"Lesbian Couple Arrested for Kissing" - What the Mainstream Didn't Report

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its a natural act that should be performed privately

a reply to: Krazysh0t
yes we have assault laws...and I wouldnt mind being arrested for doing so....does that make you feel any better....im really trying here.

Dp

a reply to: hiddenNZ

And I'd enjoy following up with a lawsuit. If you were actually "trying", you wouldn't be suggesting to resort to violence just because you didn't get your way and someone mouthed off to you. That's super juvenile.

If you REALLY had a problem with this situation because of your kids, couldn't do anything about it, and wanted to set a GOOD example for your kids; you'd ask the couple to stop. If they said no, you'd go elsewhere or escalate the situation with the management. Beating someone because they mouthed off to you is a rather poor example to set for the VERY children whose eyes you are trying to protect from all that "gross" kissing. After all, you just turned a display of love and affection into a display of violence and small mindedness (because you can't keep your cool when someone insults you).

People have gotten so into the idea that sex is just one appetite we can't control that it seems they really do think we ought to just go to anywhere and everywhere these days, but then, we have a whole culture based around fat shaming and the horrors of obesity which is linked to another perfectly normal and natural urge that we apparently are expected to be able to control ...

I live at a southern CA beach.

I still find it a better approach to have my grandson look at himself and his own responsibility of behavior.

Im not into the "point and blame".

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
do you thin k its right for anyone to be full on fondling eachother with kids around? Well if you do,you must have really high morals.I would ask nicely first,and if slagged off then someone will be hurt,feelings or bodily harm is all good.

Ah, the old "morals and its to protect the kids".

Kids probably aren't that interested, until an adult makes an issue of it.

Yeah, sure, let's just let people bang away in the aisles of the local Food Store. When I'm in the meat department, you know what I'm really checking out ...

Oh, so NOW you want to legislate things...

Nope, already rules against public indecency. If you dont' like them, change them.

Yep, there's lots of rules - to make sure we treat each other decently.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
we dont sue here in NZ mate......actions like that couple were making wouldnt last what you might call a new york minute....believe that. Do your fondling behind closed doors and all is well....is that really so hard to let sink in for you?
You have no arguement and cant be swayed on your opinions so Im just wasting my time. Later.....and please dont ever visit NZ if youre that way inclined.

originally posted by: hiddenNZ
do you thin k its right for anyone to be full on fondling eachother with kids around? Well if you do,you must have really high morals.I would ask nicely first,and if slagged off then someone will be hurt,feelings or bodily harm is all good.

I think you should be more concerned with your personal anger and violence issues than two people showing each other affection.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Not the point. You can control what your kids watch on TV or you can turn off the TV. Flawed logic

You can also walk out of view of a public display of affection too.

a reply to: Annee

what are you talking about? all the issues described are so off base with PDA in public. A fat dude eating a burger in public is far different then a couple fondling in public. I don't want any stranger teaching my kids about sex before i deem them ready to be educated about sex or are old enough. Not a matter of sheltering my kids either.

btw I don't even have kids but I'm sure i would be even more passionate if i did

a reply to: ghostrager

This is a great example of why Rush Limbaugh calls them, "the drive-by media". They do their damage, then speed off.

a reply to: hiddenNZ

Well it's a good thing they were in the states where the country protects you and helps provide compensation from unwarranted acts of aggression. If you think it is ok to beat someone because they mouthed off to you, YOU are the one with the problem, not them. ESPECIALLY when you are talking about not wanting your kids to see something unpleasant.

Though, to be honest, I don't believe you when you say that these lawsuits don't exist in New Zealand. I'd like to hear from someone else from your country on that matter. I'd wager you just haven't been on the other side of one.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
youre lucky then eh cupcake,lol.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

OK we can just compromise and make PDA designated areas where everyone can make out and dry hump

Could even sell some ice for the dreaded blue balls.

a reply to: hiddenNZ

Is that a threat? But I'm not the one that is lucky. I didn't make the public display of affection. These girls sure are lucky that they didn't run into you though. Well, I guess not, because they ran into some other asshole on a power trip.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yea I mean honestly you could swap out either one of them from the sounds of it and the result would likely be the same.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The flip side of your list, and this is by no means a disagreement with you, is that Hawaii is ridiculously gay-friendly. And in this instance I mean ridiculously as in very, very welcoming.

I was frankly shocked to see that the couple was trying to play the gay angle, and not shocked at the same time. Does bigotry still exist there? I'm sure it does, but I can honestly say I never met anybody there who had any problem with gays.

So you didn't mean this then?

That you were shocked it happened there because it is gay friendly?

And we are pointing out that even in gay friendly places this crap still happens.

And you even took a half page to realize that "minding your business" does not mean "mind your OWN business"?

And now have the gall to say I don't have reading comprehension.

Please. You said it, you ment it now own up to it.

You know what's sad? Is that even though you quoted me in your own response, you then misquote me to suit your own sad little narrative.

Whatever, not gonna bother correcting it for you. Read it however makes you smash the keyboard best.

They should get some money out of it, it wouldn't be fair to put on such a show for free...

a reply to: ghostrager

This is a perfect, textbook example of the true gay rights agenda. I've been saying it along with others that...while not all...gay, lesbian, trans, etc. have not only an agenda but believe they deserve special treatment. They DO want to shove their differences in other people's faces. They lie and say things like "it is none of your business who I go to bed with" while the truth for some is the want to FORCE you to pay attention to such things. They don't want you to tolerate them if you disagree with their lifestyle, they want to FORCE you to accept them for everything they are, believe and do.

They are (sometimes) quietly demanding you approve of them, accept their way of life as "normal" and "ok" and THAT is a battle they will never win. It is in fact, unwinnable for ANYONE to try to force acceptance from any other person that has the right to their own opinion.

So I'll say it again. We ALL have opinions and the right to have them. These fringe members of the gay community are doing the rest of you no favors by trying to force acceptance. All it accomplishes is making others believe they are asses which will do the opposite of acceptance. If you act as a civil, law-abiding member of society with the rest of us, don't be an ass and keep your personal choices to yourself...you will be tolerated. By some...maybe even many...you will never be accepted as "normal". Get over it...get over your self-importance and be a member of the rest of the human race.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

To be honest, I think this thread is unnecessary. The OP of this thread got chased off of the last one when he refused to defend his remarks and as soon as he found a source that he thinks agrees with his bias, he posts a new thread where we continue the EXACT same conversation we were having in the other thread. Sure the introduction of the eyewitness is new, but the OP still hasn't addressed why the prosecution dropped the case or why the security tapes, in police custody, mysteriously disappeared.

Wow dude, no need to be so sensitive on someone starting an alternative thread on the same topic. It's in Deconstructing Disinformation for a reason.

Neither here nor there.

Regarding the disappeared tapes, where exactly did you read or hear that they were lost while "in police custody". My understanding so far is that they were just lost, but didn't say whose possession they were in. Can you direct me to your source?

As a business owner who has surveillance systems, our recordings overwrite old recordings every few days.

It's extremely likely that this happened and the police never had the recordings as they were over written, they only reviewed them at the scene. Assault isn't exactly a high priority case for a district attorney and the request to Food land may have been too late to collect the recordings. If that is the case, it gives the women leverage as they can deny their actions, thus the lawsuit. That could also be a possible reason why they dropped the charges.

But let's say that's not the case and the police department/officer pulled some shady move and purposely lost the recordings. That still does not equate to a sole conclusion that the officer confronted them because he's a bigot. He could have just as well "lost" the tapes because he knew the physical altercation would have damned him since he purportedly started it by grabbing her arm while she was calling 911. It doesn't dismiss the possibility that he acted out of discrimination, but it also doesn't give any credence.

As I said in a previous post, there is zero evidence that the cop confronted them out of discrimination. To think otherwise is just hypersensitive speculation on the topic because it involves a homosexual couple.

If you can provide evidence, not speculation, that debates this -let's hear it.

Ghost