not the ugliest bloke in the world and over the years have had some women come on to me. A secretary who even grabbed my crotch. I never did anything.

Now in my 40's I sometimes wonder what if. I sometimes wonder about temptation. I sometimes wonder about the next twenty years.

I have no real answers. Children are great I know that. Its such a shame that even two wonderful people have such a hard time making a marraige work - or even liking each other.

All the rules of love and marraige - age differences, sex, gender etc. I don't know. Lasting love...or even love itself is so damn hard to find - life is sometimes so lonely for people - and so sad and full of death and suffering - I am not sure how critical I can be of anyone who has a loving relationship.


Well sorry I just rambled and although spilling my guts said nothing profound.

Oh if someone comments on my post please don't use quotes. My wife and I share an internet connection and so I may erase my post - who needs something else to squabble over. And if you qoute than it cannot be entirely eliminated

Wow!!!!

You should be nominated for "sainthood" (if your religion believes in saints)!

I'm impressed. You and your wife's experiences are the best reason for "living together in sin before Marriage" I've ever come across.

_________________
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"

I'm not so sure, George. Just because you lived together for a long time doesn't mean you will find out what someone will be like during marriage, nor does it improve your odds once you marry. I believe the data support this. There's something about that final legal commitment that changes everything.

The data also show about equal success between arranged and "self chosen" marriages. Go figure...

My personal opinion is most couples struggle. It's the nature of the beast. That's why half of all marriages fail.

The folks still married in the other 50% aren't necessarily in better marriages, IMO. They just treat the institution differently, and give/sacrifice a little more over time.

It reminds me a bit of graduate school. There were a lot of folks smarter than me who never finished. What made me finish, and them not? Food for thought.

Once again... I thank someone else for saying something others experience and/or feel, but would never say in public.

- Bill

Ian,
I am sorry if you feel I have made any unsubstantiated "attacks". I know this must be an emotional issue for you, but I assure you I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings or cast insults.

Ian wrote-
First, I've been civil in the face of as yet unsubstantiated attacks. Before you flout terms like "cure," and "defect" around, why don't you.... support them? We understand that people aren't going to come on this forum or others and speak negatively of racial minorities without some kind of support.

I have supported my opinions as well as you have. I don't believe this subject can be discussed in regards to solid genetic facts for instance because I have never seen any.

My friend, I too have tried to be civil despite your obvious animosity toward the religious community. Well concealed insults are insults none the less. But I can respect your opinions and views even when I disagree with them. I think both of us are driven in this discussion by our differing world views and backgrounds. That's cool

Ian wrote-
I ask that you present your ideas with a solid theoretical base and not as you have, which is a negative opinion without data or expertise, in other words, a prejudice.

This is exactly what I have done. Just because you disagree with my arguments doens't make them invalid. My "data" and my "expertise" as I have stated before, come from my personal experiances, and my religious views.

I like a good discussion and debate, but if this subject is too destressing for you to discuss, maybe you should do a little shin kokyu before continuing.

Comparing me to a racist will not support your beliefs, thats apples and oranges.

Also, up to this point, the only name I have called you is "friend". I care about the way you feel right now Ian. I am honestly not trying to tick you off.


GEM wrote-
In some ways, the religious views expressed here, remind me of the "Kbash" discussions, where "strawman" arguments abound. Time to focus on the details (and facts)of the argument instead of laying down prejudicial statements as facts, then attempting to build an argument around that statement.

Sorry you feel that way, any time you would like to debate religion with me bring it on, and we will see who has the "strawman arguments".

I know the original topic of this thread was marriage, but running into the room like a mother hen and threatening me with being banned won't change my opinions or advance your own case.

Ethan

Nobody's trying to change your point of view by banning you. We keep the "nuclear option" in our back pocket not to engage in thought control, but instead to manage the dialogue on these threads. Trust me - it can get really nasty. And some of the ugliness never is reported in public because we don't want to encourage bad (and in some cases felonious) behavior.

You just never know what remark will trigger the next flameout, and you have no idea how tricky it is getting everyone to play nice over long periods of time. We are a diverse community with a common bond in the martial arts. And I for one encourage that diversity. I would like martial participants around me to respect all the (legal) views of society as a whole.

We are one of the few surviving martial webpages that engage in this kind of forum activity. Many have become the fatal victims of flameout activity.

Please understand where we are coming from, Ethan, and we in turn will try to understand and respect your beliefs. And when that understanding happens, you just never know who will learn from whom...

Thanks.

- Bill

Gem writes

And these ‘strawman’ allegations continue to amuse me, but may well piss off others as we have seen in the past, and we may well see again. So I question the wisdom of ‘slinging straws’ again.

Let’s recap what was very well written on the subject.

Rick Wilson

Jim Hawkins

Then I wrote

And Rory clinches it

And so the comedy continues.

_________________
Van

Case in point.

People disagree. Ideally we coexist, and learn from our differences.

- Bill

'My personal opinion is most couples struggle. It's the nature of the beast. That's why half of all marriages fail.'

I recently read some stats in a recent study on this and the situation is not really that bad. It should really read 'half of new marriages fail', new being somewhat recent. If you take the total exisiting marriages and throw the 'half of new marriages' number into the mix it does not look that bleak. On top of that, the trend for the succuss of new marriages has improved and half no longer end in divorce. That is a statistic from the nineties.

I cannot remember the actual figures but will look around for them.

Rich

_________________
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!

Can't we all just get along?

Sorry for the cheesy line, but I understand what you all are saying. I am not offended by the opinions and comments of anyone here, everyone has a right to their opinion. I hope my opinions and comments do not come off as offensive either, this is not my intention.

Throughout the course of my life, I have had 4 groups of people of whom I have thought as of "family".

My biological family
My church family
My military family
My Uechi family

I love them all and will continue to do so even when differing viewpoints arise.

My love to you ALL!

No problemo, Ethan.

If you only saw the lengthy course I had to take with my present employer on discrimination and harassment. Oye!!! I can't say ANYTHING that might be perceived as an insult to whatever group. One perceived offense and I can be outta here. That's the world we live in here in Corporate America. There are many reasons for that which I don't need to get into here at the moment.

Ever wonder how the Japanese get along in such close confines? Check out how strict their language and culture is. You only get to say what you REALLY think after hours, and after a few glasses of sake. .

I'm one of the princes of phantom insults. And truth be told, many of the popular posters are the same way. We are whom we are, and we have these beliefs that - when expressed - sometimes insult others. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Oh well... What differentiates you from the next guy here is that we know the regulars. Folks know what to expect from me, from GEM, from Van, fron Ian, etc., etc. And these regulars have contributed a lot, which gives them a lot of collateral in the emotional bank account (to use a Covey concept). We don't know you - yet. But we'd like to so long as your heart is in a good place. And I believe that to be true.

I'd like to believe that with time we all can use these forums as an occasional after-hours sake party. There is a time and a place for that.

- Bill