Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Heck, depending on where you live there are still people who are not okay with interracial marriage. I still have people eyeballing us with disgust and judgement a couple times a week.

Strangely enough the percentage of interracial marriages in my circle of friends is pretty high, which is something that makes me happy.

 dogma wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It isn't illegal to oppose homosexuality.

Nor is the stated purpose of SPLC to make it so.

It is the stated aim of the SPLC to bankrupt all groups it deems hate groups. Case in point. They're attacking the small town of Shannon in Lee Country, Mississippi because the town council and supporters do not want a gay bar there. It's a town of less than 2000 people so it's highly unlikely that there are enough gay people in town to support it meaning it would attract gay people from outside the town. The town doesn't want that but the SPLC doesn't give a flying fudge about the will of the local community, it only cares about the rights of a tiny handful over that of the majority. So yeah, by default, they are trying to make it illegal to oppose homosexuality because they're going to attack a town for doing just that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Heck, depending on where you live there are still people who are not okay with interracial marriage. I still have people eyeballing us with disgust and judgement a couple times a week.

Strangely enough the percentage of interracial marriages in my circle of friends is pretty high, which is something that makes me happy.

People like being around like minded people, you're no different.

Though again we are moving away from the point - which is whether the group mentioned in the op is a hate group or not, and the reasons for that either way. Less has been said about this than all the other tangents that have been created to sidetrack the issue

A town of 2000 people will most likely not be able to support a bar without relying on people from outside of that town.

So if they are unwilling to allow any kind of bar, then there is no problem. If they are opposing a bar solely on sexual orientation, then there is a legitimate concern. Especially since both "straight" and "gay" bars will need out-of-town customers to survive.

Of course that argument is also a prime example of the ability to exchange certain words and travel back in time. "The town doesn't want a bar that will result in black people coming to the town".

 d-usa wrote:
A town of 2000 people will most likely not be able to support a bar without relying on people from outside of that town.

So if they are unwilling to allow any kind of bar, then there is no problem. If they are opposing a bar solely on sexual orientation, then there is a legitimate concern.

No there isn't. The character of the town is normal, that is straight. Having patrons coming from outside the town who are straight strengthens the character of the town. Having patrons who are homosexual No need for the other term used here. Reds8n will weaken the character of the town. A town should preserve its character and cater to the will of the majority, that is what a democracy is about. Democracy is not just about national level politics, it is about the will of the people.

cadbren wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
A town of 2000 people will most likely not be able to support a bar without relying on people from outside of that town.

So if they are unwilling to allow any kind of bar, then there is no problem. If they are opposing a bar solely on sexual orientation, then there is a legitimate concern.

No there isn't. The character of the town is normal, that is straight. Having patrons coming from outside the town who are straight strengthens the character of the town. Having patrons who are homosexual will weaken the character of the town. A town should preserve its character and cater to the will of the majority, that is what a democracy is about. Democracy is not just about national level politics, it is about the will of the people.

The character of the town is normal, that is white. Having patrons coming from outside the town who are white strengthens the character of the town. Having patrons who are black will weaken the character of the town.

cadbren wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It isn't illegal to oppose homosexuality.

Nor is the stated purpose of SPLC to make it so.

It is the stated aim of the SPLC to bankrupt all groups it deems hate groups. ...

...

That's not making it illegal. Do you understand what "illegal" means?

How will the character of a town -- nebulous idea that this is anyway -- be weakened by a gay bar ?

Really? It appears to me that a large number of the kinds of people involved are about the same, and if you cut out the words "homosexual", "homosexuality", etc from some of the stuff they are saying and replace them with "black" or "N-words" then what they are saying sounds almost exactly the same too...

I'll disagree here, but preface it with saying I don't give a gak what you do in your own bedroom.

From a purely biological standpoint, interracial heterosexual couples can still procreate. Homosexual couples absolutely cannot. If "normal" was to be homosexual, humans would eventually become extinct, no?

 d-usa wrote:

The character of the town is normal, that is white. Having patrons coming from outside the town who are white strengthens the character of the town. Having patrons who are black will weaken the character of the town.

If the town was white, and the race of the people there is not stated, then it would be better to say traditional rather than normal as you can have towns of normal people who are not white. Heterosexuality is the normal state of humans, it's what the vast majority are. Otherwise you are correct. In order to maintain the local culture, limiting outside groups coming in would be necessary.
There's a small discussion on the problems associated with the spread of ultra orthodox jews into historically black neighborhoods in NYC here: http://forward.com/articles/171367/ultra-orthodox-jews-spread-into-once-black-brookly/?p=all




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


That's not making it illegal. Do you understand what "illegal" means?

Sure do. If someone enters the country without going through immigration, they've entered illegally, something which the SPLC seems to support. They're currently working with illegals and federal authorities to get 11 million illegals the right to stay - amnesty in other words. You can read about it on the SPLC website.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
How will the character of a town -- nebulous idea that this is anyway -- be weakened by a gay bar ?

Same way a suburban neighborhood would be weakened by having a brothel in it. It brings a seedy element into the area. In the end it should be up to the locals whether they want such a thing and not for outsiders to decide on their behalf.

cadbren wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
How will the character of a town -- nebulous idea that this is anyway -- be weakened by a gay bar ?

Same way a suburban neighborhood would be weakened by having a brothel in it. It brings a seedy element into the area. In the end it should be up to the locals whether they want such a thing and not for outsiders to decide on their behalf.

You do know that not all gay bars are the leather and whip kind of fetish bars you see taken off on TV, right? Just the good ones. Some are just normal bars that identify as gay bars because the owner/chief investor/main clientele are gay.

Nonsense.

There's a big difference between a bar and a brothel.

There's no evidence or justification for claiming that homosexuals are seedy.

And you still haven't actually answered as to how having a gay bar would lower the character of a town.

You've made some spurious and unsupported claims that it's better that towns stay " traditional", which is essentially trite and meaningless and totally unsupported by any actual evidence other than your crudely expressed opinion.

I'm sure we're all reassured though that non white people can be normal.

I've been happily interracially married for 13 years. I attend a church denomination that is 99% African American.

The only thing similar between African American Civil rights vs homosexual activism, is that homosexual activists have used similar tactics, and they have been quite successful, in blurring the lines between the two issues.

African's were bought and sold in a slave trade. kidnapped and were brought to the Americas as Chattel. Negro Africans are a distinct race going back generations, and were discriminated against wrongly.

This wrongfull discrimination also happened to people of Indian origin, Native American, Asian, and Latino. these are all classes of people that can trace their heritage back generations due to no choice of their own.

The homosexual cannot claim this, and has no equal ground to compare with someone or a class of people that were born to a racial group.

They have tried to prove that they are born homosexual(this type of thought started in Germany in the 1860's), but the science in trying to do this is quite shaky.

GG

anyway...silver is right..we are starting to get OT again...sigh

Of course it's shaky if one dismisses everything that doesn't fit into one's own point of view.

cadbren wrote:

It is the stated aim of the SPLC to bankrupt all groups it deems hate groups.

Do you have evidence that is the stated aim of the SPLC?

cadbren wrote:

So yeah, by default, they are trying to make it illegal to oppose homosexuality because they're going to attack a town for doing just that.

Acting in support of the passage of a law which made it illegal to oppose homosexuality would be trying to make it illegal to oppose homosexuality. Simply mounting a legal challenge under current law is not.

Gay bars are... interesting places. I was taken to one by a group of female friends (I was not given an option to voice my opinion, and was further bribed with the promise of having my beverages paid for by my companions.) Apparently they knew what they were about, because once word of a straight guy being in the bar got around my friends didn't have to pay for my drinks either. It was certainly an enlightening experience as far as what the "hot chick" in a "normal' bar might go through with unwanted male attention.

As far as seedy goes... it was just a bar. A bar with a more fruity "girl" drinks then I knew actually existed, and restrooms that were actually clean, but a bar all the same. It was certainly less seedy then the types of biker bar fight clubs I normally like to drink at.

cadbren wrote:

Sure do. If someone enters the country without going through immigration, they've entered illegally, something which the SPLC seems to support. They're currently working with illegals and federal authorities to get 11 million illegals the right to stay - amnesty in other words. You can read about it on the SPLC website.

The debate about illegal aliens in the the US has nothing to do with the debate about homosexuality in the US, and whether or not the SPLC was correct in classifying the AFA as a hate group.

 generalgrog wrote:

The homosexual cannot claim this, and has no equal ground to compare with someone or a class of people that were born to a racial group.

You do realize what this sounds like, yes? Saying "The homosexual..." is like saying "The Jew..." or "The Christian..." (I'm leaving out the ones that include racial slurs). It is dehumanizing.

 cincydooley wrote:
If "normal" was to be homosexual, humans would eventually become extinct, no?

The concept of normality is not limited to majority. Homosexual behavior can be normal, and not be the predominant sexual behavior of any given group (outside self-identified homosexuals, obviously); indeed it is not so right now.

 generalgrog wrote:
I've been happily interracially married for 13 years. I attend a church denomination that is 99% African American.

The only thing similar between African American Civil rights vs homosexual activism, is that homosexual activists have used similar tactics, and they have been quite successful, in blurring the lines between the two issues.

African's were bought and sold in a slave trade. kidnapped and were brought to the Americas as Chattel. Negro Africans are a distinct race going back generations, and were discriminated against wrongly.

This wrongfull discrimination also happened to people of Indian origin, Native American, Asian, and Latino. these are all classes of people that can trace their heritage back generations due to no choice of their own.

The homosexual cannot claim this, and has no equal ground to compare with someone or a class of people that were born to a racial group.

...

Your logic is circular. It is based on the premise that discrimination against homosexuals is not wrongful, therefore discrimination against homosexuals is not wrongful.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


That's not making it illegal. Do you understand what "illegal" means?

Sure do. If someone enters the country without going through immigration, they've entered illegally, something which the SPLC seems to support. They're currently working with illegals and federal authorities to get 11 million illegals the right to stay - amnesty in other words. You can read about it on the SPLC website.

...

It isn't illegal to argue in favour of legalising illegal aliens or to allow them into the country. It isn't illegal to try and drive a group into bankruptcy.

Obviously either you actually don't understand what illegal means, or else your argument is so weak that you need to resort to the fallacy of the false equivalence.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You need to stop thinking in terms of "liberals" and start understanding "rational".

You mean like your rational understanding that the NRA was a hate group, whenever the criteria you yourself provided showed that they were in fact a group - but that the hate element was missing?
That sort of rational??




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Gay bars are... interesting places. I was taken to one by a group of female friends (I was not given an option to voice my opinion, and was further bribed with the promise of having my beverages paid for by my companions.) Apparently they knew what they were about, because once word of a straight guy being in the bar got around my friends didn't have to pay for my drinks either. It was certainly an enlightening experience as far as what the "hot chick" in a "normal' bar might go through with unwanted male attention.

As far as seedy goes... it was just a bar. A bar with a more fruity "girl" drinks then I knew actually existed, and restrooms that were actually clean, but a bar all the same. It was certainly less seedy then the types of biker bar fight clubs I normally like to drink at.

I've known of a few ladies who frequent gay bars to avoid certain types of obnoxious male attention

Y'know, I know this is off topic......But I have a feeling my family would also be against Interacial marriage if this was the 60s.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You need to stop thinking in terms of "liberals" and start understanding "rational".

You mean like your rational understanding that the NRA was a hate group, whenever the criteria you yourself provided showed that they were in fact a group - but that the hate element was missing?
That sort of rational??

I understand that it's difficult for you to actually read posts when your natural reaction is to be a knee-jerk poster. The criteria that I posted:

1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.

That is the criteria for a "hate group". The criteria is not used in a vacuum without any kind of knowledge of the group in question, nor is the criteria used as a strict "You must tick all of these boxes to qualify".
If you actually take the time to do any kind of investigating you would see that some of the well-known, established "hate groups" do not go out and flaunt their messages any more. They couch as much of it as possible in vagueries and disassociate themselves with the more extreme members--who actually form groups themselves with other like-minded members of their original group.

There is a reason that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing(when this listing of criteria was put forth by the Department of Justice and the FBI) you saw the establishment of this criteria.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I understand that it's difficult for you to actually read posts when your natural reaction is to be a knee-jerk poster. The criteria that I posted:

1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.

That is the criteria for a "hate group". The criteria is not used in a vacuum without any kind of knowledge of the group in question, nor is the criteria used as a strict "You must tick all of these boxes to qualify".
If you actually take the time to do any kind of investigating you would see that some of the well-known, established "hate groups" do not go out and flaunt their messages any more. They couch as much of it as possible in vagueries and disassociate themselves with the more extreme members--who actually form groups themselves with other like-minded members of their original group.

There is a reason that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing(when this listing of criteria was put forth by the Department of Justice and the FBI) you saw the establishment of this criteria.

So confronting you with facts (you know, rational argument) elicits an emotional response and personal attack (y'know - irrational)?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Yeah, I'm not gonna just let these go. They're a little too deserving of challenge.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm fine with not editing it. "Use" is a vague enough term in and of itself. It could be used to describe someone who brandishes their gun to frighten a potential mugger off or someone who actually shoots during a home invasion or any number of situations.

So you think more often than not gun owners have round reason to use their gun in such a manner? Really?

The majority of gun owners have done something of the sort you described?

Maybe not the majority, but considering how many people continually post nonsense here on Dakka about how "anyone who breaks into my house is leaving in a bodybag" or things similar to that, I'm comfortable with my statement.

Also the NRA as a hate group is not that far fetched. Well, at least if you use anyone but Whembly's definition of hate groups.

I'd love to hear the definition that you believe qualifies them.

1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Baring #7 a lot of non-hate groups would fit those criteria.

Bear in mind that the characteristics are, as always, not going to be 1:1 in every case. You can pick and choose.
Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are very applicable with the NRA.

 Kanluwen wrote:
That's the definition of a hate crime, not a characteristic of a hate group.
One does not need to engage in hate crimes to be classified as a hate group--especially when you have an organization like the NRA, which tends to have overlap with many of the militia/"patriot" groups in the US.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
the FBI compiled this list of characteristics of organized hate groups:

1) Group structure is loose on a local level and highly structured internationally.
2) A substantial number of members are white males under the age of 30.
3) Leaders tend to project a mainstream image.
4) Many are technologically savvy and use venues as cable television and computers to promote their rhetoric.
5) Group members are often loosely affiliated and take inspiration and direction( e.g., Skinheads).
6) Groups focus on issues of concern to Middle America as a way of cloaking and marketing hate.
7) Members of these groups believe in an inevitable global war between races.

1) Possibly applicable to the NRA
2) NRA does not give a demographic breakdown of members by age
3) Very vague criteria, and works on the assumption that owning a firearm is a fringe belief not mainstream
4) Sounds like every group that ever existed, so again very vague
5) Not really applicable
6) What hate is the NRA cloaking and marketing?
7) If they do then they have managed to keep it remarkably well hidden

So in short only the vaguest possible criteria can fit the NRA, but then again these can also be applied to many other groups too. What should be the most telling criteria for a hate group (actual hate) falls short by a significant margin when you attempt to relate it to the NRA.

So you managed to prove (with the criteria your provided) that the NRA is a group, and that it fails to actually espouse and hatred or that it believes in a race war. Congratulations, you just managed to prove my point about your hypocrisy over trying to paint yourself as rational

The NRA is anything but a hate group. It's incredibly inclusive so long as you believe in the 2nd amendment and/or enjoy gun sports.

 cincydooley wrote:
The NRA is anything but a hate group. It's incredibly inclusive so long as you send them money.

Fixed that for you

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
The NRA is anything but a hate group. It's incredibly inclusive so long as you send them money.

Fixed that for you

bs. The membership fees are practically nothing.

 reds8n wrote:
Nonsense.

There's a big difference between a bar and a brothel.

There's no evidence or justification for claiming that homosexuals are seedy.

High rates of promiscuity and unsafe sex leading to high rates of HIV. Homosexuals have a shorter lifespan on average as a result. Their "pride" parades are not exactly family friendly either.

Yet they still love everyone as long as they pay up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
Nonsense.

There's a big difference between a bar and a brothel.

There's no evidence or justification for claiming that homosexuals are seedy.

High rates of promiscuity and unsafe sex leading to high rates of HIV. Homosexuals have a shorter lifespan on average as a result. Their "pride" parades are not exactly family friendly either.

And those 2000 people in the town are all going to have a slice of that gay sex as soon as a bar opens there!

Edit:

also: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/07/bob-marshall/bob-marshall-says-homosexual-behavior-cuts-life-ex/

cadbren wrote:
Heterosexuality is the normal state of humans, it's what the vast majority are.

By that standard, the 'normal state of humans' is 'Chinese'...

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Obviously either you actually don't understand what illegal means, or else your argument is so weak that you need to resort to the fallacy of the false equivalence.

As can be seen here, homosexual activists are able to use the new laws to push their presence in areas where they otherwise are not present or not wanted while taking financial resources away from the local population and wasting their time in courts simply to try and point score. This is precisely why groups like the AFA oppose homosexual law reform along with the issues regarding families mentioned earlier.
It should not be illegal in any case to oppose a theme bar that doesn't fit in with the character of the town, but again it will come down to the personal opinion of the judge presiding the case.

cadbren wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not making it illegal. Do you understand what "illegal" means?

Sure do. If someone enters the country without going through immigration, they've entered illegally, something which the SPLC seems to support. They're currently working with illegals and federal authorities to get 11 million illegals the right to stay - amnesty in other words. You can read about it on the SPLC website.

I guess you don't understand the meaning of "illegal" if you think "lobbying to change the law so that something that is currently illegal is no longer illegal" qualifies.

In the end it should be up to the locals whether they want such a thing and not for outsiders to decide on their behalf.

Ever hear of this concept called "tyranny of the majority"? Because that's what's happening here, the majority have decided what business opportunities the minority are allowed to have, and so outsiders step in to give the minority a fair voice in the process.

Also, it's funny how outsiders are only bad in some situations. For example, if the military labels the AFA a hate group suddenly it's appropriate for non-military members to start telling the military what to do.

cadbren wrote:
High rates of promiscuity and unsafe sex leading to high rates of HIV.

Yeah, because straight people are never promiscuous...

Homosexuals have a shorter lifespan on average as a result.

Just keep in mind that a major factor in this average is suicide resulting from bullying/discrimination/etc.

Their "pride" parades are not exactly family friendly either.

So what? Is every event required to be family friendly? Is it ok to judge an entire class of people by the actions of some of its members (hint: not every gay person goes to or even supports those parades)?