Lesbians kicked out of game

[Furore]

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.

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...)

OR, they could just not want to see people making out and groping in front of their children.

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.

Yes, I'm comparing homosexuality to murder. Just like I compared homosexuality to rape. [/sarcasm]

So a sarcasm tag will make everything ok? [/random rhetorical tag]
But yeah, you didn't exactly defend anything there. You just tried to dismiss it is all.

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.

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.

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.

I dunno, some of them seem fairly...
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.

I don't know. Since you brought up "issues involved with homosexuality", why don't you tell 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?

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.

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.

Every aspect is a representative of the whole. Just not always a truly accurate one.

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.

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:

"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.
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?

Why do you suspect that double-standards exist without evidence of such, other than anecdotal?

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...

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.

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...

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...

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.

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?
But yeah, two women kissing is much worse than a guy and a girl [end sarcasm tag theft]

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.

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?

So it's the homophobes that are in the closet? That's different.

Sorry. Had to.

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...

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.

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?

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?

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...

San Francisco. Where else?

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...

How many "solid reasons" do you have to have for being against people making out and groping in a family setting?

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...

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.

Kissing? Like several straight couples that weren't approached? Hmm...
See the issue?

[T.G. Oskar]

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

There's a reason I bolded the word indecent. Apparently, here's what the CoC states...

"...despite Safeco's code of conducts which note that 'displays of affection are not appropriate in a public family setting.'"

Now, does "appropriate" and "decent" are always synonymous? Not always.

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!

[Sasquatch]

What's the answer you're looking for?

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.

But my argument was, how often do we see straight couples who were making out kicked out of sporting events?

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?

Then why have I rarely ever seen straight couples get kicked out?

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.

But yeah, you didn't exactly defend anything there. You just tried to dismiss it is all.

Saying that two things are wrong is not saying that they're on the same level.

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.

Both actions -- murder and groping in public -- are wrong. That's the only "comparison" that was made. But I thought that was obvious.

I dunno, some of them seem fairly...
Close as far as genetics go.

Because that's the way we do things -- when we don't like what somebody believes, insult them.

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.

Nobody's defending the KKK, you can let that subject go.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh damn, you have something against Mardi Gras and the like?

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.

Just as Michelangelo's David is a great piece of art and culture, so too are such demonstrations.

Are you comparing Michelangelo's David to gay pride parades?

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: ...

"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.

But who else hasn't shown some research, hmmm?

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.

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...

The problem is that your "personal observations" don't affect reality. You didn't personally observe these lesbians kicked out, did you?

As far as I see it you either embrace something, or it repels you. Or are you some kind of a magical absolute neutral?

Yes. "Magical absolute neutral" is also known as "impartial". It's amazing. And magical.

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'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.

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 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?

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 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.

You have completely failed to "bring up" any differences, only so-called "observations" that have no bearing on reality.

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.

Two uninformed sources say it was "a simple kiss". The people who dealt with it say it was much more.

No, your concept is EASY to understand. They were asked to leave after appearing on a kiss cam.

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?

Even allusions towards treating homosexual people differently are discrimination.

Asking two people to leave because they were making out and groping in the stands isn't "discrimination".

Wouldn't surprise me if a ton were in the closet and just afraid to come out.

Despite personal opinions, nothing credible has shown a link between homophobia and homosexuality.

But there is good reason to be fearful, what with all the prejudice going around in most parts of society. Sad that...

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!

And why allow straight people to kiss without asking them to stop and leave?

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.

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.

Of course. And if you don't see it, it doesn't happen, right?

For a plain old kiss? I'd need one pretty damned good reason.

How is it wasn't a "plain old kiss" suit you for a reason?

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.

The rule is against inappropriate displays of affection, and there are no reports of any straight couples making out and groping.

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.)

[Furore]

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.

And how may I ask is the original question a 'yes' or 'no' one? Your question this refers to was:

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 I did answer it that second time for you Sassy, being the nice person I am... I noticed you didn't quote it, merely my reason for continuing as I did. But more on that next.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Saying that two things are wrong is not saying that they're on the same level.

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.

Both actions -- murder and groping in public -- are wrong. That's the only "comparison" that was made. But I thought that was obvious.

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?

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.

Because that's the way we do things -- when we don't like what somebody believes, insult them.

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.

Nobody's defending the KKK, you can let that subject go.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

My mistake. I didn't realise it was only an Australian thing until now.
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]

Are you comparing Michelangelo's David to gay pride parades?

Yes. Yes I am. Both are works of art showing culture, and both have people who don't like them for what they show.

"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.

Lemme quote what I typed above. I find it'll be a pain for me to type twice.

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.

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.

I was the first to back my arguments up actually.
And no-one's really making accusations. I've merely implied several things, often just to try to help get my point across.

The problem is that your "personal observations" don't affect reality. You didn't personally observe these lesbians kicked out, did you?

Nope. But did you? And if you didn't, do you think you're right and I'm wrong?
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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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...

You have completely failed to "bring up" any differences, only so-called "observations" that have no bearing on reality.

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.

Two uninformed sources say it was "a simple kiss". The people who dealt with it say it was much more.

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.

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?

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.

Asking two people to leave because they were making out and groping in the stands isn't "discrimination".

It is when other social groupings aren't. It's both a double standard AND therefore discrimination.

Despite personal opinions, nothing credible has shown a link between homophobia and homosexuality.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Of course. And if you don't see it, it doesn't happen, right?

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...

How is it wasn't a "plain old kiss" suit you for a reason?

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.

The rule is against inappropriate displays of affection, and there are no reports of any straight couples making out and groping.

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.

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.)

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.