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.

 insaniak wrote:

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'...

That would be Han as they are the dominant group within China but you're wrong anyway as homosexuals can't form pure nations like normal people due to their limited reproduction capacity. If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation. Any other group of people including mixed groups from different ethnic and racial backgrounds are capable of forming permanent communities.

cadbren wrote:
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.

You realize that there probably are gay people in that town, right? The fact that a group doesn't have enough political power to protect their interests and has to call in outside support does not mean that they don't exist.

This is precisely why groups like the AFA oppose homosexual law reform along with the issues regarding families mentioned earlier.

I'm still not seeing how this has anything to do with the insane claim that it will be illegal to speak against homosexuality within 10-20 years. Disagreement over zoning laws is not even close to infringing upon the right to free speech.

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.

Sigh. Nobody is arguing that it should be illegal to oppose the bar. Protest about it all you want. The issue here is whether the town is allowed to deny the necessary permits to a potential business just because certain people in that town don't like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:
but you're wrong anyway as homosexuals can't form pure nations like normal people due to their limited reproduction capacity.

What does that have to do with anything?

If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation.

Or they'd just have disgusting heterosexual sex to make children, just like how plenty of closeted conservatives have wives and kids until they're caught paying attractive young men to "lift their luggage".

The real reason you'll never have a purely homosexual nation is that, unlike race, homosexuality is not a 100% inherited trait. In this hypothetical nation you'd inevitably have lots of heterosexual children born in that nation and the only way to keep the nation "pure" would be to kill or exile anyone who isn't sufficiently gay (something that will never happen).

Any other group of people including mixed groups from different ethnic and racial backgrounds are capable of forming permanent communities.

Only because of how inheritance of traits happens to work in that case. Which makes that a pretty laughably bad argument in any moral context.

cadbren wrote:
If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..

You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.

 insaniak wrote:

cadbren wrote:
If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..

You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.

And all these non-gay people somehow have gay children. That will complicate the " dying out" timeline a bit...

 Peregrine wrote:


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.

This thread was about the classification of the AFA as a hate group by the SPLC and those that support that organisation and it's classifications. The AFA do have a right to challenge the current law, the case in Shannon was to show that the SPLC are a pro-homosexual group, not that they don't have a right under current law to do what they're doing. They're also a pro illegal immigrant group which is why that got mentioned. All this supports the intital acusation of the SPLC being a far left activist group rather than an unbiased anti-discrimination group.

Ever hear of this concept called "tyranny of the majority"?

Yup, it's also called democracy. You may not like what the majority have to say on an issue, but they are the majority and it ensures that communities stay strong and cohesive.

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.

The military didn't label them independently though, they took a list from an outside group to begin with so that roasts that strawman right there.

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

Yeah, 'cause straight people never commit suicide.

So what? Is every event required to be family friendly?

An example of seedy behaviour was asked for and I obliged.

Is it ok to judge an entire class of people by the actions of some of its members?

Yes and we do it all the time, it's all part of risk assessment. It also depends on how often members of a group do something and what the reaction of the rest of the group to that action is. Gay parades are supported by the leaders of the LGBT communities, they are not fringe events within that community.

cadbren wrote:
All this supports the intital acusation of the SPLC being a far left activist group rather than an unbiased anti-discrimination group.

Being in favour of gay rights is far left activism now?

Gay parades are fun and full of energy. I love em

 d-usa wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

cadbren wrote:
If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..

You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.

And all these non-gay people somehow have gay children. That will complicate the " dying out" timeline a bit...

Take it as read that the group in question is isolated so there is no more inputs into the population.
Non-gay people have gay children the same way they can have mentally and physically disabled children, something goes wrong during development.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

cadbren wrote:
All this supports the intital acusation of the SPLC being a far left activist group rather than an unbiased anti-discrimination group.

Being in favour of gay rights is far left activism now?

They're the ones who drove it, they're the bulk of those that support it.

cadbren wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

cadbren wrote:
If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..

You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.

And all these non-gay people somehow have gay children. That will complicate the " dying out" timeline a bit...

Take it as read that the group in question is isolated so there is no more inputs into the population.
Non-gay people have gay children the same way they can have mentally and physically disabled children, something goes wrong during development.

So being gay is a physical and mental defect?

cadbren wrote:

Take it as read that the group in question is isolated so there is no more inputs into the population.

That still doesn't stop them from reproducing amongst themselves...

 insaniak wrote:

cadbren wrote:

Take it as read that the group in question is isolated so there is no more inputs into the population.

That still doesn't stop them from reproducing amongst themselves...

Or even others.

cadbren wrote:
This thread was about the classification of the AFA as a hate group by the SPLC and those that support that organisation and it's classifications.

What does that have to do with anything being illegal? You know that the SPLC isn't a government organization, right?

The AFA do have a right to challenge the current law, the case in Shannon was to show that the SPLC are a pro-homosexual group, not that they don't have a right under current law to do what they're doing.

So now anyone who acts to support gay people, no matter what the circumstances are, is a "pro-homosexual group"?

They're also a pro illegal immigrant group which is why that got mentioned.

No, you mentioned their "pro illegal immigrant" status as a response to a point about making anti-gay speech illegal.

All this supports the intital acusation of the SPLC being a far left activist group rather than an unbiased anti-discrimination group.

Or it just supports the argument that most discrimination comes from the right, so an anti-discrimination group will usually be on the same side as the left.

Yup, it's also called democracy. You may not like what the majority have to say on an issue, but they are the majority and it ensures that communities stay strong and cohesive.

Well, at least you're honest. So are you going to continue to be honest and accept the consequences of that belief? For example, slavery was supported by a majority in slave-owning communities, so should it have continued to be legal out of respect for the will of the majority?

The military didn't label them independently though, they took a list from an outside group to begin with so that roasts that strawman right there.

Stop being an outsider and telling the military what to do. If the military wants to use a list from an outside group then you have no business criticizing them for it.

Yeah, 'cause straight people never commit suicide.

Sigh. Maybe you should spend a few minutes researching suicide rates in various groups before talking.

An example of seedy behaviour was asked for and I obliged.

What does a pride parade have to do with a bar?

Yes and we do it all the time, it's all part of risk assessment. It also depends on how often members of a group do something and what the reaction of the rest of the group to that action is. Gay parades are supported by the leaders of the LGBT communities, they are not fringe events within that community.

Gangs and drugs are supported by leaders of the black community, so we should have white-only towns to protect law-abiding citizens from those crimes.

cadbren wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

cadbren wrote:
All this supports the intital acusation of the SPLC being a far left activist group rather than an unbiased anti-discrimination group.

Being in favour of gay rights is far left activism now?

They're the ones who drove it, they're the bulk of those that support it.

Wait, the bulk of those who support gay rights are "far left activists"? Right, I think we're done here.

cadbren wrote:

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.

It appears the bar had been owned and operated by a local, homosexual resident who subsequently attempted to reopen the establishment (following a hiatus) at the behest of former patrons. The owner of the building also appears to have willingly leased it to the woman.

 dogma wrote:

cadbren wrote:

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.

It appears the bar had been owned and operated by a local, homosexual resident who subsequently attempted to reopen the establishment (following a hiatus) at the behest of former patrons. The owner of the building also appears to have willingly leased it to the woman.

Quiet, you far left activist dogma

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:


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

Would you allow a known unrepentent pedophile into your home? Would you allow a known violent drug addict into your home? If not...you have just discriminated.

You see..some discrimination is wise and healthy.

disclaimer..before the "out of context police" start jumping in..I'm not comparing "the homosexual" (that's for you dogma ) to pedophiles and violent drug addicts. I'm simply making an analogy for the purposes of showing that people do discriminate, and sometimes that's a good thing.

GG

 insaniak wrote:

cadbren wrote:
If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..

You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.

Because they entered into relationships before coming out.
Are you saying that if you took a group of male and female homosexuals that they would form male-female relationships if left in an isolated environment? Wouldn't that fall into the territory of saying that homosexuals choose to be like that rather than being genetic?

cadbren wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

cadbren wrote:
If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..

You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.

Because they entered into relationships before coming out.
Are you saying that if you took a group of male and female homosexuals that they would form male-female relationships if left in an isolated environment? Wouldn't that fall into the territory of saying that homosexuals choose to be like that rather than being genetic?

I think if they were the only people there, they might be ready to have heterosexual coitus in order to continue whatever form of society they'd formed as a possible last resort. Might not like it, but it's better than going extinct.

Wait someone already made this point.

Did you chose to ignore? Wait it's genetic....

cadbren wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

cadbren wrote:
If you took a group of homosexuals and placed them in a well resourced area they'd die out within the lifespan of the current generation..

You know that being homosexual doesn't stop your bits from functioning, right? Not being attracted to the opposite sex doesn't equal not being able to reproduce. There are plenty of gay people out there who have biological children.

Because they entered into relationships before coming out.

Or you know, they got someone/friend to be artificially inseminated...

Incidentally, who cares?

disclaimer..before the "out of context police" start jumping in..I'm not comparing "the homosexual" (that's for you dogma ) to pedophiles and violent drug addicts. I'm simply making an analogy for the purposes of showing that people do discriminate, and sometimes that's a good thing.

We aren't talking about discrimination in the broadest sense, such as liking corn-on-the-cob but not hominy, and seems to be a bit of equivocation to try and make an end run around the topic.

 generalgrog wrote:


Would you allow a known unrepentent pedophile into your home? Would you allow a known violent drug addict into your home? If not...you have just discriminated.

You see..some discrimination is wise and healthy.

disclaimer..before the "out of context police" start jumping in..I'm not comparing "the homosexual" (that's for you dogma ) to pedophiles and violent drug addicts. I'm simply making an analogy for the purposes of showing that people do discriminate, and sometimes that's a good thing.

GG

Except that a pedophile or violent drug addict can be expected to actually pose a danger to the inhabitants of my home. A homosexual cannot.

GG, you are going to find yourself on the wrong side of history on this matter in this world and no special rewards for it in the next. Jesus doesn't care about who one loves, only that he does so.

cadbren wrote:
Are you saying that if you took a group of male and female homosexuals that they would form male-female relationships if left in an isolated environment?

No, we're saying that in that (completely unrealistic) situation they would have heterosexual sex to produce babies. This would probably happen entirely outside of the sex they're having for love or for fun, and those babies would probably be adopted and raised by homosexual couples.

Wouldn't that fall into the territory of saying that homosexuals choose to be like that rather than being genetic?

No, it's saying that if you put people in a sufficiently desperate situation they will act against their normal desires. Having completely unsatisfying (and probably disgusting) sex because you need to produce children does not mean that your actual desires are a choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:
Because they entered into relationships before coming out.

Coming out and being gay are two very different things. As a general rule the people in those relationships didn't have happy heterosexual sex and marriage and then suddenly decide one day that they don't like their spouse anymore, they had unsatisfying relationships where they didn't realize what was wrong yet because of social pressure to get married and have kids. And, in the case of the typical closeted conservative, they remain in those relationships (and even have more kids) while having anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms because of that social pressure.

 Peregrine wrote:

. And, in the case of the typical closeted conservative, they remain in those relationships (and even have more kids) while having anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms because of that social pressure.

That sounds safe and low risk.

Look up the Tearoom study. It is pretty famous about anonomous homosexual sex in a bathroom. One things interesting is the guys who did it where ordinary, hetero, christian men. they where not even gay in some cases, just having gay sex

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Look up the Tearoom study. It is pretty famous about anonomous homosexual sex in a bathroom. One things interesting is the guys who did it where ordinary, hetero, christian men. they where not even gay in some cases, just having gay sex

If you are willingly seeking out and having gay sex, I would think you are gay or bi sexual no matter what some study says. The alleged background proffessed may be straight, but it sounds like the guys or gals just aren't out of the closet yet.

Yes, It did also say, if i remember correctly, that many people do have Bi-tendencies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is the wiki article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tearoom_Trade
Here is one from the university of Missurois
http://web.missouri.edu/~bondesonw/Laud.html

cadbren wrote:
Because they entered into relationships before coming out.

And? They were still gay before they came out.

Are you saying that if you took a group of male and female homosexuals that they would form male-female relationships if left in an isolated environment?

I'm saying that if they were concerned about survival of their species, they might have male-female sex in order to reproduce.

Neither sexual attraction nor a bonded relationaship is a requirement of the reproductive process. The former is just something that is supposed to make the process easier and more pleasant, and the latter is completely cultural.

Wouldn't that fall into the territory of saying that homosexuals choose to be like that rather than being genetic?

No, it falls into the category of 'you don't necessarily have to be attracted to someone to make a baby with them...'

 Peregrine wrote:
And, in the case of the typical closeted conservative, they remain in those relationships (and even have more kids) while having anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms because of that social pressure.

Similar things happen with democrats/liberals as well, Peregrine. Why fixate on conservatives?

Or is it only permissible to gloat about ones homosexual indiscretions if they are part of a political party you don't endorse?

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And, in the case of the typical closeted conservative, they remain in those relationships (and even have more kids) while having anonymous gay sex in public bathrooms because of that social pressure.

Similar things happen with democrats/liberals as well, Peregrine. Why fixate on conservatives?

Or is it only permissible to gloat about ones homosexual indiscretions if they are part of a political party you don't endorse?

It's probably because those same conservatives are usually in the public eye talking about homosexuality "being wrong" or any number of hypocritical statements.

Don't you know there are no closeted liberals because they're a more enlighten being that doesn't believe in all that religious hokum?