Printable View
The world is full of shit, and shit people. They'll do bad things to you at some point regardless of colour, creed, sexual orientation, whatever. The reason I'm saying this is because the following post is piqueing my curiosity far more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by draco
How excellent is that?!
"Holy shit, fourteen hours of labour..."
"Honey, we need to talk."
"What is it?"
"I'M GHEI, KTHNXBAI."
Actually, even though Draco didn't word it in the best way possible, it happens. I've known a lot of people with a gay or lesbian parent... only having discovered this later on in live, of course. I think it's a good thing in some cases, albeit, at first a little embarrassing for the person who's wife or husband is gay. The reason I'm bringing this up is for the next paragraph.
Although I think the most disturbing story I ever heard was of a couple who were VERY Christian, not just Christian, but suffocatingly conversion types. The husband decided he was a bisexual trangender. What was even more disturbing was that despite the wife not being attracted to women, she agreed to stay with her husband.
Now if that whole story ain't irony, I don't know what is.
For the record, I'm not a homophobe and I don't discourage homosexuals at all. There's just some stories that are pretty out-there and pretty "woah."
I think Palazzo holds a point, too, though. I bet they were doing a lot more than just kissing. Surely this shit doesn't get fuelled by just a supposed peck on the lips.
hey everyone theres no such thing as a lesbian only women who haven't met Chuck Norris no i'm just joking i don't think i'ts fair that they got kicked out.
Alright, since my computer decided to shut off on me shortly before posting a rather long response a few days ago, I'll make this much shorter and only touch on a few points.
First: It's fairly obvious that what these two people did was more than "just a quick peck".
Second: There is NOTHING to say that two straight people doing the same thing wouldn't have been asked to leave.
-- Let's break here. Because of these two first points, we can easily deduce that this had nothing to do with them being lesbians and everything to do with two people doing something indecent. --
Third: Not everybody who doesn't openly promote homosexuality (or open displays of such) is a "homophobe", and neither is everybody who realizes other reasons for negative repercussions of actions taken by homosexuals.
Fourth: In America, private businesses can make their own rules.
Fifth: Private business do NOT need to post every rule before they expect the rules to be followed. This is why we don't see "no masturbation" signs everywhere, or "no loud, continuous yelling", or even "no smoking" signs on every flat surface. This is also why we don't need to sign written declarations every time we enter a restaraurant stating that we have read and understand the rules. They can keep the "rule book" in the back somewhere, as long as they have documented what clearly is and isn't against the rules, as to leave little room for personal interpretation of employees. There aren't "no women members" signs everywhere at the Masters in Augusta, and there aren't "no inappropriate displays of affection" signs everywhere in Safeco Park. We don't need constant reminders of common sense to be expected to follow rules.
Sixth: Just because heterosexuals may or may not have gotten away with doing things wrong in the past does not mean that it wasn't wrong, or that everybody will always get away with it. OJ Simpson got away with murder -- literally -- but you don't see anybody defending other murderers with, "Well OJ got away with it!"
Seventh: T.G. Oscar, I didn't compare masturbation or rape to the situation at hand, I said they were both wrong, and neither affect those not involved. That's not an excuse to ignore them. Next time, either read over things a few times to get a better understanding before posting a reply, or don't intentionally manipulate opposing arguments. Boy.
Eighth: Again. What they did was not indecent because they were lesbians. What they did was indecent because what they did was indecent. Their sexual orientation had absolutely nothing to do with it.
So I ask again, because I have, as of yet, gotten no answer. The only time the question has been addressed is to avoid it. If a heterosexual couple had been kissing, making out, and/or groping in the stands at a baseball game and were asked to leave because of it, how many of you would bitch about it?
And here's the answer that no-one gave. :DQuote:
So I ask again, because I have, as of yet, gotten no answer. The only time the question has been addressed is to avoid it. If a heterosexual couple had been kissing, making out, and/or groping in the stands at a baseball game and were asked to leave because of it, how many of you would bitch about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sas
Seriously, if you haven't seen straight couples full going for it at sports games, you haven't been to many good sports games. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by MEEEE
And I do believe I'm right you know. There are a lot of preconceived ideas of right and wrong people hold. There's a ton of reasons. They may have been raised with those views and values without questioning them, they could be a homophobe...
Comparing homosexuality to murder? Because they're heaps alike in their negative effects, right? *nudges* *wink wink*Quote:
Sixth: Just because heterosexuals may or may not have gotten away with doing things wrong in the past does not mean that it wasn't wrong, or that everybody will always get away with it. OJ Simpson got away with murder -- literally -- but you don't see anybody defending other murderers with, "Well OJ got away with it!"
Don't get me started on the few communities who seem to act like they think like that. Look at those guys with the white pointy hoods and the burning crosses. They love being discriminatory I hear, and don't even always realise they're doing it.
And what are the issues involved with homosexuality? As far as I've seen anything brought up is more than easily dismissed. I'd say those who are against it with no reasons are more than likely homophobes. Even if they can't admit it.Quote:
Third: Not everybody who doesn't openly promote homosexuality (or open displays of such) is a "homophobe", and neither is everybody who realizes other reasons for negative repercussions of actions taken by homosexuals.
As for saying the kiss wasn't a peck, read V-Translanka's first post. I think you'll be somewhat unpleasantly surprised.
And there's nothing to say they would have been asked to leave. And chances are there were straight couples doing more than cheek pecking. You've been to games, right?Quote:
Second: There is NOTHING to say that two straight people doing the same thing wouldn't have been asked to leave.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to step outside of the box here for a minute because I think I'm seeing some of you take this way out of context.
That's the exact answer Sasquatch was suspecting. Of course, almost no one would have complained if there had been a heterosexual couple kissing, but that's not the point he's making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
Yet just because someone doesn't share the politically correct or "sympathetic" views for homosexuality, that instantly makes them a homophobe? There is a clear difference between someone who dislikes homosexuality and someone who fears it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
I didn't see that comparison. It looked like he was pointing out that people use the excuse, "Well, so and so did it/got away with it, so why shouldn't I?", and that what heterosexuals have done hasn't been completely wrong here. This is relevant to what the two women were doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
Yes, those with no reason to dislike homosexuality are homophobic, but that involves fear. If one does not fear homosexuality, yet does not agree with it, makes their stance less bias. It's just ridiculous that some people scream homophobe at some people just because they are against it, similar to a group of anti-religious atheist calling someone who doesn't believe what is "logical" an instant "creationist."Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
I looked over it and he did not say whether or not it was a peck. His exact words were "gently kissing" and from that point of view, I can easily presume it wasn't just a mere peck. I honestly don't think people would immediately get upset over a girl giving a peck to another girl, like a daughter pecking her mother on the cheek or the lips when greeting one another or leaving. No, it appeared to me that they were kissing more than just a peck and other people, whether they were "redneck, flag waving, conservatives" complaining, found it inappropriate. There is nothing wrong with being disturbed by such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
This is sort of avoiding his point, my friend. Whether or not it was a homosexual OR hetereosexual couple doing this, if they were asked to leave then it was the owner's right to ask them. Honestly, I can imagine the people who complained had children with them and as most parents have a certain mindset, it's understandable they'd want these two ladies to leave. People are there to watch a baseball game, not watch two people going at it. It's similar to hearing retarded teenagers talking and yelling during a movie and ruining the overall experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
Now, as for myself I think it's hard to tell what exactly happened because FF Freak gave such a vague description of what happened. Either way, if there were two people "gently kissing" or making out in front of me while I'm at a game, I would like them to knock it off when trying to concentrate on what's happening on the field. Even if it is a "common thing" at games, that doesn't make it right, which was the exact point Sasquatch made earlier explaining that it doesn't make it right because it's a "common occurrence."
The only problem here is how controversial it is to talk about. One side goes against it and they're branded homophobic. Another side defends it and they always seem to overreact to anyone that doesn't share their own views and vice versa. It's like environmentalist bitching about ONE animal within a rain forest that is scheduled to be cut down, forgetting the fact that the animal is being transported to a safe location.
Have a nice day.
Oh well, looks like I'm forced to play my hand early. I was guilty of trying to gain a response... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicious
Maybe so, but it's more than valid. Why should double standards exist, even if they're merely imposed ones? Especially over something so minor.Quote:
That's the exact answer Sasquatch was suspecting. Of course, almost no one would have complained if there had been a heterosexual couple kissing, but that's not the point he's making.
Just as there is a difference between someone who dislikes spiders and someone who fears them. Either way they dislike them and tend to treat them disdainfully in some way. I refer to this kind of phobia as I would a substance that is hydrophobic as opposed to hydrophilic. If something is hydrophilic, it's cool with the water and wants to hang with it. if it's hydrophobic it wants to bugger off away from water. A homophobe to me is just someone who seems to hold an unreasonable desire to avoid the 'homosexual' subject in some way.Quote:
Yet just because someone doesn't share the politically correct or "sympathetic" views for homosexuality, that instantly makes them a homophobe? There is a clear difference between someone who dislikes homosexuality and someone who fears it.
The comparison is there. Seriously. :DQuote:
I didn't see that comparison. It looked like he was pointing out that people use the excuse, "Well, so and so did it/got away with it, so why shouldn't I?", and that what heterosexuals have done hasn't been completely wrong here. This is relevant to what the two women were doing.
Sassy mentioned that if something was wrong with murder someone might argue that if someone else did it it was ok. What's wrong with homosexuality? Even if you do consider homosexuality wrong, how could you see it as being as wrong as something like murder?
And how often do you see your second example happen?Quote:
Yes, those with no reason to dislike homosexuality are homophobic, but that involves fear. If one does not fear homosexuality, yet does not agree with it, makes their stance less bias. It's just ridiculous that some people scream homophobe at some people just because they are against it, similar to a group of anti-religious atheist calling someone who doesn't believe what is "logical" an instant "creationist."
As I mentioned before, I have my own views on what makes a homophobe. If a person is uncomfortable about someone than it's a bit of fear they're showing. It's mental discomfort. You don't have to be at the stage of 'ARRRRGGHHHH HIDE IN THE CLOSET THE GAYS ARE HERE' to be considered fearful of them.
No, the exact words were:Quote:
I looked over it and he did not say whether or not it was a peck. His exact words were "gently kissing" and from that point of view, I can easily presume it wasn't just a mere peck. I honestly don't think people would immediately get upset over a girl giving a peck to another girl, like a daughter pecking her mother on the cheek or the lips when greeting one another or leaving. No, it appeared to me that they were kissing more than just a peck and other people, whether they were "redneck, flag waving, conservatives" complaining, found it inappropriate. There is nothing wrong with being disturbed by such a thing.
He was who I mentioned, and he seems to have know more about the incident then the original article. I admit to trying to bait people people with a latter part of my post, (peck on cheek), BUT it was mainly so I could say something along these lines. So what if it were a peck on the lips? That's barely contact as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by V_Translanka
This is where our views could possibly be irreconcilable. If you're fixated on the lawful aspects, then I'll be honest and say that I focus more on what I see as being fair. I would agree with what you said wholeheartedly, only there were no reports of straight people ever getting kicked out, and as the numbers of straight people to gay people in most places seems to be a good deal number more straight people than gay people I can riskily assume that there was some discrimination involved. That, regardless of legality is a form of discrimination.Quote:
This is sort of avoiding his point, my friend. Whether or not it was a homosexual OR heterosexual couple doing this, if they were asked to leave then it was the owner's right to ask them. Honestly, I can imagine the people who complained had children with them and as most parents have a certain mindset, it's understandable they'd want these two ladies to leave. People are there to watch a baseball game, not watch two people going at it. It's similar to hearing retarded teenagers talking and yelling during a movie and ruining the overall experience.
And then we saw V_Translanka's posts on what he noticed about the events. While his side of the story could also be biased, it does hold more information and talks about the media playing with the details. And it doesn't take a genius to see that happen a lot of the time, especially when it can mean more publicity.Quote:
Now, as for myself I think it's hard to tell what exactly happened because FF Freak gave such a vague description of what happened. Either way, if there were two people "gently kissing" or making out in front of me while I'm at a game, I would like them to knock it off when trying to concentrate on what's happening on the field. Even if it is a "common thing" at games, that doesn't make it right, which was the exact point Sasquatch made earlier explaining that it doesn't make it right because it's a "common occurrence."
Well, the biggest flaw I see there is this. To keep things slightly metaphorical, where is that homosexual going to be transported? She has no habitat, and why shouldn't she share it with the other animals? I haven't openly called anyone homophobic, despite making an allusion or two to it, but quite frankly, I see it like this. If one person is against someone and has no really solid reasons for it, how can they be fully comfortable around it? There's a fear, it's just not as obvious as some would make it seem at times. And I notice some people do have an easy time fooling themselves...Quote:
The only problem here is how controversial it is to talk about. One side goes against it and they're branded homophobic. Another side defends it and they always seem to overreact to anyone that doesn't share their own views and vice versa. It's like environmentalist bitching about ONE animal within a rain forest that is scheduled to be cut down, forgetting the fact that the animal is being transported to a safe location.
You too Vicious. It's been fun. :DQuote:
Have a nice day.
There's a difference between a response and an answer. Your response avoided the question entirely. The question was whether or not a heterosexual couple being kicked out for inappropriate behavior would have raised as much attention as a homosexual couple being kicked out for inappropriate behavior. That question has still not been answered. At least not directly, anyway -- we all know the real answer, I'm just the only one who isn't afraid to say it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
OR, they could just not want to see people making out and groping in front of their children.Quote:
And I do believe I'm right you know. There are a lot of preconceived ideas of right and wrong people hold. There's a ton of reasons. They may have been raised with those views and values without questioning them, they could be a homophobe...
Yes, I'm comparing homosexuality to murder. Just like I compared homosexuality to rape. [/sarcasm]Quote:
Comparing homosexuality to murder? Because they're heaps alike in their negative effects, right? *nudges* *wink wink*
My point, if you haven't seen it yet, is that "they get away with it, so I should too" is not a valid excuse.Just a guess, but I'm pretty sure they realize they're doing it. They think they're right for doing it, but I doubt they just don't know.Quote:
Look at those guys with the white pointy hoods and the burning crosses. They love being discriminatory I hear, and don't even always realise they're doing it.
I don't know. Since you brought up "issues involved with homosexuality", why don't you tell me?Quote:
And what are the issues involved with homosexuality?
I personally have a problem with any group who feels the need to get half-naked and parade up and down public highways, displaying gratuity and sexuality. If there were "straight pride" parades that included the same things, I wouldn't like those either. Though, of course, I realize that the people that participate in or support these events are not representative of the whole.Quote:
As far as I've seen anything brought up is more than easily dismissed. I'd say those who are against it with no reasons are more than likely homophobes. Even if they can't admit it.
If you're saying that the kiss was a peck, read one of the many articles and news releases concerning the event. Unless V-Translanka somehow has more information on the event than all of the press releases, you'll be unpleasantly surprised.Quote:
As for saying the kiss wasn't a peck, read V-Translanka's first post. I think you'll be somewhat unpleasantly surprised.
Why do you suspect that double-standards exist without evidence of such, other than anecdotal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
Do you not realize that there's a happy medium? People may not be homophobic or homophillic? I'm not afraid of rain, but I don't want to live in a submarine, either. I wouldn't assault somebody for their sexuality, but I wouldn't walk in a "gay pride" parade, either. Just because somebody doesn't agree or embrace homosexuality doesn't make them a homophobe.Quote:
I refer to this kind of phobia as I would a substance that is hydrophobic as opposed to hydrophilic. If something is hydrophilic, it's cool with the water and wants to hang with it. if it's hydrophobic it wants to bugger off away from water. A homophobe to me is just someone who seems to hold an unreasonable desire to avoid the 'homosexual' subject in some way.
Honestly, is this subject THAT difficult to understand? It wasn't their homosexuality that was the issue, it was the fact that they were making out in the stands. THAT is what was wrong. Not who they were, but what they were doing. How may times do I have to point that out? They were asked to leave for doing something inappropriate.Quote:
Sassy mentioned that if something was wrong with murder someone might argue that if someone else did it it was ok. What's wrong with homosexuality? Even if you do consider homosexuality wrong, how could you see it as being as wrong as something like murder?
Quite often, I've seen, somebody who sees flaws in Evolutionism is automatically labeled as a Bible-thumping Creationist. Kind of like how somebody who doesn't embrace homosexuality it automatically labeled as a gay-bashing homophobe.Quote:
And how often do you see your second example happen?
So it's the homophobes that are in the closet? That's different.Quote:
You don't have to be at the stage of 'ARRRRGGHHHH HIDE IN THE CLOSET THE GAYS ARE HERE' to be considered fearful of them.
Sorry. Had to.More than the original post, sure. But if you don't have much information on the subject, it just might be a good idea to do a little research.Quote:
He was who I mentioned, and he seems to have know more about the incident then the original article.
If you had done this, you would have found out things like this: The usher saw them kissing and told them that they should stop. When one of the girls told the usher that they wouldn't stop, then the usher told them that they should leave. Depending on what news report you read -- if you research the subject -- you might find that the girls cussed at the usher and refused to change their behavior, which included "making out" and "groping". You might even find that the Code of Conduct specifically mentions that public displays of affection are "not appropriate in a public, family setting," and that the Code of Conduct is announced before each game.Have you looked for reports of straight people getting kicked out? Would they document most reports of people getting kicked out if it was more of a low-profile situation? Or are you just crying "discrimination" because it's easier to assume than it is to research?Quote:
I would agree with what you said wholeheartedly, only there were no reports of straight people ever getting kicked out ...
San Francisco. Where else?Quote:
Well, the biggest flaw I see there is this. To keep things slightly metaphorical, where is that homosexual going to be transported?
How many "solid reasons" do you have to have for being against people making out and groping in a family setting?Quote:
If one person is against someone and has no really solid reasons for it, how can they be fully comfortable around it?
I'll say again. Two people were doing something inappropriate and were asked to stop, then were asked to leave when they refused to stop. They weren't approached because of who they were, but because of what they were doing.
Were the two lesbians fat?
This makes a huge impact on my decision of whether or not they were rightfully removed from the Baseball Arena.
One of them was a contestant on "A Shot At Love 2 with Tila Tequila". So probably attractive, but dumber'n a box of rocks.
Ahaha... I read "dumber'n a box of cocks" for a second there. I don't know, maybe my subconscious is trying to tell me something again.
I've been holding off on this issue... mostly because I avoid this issue anyway. It sucks that they got kicked out, but... it's going to be okay. I've seen heterosexual people asked to go elsewhere because they were behaving inappropriately (whatever that means for a specific establishment), and it's accepted. In fact, many times people respond with thoughts like, "Oh thank god, they were being so gross." But now, the ushers were interrupting a beautiful thing that the girls had every right to do. I wasn't there; I don't know what really happened. I don't know if they really were "groping," or if it's been played up to justify it if it was discrimination. But I do have to wonder if people are just looking to stir up some discrimination drama.
And hey, I'm all about gay rights and gay equality (meaning we all ignore homosexuals as much as we ignore heterosexuals and we can just leave each other alone :P). If you want me to list my "I know gay people" cred, I can, but I don't think that will be necessary.
In my ideal world, people could express themselves in a romantic way and it wouldn't be weird or a cause for disdain. It would be beautiful and admired, and the participants wouldn't be doing it to show off or defy the norm; they would be expressing themselves out of love, or at least affection.
But, you know... ha ha ha
STRONG BAD!!!!!
What's the answer you're looking for? That anyone sent out for making out would be upset? If that's it then fair enough. But my argument was, how often do we see straight couples who were making out kicked out of sporting events? I think we all know the real answer there. (Unless we're not the type who go out to sport games and the like once in a while...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Then why have I rarely ever seen straight couples get kicked out? And believe me, I've seen a lot more than even the most unwholesome of kisses at several games (granted most of it was in the toilets, but a lot was right where the seating was too), and I'm yet to see a couple kicked out even with the rules in place.Quote:
OR, they could just not want to see people making out and groping in front of their children.
So a sarcasm tag will make everything ok? [/random rhetorical tag]Quote:
Yes, I'm comparing homosexuality to murder. Just like I compared homosexuality to rape. [/sarcasm]
But yeah, you didn't exactly defend anything there. You just tried to dismiss it is all. ;)
What I'm saying is what are they getting away with? I thought that was obvious, but I'll explain it a little further. Murder is killing someone, essentially depriving them of their life, not something that can be taken lightly. A kiss at a game is a show of affection, it cannot really be compared to murder, especially as no-one is getting hurt.Quote:
My point, if you haven't seen it yet, is that "they get away with it, so I should too" is not a valid excuse.
I dunno, some of them seem fairly...Quote:
Just a guess, but I'm pretty sure they realize they're doing it. They think they're right for doing it, but I doubt they just don't know.
Close as far as genetics go. And if they know they're being discriminatory and still doing what they're doing, that doesn't make it any more right neither, does it? I would argue it's even worse then, but that's just me.
What I meant was, even in other ID threads you haven't really been seen to show any real fondness of homosexual people which indicates to me a negative bias towards them held by you. In the context I asked my little bit, I was merely wondering what issues you held with them? I personally believe that people should be treated equally with equal rights and opportunities regardless of race, sex, age or sexual preference. If I see people seeming to treat others differently due to something like sexual orientation I naturally feel the need to point out how stupid it is. Where do your beliefs lie?Quote:
I don't know. Since you brought up "issues involved with homosexuality", why don't you tell me?
Oh damn, you have something against Mardi Gras and the like? Just as Michelangelo's David is a great piece of art and culture, so too are such demonstrations. Just because some people cannot appreciate them, does not make them something evil or sinister. Ever been to one of those events? So long as you show no discrimination, they're quite fun.Quote:
I personally have a problem with any group who feels the need to get half-naked and parade up and down public highways, displaying gratuity and sexuality. If there were "straight pride" parades that included the same things, I wouldn't like those either. Though, of course, I realize that the people that participate in or support these events are not representative of the whole.
Every aspect is a representative of the whole. Just not always a truly accurate one.
Oh I have been reading. And I've found a few stories that fit with what he said as well as several that didn't. Here's one I found quite amusing:Quote:
If you're saying that the kiss was a peck, read one of the many articles and news releases concerning the event. Unless V-Translanka somehow has more information on the event than all of the press releases, you'll be unpleasantly surprised.
Quote:
"Kiss Cam" Almost Gets Lesbians Kicked Out of Mariners Game
by LastRow
We’ve all been to sporting events and venues who in the down time of the action decides to put their little cute "Kiss Cam" to work up on the JumboTron. They scan the crowd for couples who then smooch to the roar (or apathy) of the assembled masses. Because of that, I've always assumed that kissing was A-OK at America's ballyards. Actually one might say that the "kiss cam" is a staple of going to an sporting event. Now granted, we, (men) aren’t really all down with this "smoochers delight"…As we came to watch the game, not take part in some kissing contest. Nevertheless we oblige willingly to lay one on the old battle ax, for two reasons. One, we don’t look like a punk…And two, we don’t have to listen to the ball-n-chain during the rest of the game sitting there and pestering our ass about why we didn’t play tonsil hockey. Yes sir, staples at American sporting events are hot dogs, popcorn, and the "kiss cam".
Well apparently I’m not up on my geography…Because, well either Seattle isn't in America or they've got a real problem with homosexuality. I’m going to have to say Seattle isn’t down with homos especially at Mariners games! Recently at a game a lesbian couple enjoyed a brief peck on the lips while they appeared on the kiss cam…And they were subsequently met with a swift and angry reaction from stadium security. In addition to the security dude who got his undies in a bunch, at least one mom at Safeco field is not a fan. My guess she wasn’t alone, she just said something:
"And he (the security guard) goes 'there's a lady whose son says he saw you guys making out, and I did, too. And you have to stop.' And I said 'well, we weren't making out, but we were kissing and I'm not going to stop,'" said [Sirbina] Guerrero (the offender).
Guerrero says the only reason she was called out was because of her sexual orientation...
"(The security guard said) the mom doesn't want to explain to the kids why two girls are kissing. So I said 'well, I'm not going to stop, so you'll have to kick me out. So he said 'so I suggest you leave then,"' she said.
Tell you what Mr. Security dude and dear old mom…When sonny boy starts to get some hair on his eggs, he’s not going to be able to get enough of two girls kissing! Not only that, um guys, have you ever heard of this thing called the Internet…I’m guessing Little Jack knows his way around cyberspace! So I’m having a difficult time believing that Little Jack in the Box hasn’t seen females kiss before, (not that I’ve got first hand knowledge of this or anything like that…I’ve just heard things).
They didn't get kicked out, despite Safeco's code of conducts which note that "displays of affection are not appropriate in a public family setting." Although that’s not the point here…Point is every professional sports franchise in this country should know and fully understand the repercussions that go along with something like this. They know loose screws are going to go awol over this. So hey, here’s a quick fix…If this sort of activity that "displays of affection are not appropriate in a public family setting," um, why scan the crowd with "kiss cam" then…Hmmm? Yeah, that’s a nice "my dog ate my homework excuse", really, it is…And when pigs fly out of my ass I’ll believe it, but not until then! Seeing as since the couple took several pictures of heterosexual couples kissing to point out the double standard. Oh yeah, and lets not forget that’s the whole concept and notion behind the kissing cam in the first place…To lay one on hun-hun whenever you’re on the freaking "kiss cam"!
They didn't get kicked out, despite "Safeco's code of conducts". I could see a judge actually finding humor in laughing at in court as this couple sues Safeco & the Mariners. Although clearly this is just another example of standards not being the same for all of society. Hell, if there’s double standards in sporting events…Where the fukc is society heading? Only in America I guess…Where else? Everywhere the issue regarding sex and all that it encompasses is really no big deal. For some reason it’s only here in America where two lesbians attend a baseball game for the day…Appear on the "kiss cam" and makes headlines for all the wrong reasons!
Here’s a thought, everybody attending the game had to buy a ticket, right ? So shouldn’t the same standards apply to everyone in attendance, regardless of sexual orientation? Hmmm…
I found that to be the most entertaining and also a good look at someone else's thoughts behind it. :D
But yeah, failure to do research isn't one of my failings. Failing to provide it half the time is. But who else hasn't shown some research, hmmm?
Because 'anecdotal' in this kind of case is often the best form of evidence. Well not exactly I guess. Anecdotal would mean something like information based on casual observations or indications, whereas if I use my own views, I make sure I've seen it enough times. I'm a very observant person most of the time...Quote:
Why do you suspect that double-standards exist without evidence of such, other than anecdotal?
As far as I see it you either embrace something, or it repels you. Or are you some kind of a magical absolute neutral? And just because you wouldn't want to live in a submarine may not have anything to do with the water. It might be seclusion away from other people, it might be a fear of something happening deep underwater, it might be that you're less comfortable underwater than on land...Quote:
Do you not realize that there's a happy medium? People may not be homophobic or homophillic? I'm not afraid of rain, but I don't want to live in a submarine, either. I wouldn't assault somebody for their sexuality, but I wouldn't walk in a "gay pride" parade, either. Just because somebody doesn't agree or embrace homosexuality doesn't make them a homophobe.
I don't know if assault is the right word, but you have seemed to be against it to some extent. If you weren't feeling negatively towards homosexuality then why would you bring up some of the points you've brought up in a couple of threads? I do recall a certain gay marriage thread...
You have seemed to be more or less impartial to some extent in this thread, but I also notice an avoidance of such things I have brought up such as the differences between how a lesbian couple may be treated differently to a straight couple. Even if the law doesn't condone them both, why don't many straight couples who were making out get kicked out of a game. Look at the proportion of straight couples to gay couples...
And look at the 'wrong' that was committed. A simple kiss. The article I quoted along with V_Translanka's post makes it seem very much that all that was happening was a little kiss. We've seen no evidence in the thread to really say otherwise neither. They weren't playing with a double ended dildo or anything. No, it was just a kiss. Like the kind you see a ton of times at games...
No, your concept is EASY to understand. They were asked to leave after appearing on a kiss cam. And what's a kiss cam's purpose?Quote:
Honestly, is this subject THAT difficult to understand? It wasn't their homosexuality that was the issue, it was the fact that they were making out in the stands. THAT is what was wrong. Not who they were, but what they were doing. How may times do I have to point that out? They were asked to leave for doing something inappropriate.
But yeah, two women kissing is much worse than a guy and a girl [end sarcasm tag theft]
And so you're right? No-one has a flawless theory on creation and evolution. But these are very different cases. True, some may be impartial to homosexual people. BUT that would mean they wouldn't see a homosexual in a different light to a straight person. Which to me should mean they wouldn't post in an anti-homosexual way ever. Even allusions towards treating homosexual people differently are discrimination. I have a point, right?Quote:
Quite often, I've seen, somebody who sees flaws in Evolutionism is automatically labeled as a Bible-thumping Creationist. Kind of like how somebody who doesn't embrace homosexuality it automatically labelled as a gay-bashing homophobe.
Wouldn't surprise me if a ton were in the closet and just afraid to come out. But there is good reason to be fearful, what with all the prejudice going around in most parts of society. Sad that...Quote:
So it's the homophobes that are in the closet? That's different.
Sorry. Had to.
So why have a kiss cam then? And why allow straight people to kiss without asking them to stop and leave? My only evidence is actually going to sports games and concerts and NEVER seeing a straight couple asked to leave regardless of such rules and codes of conduct. And that was the double standards I was mentioning. It's cool for straight people, but why do homosexuals have to put up with shit straight people don't have to?Quote:
More than the original post, sure. But if you don't have much information on the subject, it just might be a good idea to do a little research.
If you had done this, you would have found out things like this: The usher saw them kissing and told them that they should stop. When one of the girls told the usher that they wouldn't stop, then the usher told them that they should leave. Depending on what news report you read -- if you research the subject -- you might find that the girls cussed at the usher and refused to change their behavior, which included "making out" and "groping". You might even find that the Code of Conduct specifically mentions that public displays of affection are "not appropriate in a public, family setting," and that the Code of Conduct is announced before each game.
I have looked for such reports. And the ones that did exist seemed to focus more on straight males beating each other's brains out. A few conservative areas had a few, but they were mostly straight adults at smaller, more localised events. Yeah...Quote:
Have you looked for reports of straight people getting kicked out? Would they document most reports of people getting kicked out if it was more of a low-profile situation? Or are you just crying "discrimination" because it's easier to assume than it is to research?
Just looking through some of the laws, I'm noticing even there things aren't quite equal. Despite a large percentage of homosexual people compared to other locations I've looked at recently...Quote:
San Francisco. Where else?
For a plain old kiss? I'd need one pretty damned good reason. Like one of the people having some kind of necrotic infectious facial disease or something and being ordered to not kiss someone. But yeah, the one reason given that the establishment had a rule against displays of affection to me is voided by the kiss cam and no reports of any straight people being kicked out of that same venue. Hell, watching that video at the bottom of the article I quoted I noticed some straight people playing some hardcore tonsil hockey. I also noticed clicking the link that the video has now been made unavailable... :lol:Quote:
How many "solid reasons" do you have to have for being against people making out and groping in a family setting?
Kissing? Like several straight couples that weren't approached? Hmm...Quote:
I'll say again. Two people were doing something inappropriate and were asked to stop, then were asked to leave when they refused to stop. They weren't approached because of who they were, but because of what they were doing.
See the issue?
Oi, I know when a really spiced post goes the way of the drain, Sass. That's why you first write it in a word processor, so that it gets saved, then you go and copy-pasta it.
That's told by someone who also does long posts and sometimes suffers from losing all that surge of inspiration.
But let's get at the task at hand, shall we?
First and foremost...
To be a bit more precise, you gave an example from another thread and found it good to place it here, to state your point, without at least pointing where it originally was posted. Perhaps not me, nor some of us, but try someone who's just came and read it from the very beginning. That's enough for a double take.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I ignored them because they were inappropriate analogies. Inappropriate, in the sense that the point of bringing the examples was "all these things are wrong, but do not affect those uninvolved" (if you feel offended, then you are getting affected by the event, don't you think?), at least as you want to present it. The problem lies in that, while we do can agree that public self-pleasing and/or violation are not only properly indecent for the bulk of society as a whole, but also punishable by law, the act of "pecking each other's lips" is not. I mean, kissing just for a fraction of a second to share each other's love is as equally "indecent" as the aforementioned examples you gave (and that perhaps people will not perhaps follow in their discussion here, or even place some interest, except for you and I and those who did posted around the general moment it was mentioned)? The only moment it may be considered "indecent" was if the bulk of the present society condoned the act, and it apparently did (or at least to a small percentage of the society present there). But, it was because it was between two women. Perhaps within a man and a woman, the situation would be different: the bulk of society would not consider it indecent, and would properly ignore it.
Also, apparently the game was either boring, or that lady apparently cared little for the game. If people were interested in the game, the situation would perhaps had been lesser. So far, only that mother was mentioned as the offended side, while the rest of the people seemed not to care.
So, I ignored it because the two examples were not properly relevant to the situation at hand. If the idea was to present the idea of "it does not affect anyone, but it's still wrong and it must be punishable", then the examples did not conveyed the meaning. Hence, being ignored. Finally, if that woman was offended, it affected her, hence the whole point of bringing the examples seems to be flawed.
Which is why I said "careful with the analogies". If you bring an example, it must make some sense. Or at least allow the person to make a sense of it, even though it may not be what you actually sought to mean.
Which leads me to another point...
There's a reason I bolded the word indecent. Apparently, here's what the CoC states...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sass
Now, does "appropriate" and "decent" are always synonymous? Not always.Quote:
Originally Posted by the resource provided by Nate
Dictionary entries state that appropriate means that it's suitable or correct for the particular place or person or condition. Decent, on the other hand (to aid a bit: these entries are pertinent to the question at hand. If you wish to place other entries, be my guest), means what's socially or conventionally correct. Both imply a meaning of correctness, so to speak: one is the general convention, another is the particular. While something can be both appropriate and decent at occasions, it is not always that way. Something may be appropriate, but not necessarily decent, or at least according to the standards of the particular society at hand.
I mention this because it seems that you sought to use indecency as a synonym for inappropriateness. Or, at least I perceive it to be that way. Only after the CoC wording was placed did you changed your use of words.
Here's another reason I point this out: for a moment, disregard the CoC, as I'll apply this to a more general aspect. Does a public display of love, such as a kiss (and apparently nothing more) is considered indecent by society? When both are in love with each other, it does not: I mean, if that were so, the Guinness records attempts at kissing would be a massive demonstration of indecency, guided by those standards. Now, going at the specific point of shows of affection at public or private places, is it indecent to publicly demonstrate affection? Only if that particular bulk of the society deems it indecent. Which it seems to be the case...
...or not. So far, from what it is seen, the only offended member of society was that mother that got offended so much. As of now, how about the rest? Perhaps a few people may have gotten offended, but the rest? The bulk, not the specific individuals that got offended but the majority of them all?
Perhaps they were interested in the game, saw that, and paid little attention. Or perhaps they were so righteously indignate, the entire game was paralyzed only to ask the two ladies to stop.
Since it cannot be determined exactly whether the bulk of the society considered the act indecent, the only point to consider was that they violated the Code of Conduct.
Which leads to the other point: Kiss-Cams and inappropriate behavior.
If a public display of affection (to where a single kiss in the mouth belongs, unless stated otherwise) is inappropriate, why would a Kiss-Cam be placed in that place? As far as I see it, a Kiss-Cam serves only to show people kissing each other. To the entire public. Which hadn't yet (as far as I know) reclaimed to the owners to eliminate. If it is inappropriate, then it should not be allowed: the idea of showing that in public defies any sense, to show two loving people kissing each other. It would be different if they were doing something a bit farther away (say, touching with lustful desire, which goes beyond the act of kissing and may be considered by a larger bulk of the society indecent, and as well going beyond the purpose of the Kiss-Cam), but what points out was that they only did a kiss, and didn't went beyond that (and telling the guard to shove it off, perhaps, but that's AFTER the mother got righteously indignated) If they were following the purpose of having a Kiss-Cam (getting caught kissing, which apparently means any other people kissing, whether gay or straight, would be violating the Code of Conduct, and would be publicly shamed by being shown, and which perhaps means that the owners have a morbid sense of humor), then they did nothing wrong, unless the CoC is enforced. Having a Kiss-Cam in the area could serve to encourage people kissing out (or, maybe it exists to shy them away, which would mean that the purpose of it failed), which goes directly against the CoC.
Shortly, either the CoC does not consider a kiss a "public display of affection", and proudly displays people kissing for it, or the CoC actually condones that act and they use it so that people get punished by it, or the owners are a bunch of hypocrites. One of the three.
Also, a) if they need to mention the contents of the area's Code of Conduct, then it isn't necessarily common sense; and b) do not assume that everyone knows that kissing in a private area regulated by a corporation where the general public is allowed to enter as long as they pay their money automatically knows they cannot do that. Or that such a thing is common sense (it is the rules of the area, which aren't necessarily equal in all places).
Here is another point: Is it a valid excuse to say "if A did it, why I cannot?", or "A did it, so can I"
Again, an inappropriate allegory was used. Because of the conditional statement. If OJ was found innocent for something the general populace knows (or rather believes) he did, then it is wrong. But because of the conditional statement: since his action was wrong (and it's wrong, killing someone, unless you live somewhere where it's legal), the fact that he was found innocent from the charges does not mean he did a right thing. Or that he did nothing at all. Perhaps, he got free because of a legal advantage. Or, perhaps the people there were convinced he did nothing of what he was accused. But, if there's enough proof that you did it, and you seek to excuse yourself with that flawed excuse, then you're wasting your time.
Here's a good reason why this does not apply to this case: the statements differ between themselves to a point. As stated previously, the CoC of Safeco Park does not promote the public displays of affection, but if there's a Kiss-Cam, it should be for something, right? If it serves to shy and/or detect kissing people, and potential Code abusers, then there's no actual case. They did something wrong, and they were scorned. And the excuse is not valid in any case. Yet, if the Kiss-Cam exists to show people who are kissing to the public in public displays of affection (which either means that they are hypocrites, or that a kiss isn't considered within the punishable conduct), then that means they were not doing anything wrong, and that the reason they were asked to leave was because someone else thought it was wrong to do so. Now, if the Kiss-Cam exists to close in on the as-of-typical-society's innocent public kisses between heterosexual couples, or between familiars (in the cheek, or in the head, which is a cute thing and something only an insane, dour and/or sick person would consider indecent *note that I referred to decency, not appropriateness*), then that act was punishable for the Code of Conduct, and the excuse takes another level: it is a case of discrimination. All of these points have been stated: you stated case 1, most of us stated case 3, and the point of having a Kiss-Cam drove to state case 2.
So yeah, it's not a truly valid excuse (or, to state, a logical excuse). But, it does mean that, in the case of case 3, it is a discriminatory point to be considered. The mother who got offended by the act perhaps did not wanted to tell her children whether that was right or wrong. It was a perfect moment, but she was lazy enough to do it. Perhaps she did it out of lazyness, perhaps she did it out of homophobia (since she does not want her children to be "contaminated" with the "perversions" of the two ladies). But, the way it has been pointed out (she was offended and made that rather indiscreet, to make the usher to ask the ladies to leave) leads to think the lady may be a homophobe. If she didn't wanted to have her children see that, and she were not a potential homophobe, then the usher would had not mentioned the mother at all). Granted, while that does not make her a homophobe, she gives the signs of an affirmative answer. Just like people may think you're an ass when in fact you may speak to people harshly, because you take things seriously or because that's the way you are (just to point an example, feel free to maim it as you want). The first impression it gave to all of us was that she was a homophobe.
Finally, there are some points to be considered. It may not be a 100% objective source, but V placed a very interesting thing upon consideration: the guys at Safeco made the things worse. Each statement made things worse, and perhaps because of a sense of indignation with the usher's treatment by the ladies (as it seems that the usher felt disrespected by the ladies' words). And, you cannot put that the event wasn't a discriminatory event. It may have, or it may have not, but the ladies thought of it that way, and our perception was that it was not something indecent, hence it was a discriminatory action from part of the Safeco guys. I also think it was something taken out of proportion. In multiple times. By multiple people.
Plus, it seems that in the end, they weren't kicked out, right? All of this fight for gay rights to kiss each other, and all they got was a dour reprimand? Sweet!
One that addresses the question instead of avoiding it. A simple "yes" or "no" would be the two acceptable answers for a yes-or-no question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
How often do straight couples do something indecent enough to warrant being told to stop, then become hostile and refuse to stop when somebody talks to them about it?Quote:
But my argument was, how often do we see straight couples who were making out kicked out of sporting events?
Your anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Whether or not you have seen something happen has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it happens.Quote:
Then why have I rarely ever seen straight couples get kicked out?
Saying that two things are wrong is not saying that they're on the same level.Quote:
But yeah, you didn't exactly defend anything there. You just tried to dismiss it is all. ;)
Both actions -- murder and groping in public -- are wrong. That's the only "comparison" that was made. But I thought that was obvious.Quote:
Murder is killing someone, essentially depriving them of their life, not something that can be taken lightly. A kiss at a game is a show of affection, it cannot really be compared to murder, especially as no-one is getting hurt.
Because that's the way we do things -- when we don't like what somebody believes, insult them.Quote:
I dunno, some of them seem fairly...
Close as far as genetics go.
Nobody's defending the KKK, you can let that subject go.Quote:
And if they know they're being discriminatory and still doing what they're doing, that doesn't make it any more right neither, does it? I would argue it's even worse then, but that's just me.
Oh hey, it looks like that really is the way we do things. First off, I'm impartial to homosexual people. Second -- and most importantly -- my personal views on homosexuality have absolutely nothing to do with this subject. Two people were doing something indecent and were told to stop. The action was what was indecent -- not the participants.Quote:
What I meant was, even in other ID threads you haven't really been seen to show any real fondness of homosexual people which indicates to me a negative bias towards them held by you.
I can easily understand that. The problem is whether or not the two people in this situation were treated differently because of their sexual orientation. As I've pointed out, whether or not these two people were homosexual has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were doing something indecent., and the action taken against them was warranted.Quote:
If I see people seeming to treat others differently due to something like sexual orientation I naturally feel the need to point out how stupid it is.
Last I checked, Mardi Gras isn't designed to be a huge display of sexuality. Sure, things may happen, but that's not the entire objective of the celebration. Not just that, but nobody calls you a homophobe if you don't like Mardi Gras.Quote:
Oh damn, you have something against Mardi Gras and the like?
Are you comparing Michelangelo's David to gay pride parades?Quote:
Just as Michelangelo's David is a great piece of art and culture, so too are such demonstrations.
"By LastRow"? What, did you find a blog entry? Let me help you out here.Quote:
Oh I have been reading. And I've found a few stories that fit with what he said as well as several that didn't. Here's one I found quite amusing: ...
The Associated Press: Lesbian kiss at Seattle ballpark stirs up gay-friendly town
There's the Associated Press report of it. The Fox News, CNN, CBS, and Seattle Times all report the same thing -- I can get the links for you if you need them. And it doesn't mention that they were on the "kiss cam". One report even had a quote from one of the participants -- something along the lines of "they even have a 'kiss cam' [so kissing can't be improper]." These are slightly more accurate than a post from an internet blog. A hint ... support is nothing without credibility.You were making accusations with nothing to back them up. You were the only one doing that, hence, the only one that needed to back up their accusations.Quote:
But who else hasn't shown some research, hmmm?
The problem is that your "personal observations" don't affect reality. You didn't personally observe these lesbians kicked out, did you?Quote:
Because 'anecdotal' in this kind of case is often the best form of evidence. Well not exactly I guess. Anecdotal would mean something like information based on casual observations or indications, whereas if I use my own views, I make sure I've seen it enough times. I'm a very observant person most of the time...
Yes. "Magical absolute neutral" is also known as "impartial". It's amazing. And magical.Quote:
As far as I see it you either embrace something, or it repels you. Or are you some kind of a magical absolute neutral?
.. You're kidding, right? The point was that not "fearing" something doesn't mean we want to be surrounded by it. If you honestly failed to see the point there ... nevermind.Quote:
And just because you wouldn't want to live in a submarine may not have anything to do with the water. It might be seclusion away from other people, it might be a fear of something happening deep underwater, it might be that you're less comfortable underwater than on land...
You recall a gay marriage thread where I argued against special treatment for homosexuals? Just like this thread, where I'm arguing against special treatment for homosexuals?Quote:
I don't know if assault is the right word, but you have seemed to be against it to some extent. If you weren't feeling negatively towards homosexuality then why would you bring up some of the points you've brought up in a couple of threads? I do recall a certain gay marriage thread...
Like I've said. My personal views on homosexuality play no part in the fact that two people were doing something they shouldn't have been.You have completely failed to "bring up" any differences, only so-called "observations" that have no bearing on reality.Quote:
You have seemed to be more or less impartial to some extent in this thread, but I also notice an avoidance of such things I have brought up such as the differences between how a lesbian couple may be treated differently to a straight couple.
Two uninformed sources say it was "a simple kiss". The people who dealt with it say it was much more.Quote:
And look at the 'wrong' that was committed. A simple kiss. The article I quoted along with V_Translanka's post makes it seem very much that all that was happening was a little kiss.
Wrong. Alright, here's a little bit of common sense for you -- NOT ONLY did somebody complain about it and an usher address the situation -- likely neither of which would have happened if it was on the "kiss cam" -- and NOT ONLY was the kiss much more than a "peck", enough to warrant being asked to stop -- but also, they were asked to stop in the third inning. What baseball games have you seen that have a "kiss cam" in the third inning?Quote:
No, your concept is EASY to understand. They were asked to leave after appearing on a kiss cam.
Asking two people to leave because they were making out and groping in the stands isn't "discrimination".Quote:
Even allusions towards treating homosexual people differently are discrimination.
Despite personal opinions, nothing credible has shown a link between homophobia and homosexuality.Quote:
Wouldn't surprise me if a ton were in the closet and just afraid to come out.
Of course. If they admit they're homosexual, they wouldn't be allowed to do all the things straight people aren't allowed to do! How terrible!Quote:
But there is good reason to be fearful, what with all the prejudice going around in most parts of society. Sad that...
This couple was told that they could kiss, just not to the makeout/groping extent. They weren't asked to leave until they responded with hostility towards the usher, who told them to tone it down.Quote:
And why allow straight people to kiss without asking them to stop and leave?
Of course. And if you don't see it, it doesn't happen, right?Quote:
My only evidence is actually going to sports games and concerts and NEVER seeing a straight couple asked to leave regardless of such rules and codes of conduct.
How is it wasn't a "plain old kiss" suit you for a reason?Quote:
For a plain old kiss? I'd need one pretty damned good reason.
The rule is against inappropriate displays of affection, and there are no reports of any straight couples making out and groping.Quote:
But yeah, the one reason given that the establishment had a rule against displays of affection to me is voided by the kiss cam and no reports of any straight people being kicked out of that same venue.
T.G. Oskar, I don't have time to reply to your long, winding post right now, but I might get to it later. In the meantime, some friendly advice -- if you don't have an argument, leave the discussion. Grasping at straws and playing semantics doesn't help your cause. (If an act was improper for the situation, it was indecent in general. Being one does not exclude the act from being the other.)
Well, not to be a pickler (because I don't think that's a word), but my source was someone who was THERE and was friends w/the person who this happened to...and I'll trust their judgment of what happened over the corporation that changes their stance on what happened...Especially since she hasn't asked for anything from them but to have their people better trained so that further instances don't happen to anyone else (this is DIRECTLY from the girl it happened to when she actually did an interview on the radio).Quote:
Two uninformed sources say it was "a simple kiss". The people who dealt with it say it was much more.
One of the other reasons was that after they were confronted, they proceeded to document other couples at the game that were kissing. She (the friend of the girl) said other people were kissing, so what's the big deal...which is their main argument in the first place. Of course it was just a kiss. Some uptight mom just complained because they couldn't deal with the fact that reality was happening and they thought that it was going to somehow mess with their kid's head. The usher guy just chose the wrong course of action, clearly.
And how may I ask is the original question a 'yes' or 'no' one? Your question this refers to was:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
And I did answer it that second time for you Sassy, being the nice person I am... :lol: I noticed you didn't quote it, merely my reason for continuing as I did. But more on that next.Quote:
So I ask again, because I have, as of yet, gotten no answer. The only time the question has been addressed is to avoid it. If a heterosexual couple had been kissing, making out, and/or groping in the stands at a baseball game and were asked to leave because of it, how many of you would bitch about it?
A lot. Ever been in the country/fringe of suburbia? They're generally not approached, but some of them when approached are pretty damned vicious. But regardless of sexual orientation some people will act crabby. The real issue is if others are treated differently because of their sexual orientation. Which is discrimination.Quote:
How often do straight couples do something indecent enough to warrant being told to stop, then become hostile and refuse to stop when somebody talks to them about it?
Actually, I'll even add this. Because I can.
How many straight couples get told off for kissing even with groping and more at a game? If I had $5 for every occasion I saw the boobs of some girl making out with a guy at a sporting event, I'd be one wealthy SOB. Anecdotal or not, I'm arguing about incidents like the one this thread is about in general. Last I looked personal experience was a form of evidence. Oh it has it's flaws, anyone who knows a little of cognitive psychology would know that, but it's still better than just having small articles from large media companies. I noticed reading several that some had directly cloned bits from other publications, and others the details didn't match at all. So forgive me if I choose to believe the smaller articles by people who actually saw some or all of the events.
Actually it does. If I have seen it happen it has happened. If I haven't seen it happen and have been to a fair few games, that's a general indicator it either doesn't happen or happens on a much smaller scale. There's also that being there allows a person to gauge the attitudes towards things that people show. Oh it's not an exact science, but few things if any are.Quote:
Your anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Whether or not you have seen something happen has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it happens.
Nope, but saying it in certain ways can make one of the things seem worse than it actually is. Let me put it to you this way. Outside of a game, is a straight couple kissing wrong? What about a homosexual couple? Now say the straight couple at a game kiss and are caught on camera yet nobody gives a damn, but then the homosexual couple do and shit is raised, where's the justice in that? That IS a double standard. And also discrimination.Quote:
Saying that two things are wrong is not saying that they're on the same level.
Indeed. As obvious as murder being unacceptable and smaller shows of affection quite acceptable in modern society depending on where one lives. I only mention that last part as there are indeed small conservative areas, but for it to be fair, both straight and homosexuals would be treated the same, right?Quote:
Both actions -- murder and groping in public -- are wrong. That's the only "comparison" that was made. But I thought that was obvious.
That's all I'm arguing about Sassy. I couldn't really care about any laws in effect. Just that I'm seeing people treated differently to others merely because they're different in some small way.
No, I meant literally. I was watching this wonderful documentary a while back saying a number of them came from a few Southern communities known for it. Them and I think it was the Confederate Army? I'm not really into researching American History any more than any in general so I can't be sure. But yeah, an interviewed member was pretty funny to watch in an 'I'm glad I'm not gay, black or several other forms of minority living in those areas' kind of way.Quote:
Because that's the way we do things -- when we don't like what somebody believes, insult them.
Ummmm... No. I like using them as an example of discrimination. Seriously, they're perfect for it. No-one in this scenario was that discriminatory, but they serve to show what discrimination can do.Quote:
Nobody's defending the KKK, you can let that subject go.
Not completely. Are most humans capable of fully suppressing their natural bias? Even at 'neutral', there's always that trace of bias. First thing they taught us in History class. Every person shows bias to some extent so you have to take things with a grain of salt. Fine, say the action was 'indecent'. So why weren't other participants asked to leave for for other similar 'indecent' acts? Hmmm...Quote:
Oh hey, it looks like that really is the way we do things. First off, I'm impartial to homosexual people. Second -- and most importantly -- my personal views on homosexuality have absolutely nothing to do with this subject. Two people were doing something indecent and were told to stop. The action was what was indecent -- not the participants.
And that's where the problem as I see it lies. There's been a few blog entries and smaller articles suggesting that the usher did complain about 'making out' but all the couple did was kiss. And I buy those over larger publications where the information wasn't gathered first-hand, and could be inaccurate for it. I personally prefer bias over articles based mostly on hearsay. Even that video on youtube I saw that got taken down looked like the couple had been wronged. And it was unedited with nothing lost. I honestly wonder why it was taken down when videos of the Cronulla riots and several fights still stay up...Quote:
I can easily understand that. The problem is whether or not the two people in this situation were treated differently because of their sexual orientation. As I've pointed out, whether or not these two people were homosexual has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were doing something indecent., and the action taken against them was warranted.
My mistake. I didn't realise it was only an Australian thing until now.Quote:
Last I checked, Mardi Gras isn't designed to be a huge display of sexuality. Sure, things may happen, but that's not the entire objective of the celebration. Not just that, but nobody calls you a homophobe if you don't like Mardi Gras.
New Mardi Gras, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras
But yeah, half of February and the full name is Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras. And it's both big and quite fun, even for heterosexual people. A cultural event that's extremely colourful and fun to attend. And if you don't attend one of these and like it? Chances are you're either colour-blind, a very cranky mean spirited person or a homophobe. [/chuckle]
Yes. Yes I am. Both are works of art showing culture, and both have people who don't like them for what they show.Quote:
Are you comparing Michelangelo's David to gay pride parades?
Lemme quote what I typed above. I find it'll be a pain for me to type twice.Quote:
"By LastRow"? What, did you find a blog entry? Let me help you out here.
The Associated Press: Lesbian kiss at Seattle ballpark stirs up gay-friendly town
There's the Associated Press report of it. The Fox News, CNN, CBS, and Seattle Times all report the same thing -- I can get the links for you if you need them. And it doesn't mention that they were on the "kiss cam". One report even had a quote from one of the participants -- something along the lines of "they even have a 'kiss cam' [so kissing can't be improper]." These are slightly more accurate than a post from an internet blog. A hint ... support is nothing without credibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meh
I was the first to back my arguments up actually. :DQuote:
You were making accusations with nothing to back them up. You were the only one doing that, hence, the only one that needed to back up their accusations.
And no-one's really making accusations. I've merely implied several things, often just to try to help get my point across.
Nope. But did you? And if you didn't, do you think you're right and I'm wrong?Quote:
The problem is that your "personal observations" don't affect reality. You didn't personally observe these lesbians kicked out, did you?
And even if I didn't personally observe events, I did see that clip on youtube before it was removed. That's better than nothing at all. ;)
It would be amazing if I witnessed it. But then most humans aren't capable of not showing a little bias, are they? It's what separates us from most AI systems that lack those fake personalities some seem fond of. You can say you're impartial. But you're not completely impartial I don't think. Just as I'm not. Actually the original point in question was mine I believe. Showing what I meant by 'homophobe'. And what I meant was one who doesn't want to be around it. Like hydrophilic/lipophobic objects love grabbing onto water yet simply won't make the effort with poor old oil.Quote:
Yes. "Magical absolute neutral" is also known as "impartial". It's amazing. And magical... You're kidding, right? The point was that not "fearing" something doesn't mean we want to be surrounded by it. If you honestly failed to see the point there ... nevermind.
Special treatment? My argument is always that they should be treated equally to straight people. And it always seems to come to blows with your opinions. You were against homosexual marriage I recall. As in not letting a homosexual couple marry, remember?Quote:
You recall a gay marriage thread where I argued against special treatment for homosexuals? Just like this thread, where I'm arguing against special treatment for homosexuals?
But it does effect how you'd see such an incident whether or not you'd admit it. This links back to the bias I keep mentioning. It's only human though...Quote:
Like I've said. My personal views on homosexuality play no part in the fact that two people were doing something they shouldn't have been.
And what of your arguments? I've seen equal and/or less evidence than what I have provided. Passing off one's opinion as fact doesn't make it any more valid than stating what you think as a personal opinion. And observations are a form of evidence, even if they must not be completely relied upon due to the individual's perception of what they see.Quote:
You have completely failed to "bring up" any differences, only so-called "observations" that have no bearing on reality.
So an usher who may want to stay out of trouble is more believable than the other people who witnessed the incident and also spoke? Remember, discrimination can often cost people their jobs these days. I've seen that happen too. First-hand.Quote:
Two uninformed sources say it was "a simple kiss". The people who dealt with it say it was much more.
Naturally. You always get one or two people uncomfortable around homosexuals. Or more. And an usher's job is to keep everyone happy. Or they get their own problems later. BUT regardless of whether or not the kiss-cam was on (and by several reports it was what got them seen in the first place), it's mere presence encourages kissing. The inning doesn't matter. Regardless of 'inning', other couples had kissed, and the only real difference is that they were straight.Quote:
Wrong. Alright, here's a little bit of common sense for you -- NOT ONLY did somebody complain about it and an usher address the situation -- likely neither of which would have happened if it was on the "kiss cam" -- and NOT ONLY was the kiss much more than a "peck", enough to warrant being asked to stop -- but also, they were asked to stop in the third inning. What baseball games have you seen that have a "kiss cam" in the third inning?
It is when other social groupings aren't. It's both a double standard AND therefore discrimination.Quote:
Asking two people to leave because they were making out and groping in the stands isn't "discrimination".
I never said there was a link. I just said I wouldn't be surprised if there were a ton in the closet who wouldn't come out due to prejudices. Big difference.Quote:
Despite personal opinions, nothing credible has shown a link between homophobia and homosexuality.
YAY WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! But seriously, yeah. Homosexuals aren't treated right. Not only are they treated unfair a lot of the time, but at times there are laws which don't allow them the equal rights of straight people in some way.Quote:
Of course. If they admit they're homosexual, they wouldn't be allowed to do all the things straight people aren't allowed to do! How terrible!
That's not what I heard. From what I understand they were asked to either not kiss, or leave. The hostilities occurred AFTER they were singled out. But why should they have to face discrimination placidly? I know I sure as hell wouldn't.Quote:
This couple was told that they could kiss, just not to the makeout/groping extent. They weren't asked to leave until they responded with hostility towards the usher, who told them to tone it down.
Nope. But it is a general indicator it doesn't happen as much. Especially as I've worked at some events too. I've seen things from so many angles. And often for bugger all money...Quote:
Of course. And if you don't see it, it doesn't happen, right?
And what if it was? It haven't heard that it looked so evil and wrong to all the people other than the one women who complained who didn't want her son seeing the lesbians kissing.Quote:
How is it wasn't a "plain old kiss" suit you for a reason?
Because no-one found it news-worthy to mention. Except all the people who were there who saw the straight couples on kiss cam, noticed something wrong with this whole event and decided to make a blog entry or small article of it from what they themselves saw. And there might be other reasons, but that's the obvious one.Quote:
The rule is against inappropriate displays of affection, and there are no reports of any straight couples making out and groping.
I liked Oskar's post. He was terribly, terribly correct on all counts. I'd also point out that even if 'being one does not exclude the act from being the other', just because one thing has a similar nature to the other does not make it the same thing. It can be very similar yet not identical.Quote:
T.G. Oskar, I don't have time to reply to your long, winding post right now, but I might get to it later. In the meantime, some friendly advice -- if you don't have an argument, leave the discussion. Grasping at straws and playing semantics doesn't help your cause. (If an act was improper for the situation, it was indecent in general. Being one does not exclude the act from being the other.)
Whilst I get this and fully understand it probably WAS more, the people that dealt with it were likely to say it was more whether it was or wasn't. I'm sure they wouldn't want to be embarrassed and be the ones with egg on their faces if people had complained at them about throwing them out... What I mean to say is that either way, because of such publication, they're most likely to come up with bits and pieces to stick into it to make it seem worse and so that others will justify them for doing something "for the kids", if you get what I mean. That's even more accurate if they weren't sure whether or not to throw them out in the first place.Quote:
Two uninformed sources say it was "a simple kiss". The people who dealt with it say it was much more.
I don't agree or disagree, though, I just figured I'd point it out.
Anyone remember this thread? Well, if I had actually tried before, I would have probably found this for y'all...
Myspace.com Blogs - It?s been all over the news...but this is the truth about the Mariners Kiss.... - Jordin Silver MySpace Blog
It's the blog of that radio dj I was talking about...Apparently she's got links to where you can listen to her broadcast of when she was talking about it, so hooray for you...!