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

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: lovebeck

I thought the original story was fishy...

You meant to say that didn't you .

What?? Actually, I hadn't thought of it that way... It was totally unintentional, I swear.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: continuousThunder

One of my GF's love's to show off her augmentations in public and I love her PDA's as well.

I'm sure you'd have no problem with your kids seeing us enjoy each other company in the store when you are out shopping for groceries.

It amazes me when people can gloss over what ever they want in order to justify their stance on a subject.

I don't want to see ANYONE in a full out make out sesh, groping, etc. anywhere in public. Gays, dogs, straights, whatever...

Have some sense and keep THAT much PDA out of the local grocery!

a reply to: ghostrager

Well, I didn't watch the whole video, only a few seconds of it to realize that they were both hot chicks. This is unacceptable!

originally posted by: murphy22
The "girls"? That don't know, they are "girls"? When will America stop coddling insane PEOPLE/people? These "progressives" used to be, "institutionalized". For not knowing they were women. This "Cop" deserves a medal!

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
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.

Sad but true. I find the LGBT crowd to be one of the most aggressive when it comes to shaming, labeling and attempting to force their way of thinking on the public, which is evidenced by how they always come charging in with both guns blazing no matter what the circumstances are. Some of these social justice warriors borderline fanaticism.


There was another thread here with a news story about a male student who just recently identified himself as a woman (while still being a completely anatomical male) and demanded that he be allowed to change with teenage girls in their high school changing rooms, and people were actually defending it while completely ignoring the girls right to privacy... I mean get a grip

It's tag & post a story for the MSM.

They don't care about facts, just the story and headline.
No research, just clicks!

Aren't you all sick and tired of political affiliations when it comes to the news?

What happened to neutral news by law? Did that law just disappear or are we accepting it?

What I see every day on the MSM (pick your channel) is politically driven stories.

What the hell? We let them, the media, act as socialists. Why aren't we calling them out?

Seriously, I for one am sick and tired of the politically driven stories that they all spout.
It's usually politically driven to sway you. That's why I don't read their crap.

See it for what the MSM is...The wolf in sheeps clothing.

Peace!

Woah woah woah! There is way too much independent thinking going on around here. I think we need to tone down the anarchy and start doing what our masters tell us to do. That is, worship these inspirational lesbians who groped and made out for America. I won't have this country degraded by "honest and upstanding" police officers hell bent on corrupting the youth of America with their obvious bigotry and distasteful behavior. Lesbians, go back to performing sex acts in front of children in the frozen food aisle. We all salute you and we shall use the Constitution to protect your liberty.

I read this thread with great interest, I find some of the logic here amazing. "are you gay? then you don't know" Really?

Are YOU a Parent? then YOU don't know!!! (if you are a parent and gay then you lied somewhere cause "It's not a choice" remember.


and yes I have lived in Hawaii,and I have been sexually harassed by LGBT while living there. No I did not punch anyone, Even though I was a Marine at the time. However some of you "know the Cop and the eyewitness was a" "Homophobe" too funny..


If you don't like it don't look, well if you don't like the reception YOU get, don't do it in PUBLIC. Every argument the LGBT uses can be turned around on them. I'm not a homophobe, I could care less what your orientation is, nor do I NEED to know it.

"Hi I'm so and so and I'm gay/straight/blue in the face!" sounds silly doesn't it?so why do I need to know you are "blue in the face"?

So the cops lost the stores video tapes, how do ANY of you know they had them in the first place? Prove it.. (see how that works?)

Every argument you make can and SHOULD be used against you, for you are as bad if not worse then those you condemn.


I saw a video today of a group of people of one color knock out and beat a lesser group of another color, the Police "Might" consider it a hate crime. You have brought the equality to get in trouble like the rest of us on yourselves, embrace it..

Maybe this is a new trend. A grocery store where explicit sexual contact is encouraged. Kinda brings new meaning to the name "Whole Foods". How can I be expected to pick out a TV dinner when a couple of lesbians are distracting me from my grocery shopping? /sarcasm

Seriously, have we fallen this far? If some people had their way, we'd all just have sex wherever we want, like animals. Drop trou where we want and leave a steaming pile. While we're at it, let's have weed lounges with snack machines. Maybe some heroin drips in the pharmacy section.

Let's just get it out of the way and go all out. Don't be offended when I fart next to you while you're making out, or decide to pee on your leg. I might pick a booger and wipe it on your face. If you find that offensive, you might be a boogaphobe or something.

You see, they will argue endlessly. There never will be enough. They are perpetual victims and attention whores. If you speak up you're a bigot. If you ignore them you need sensitivity training.

No need to stick a thermometer in it, society is done. Stop the train and let me off. Better yet, I'll just jump now and get it over with.

ETA: What separates us from animals is our ability to discern what is appropriate from what isn't. If we lose that we lose our humanity. If there is no standard, we might as well be monkeys in a zoo, flinging poo at each other. Society has fallen so far; basic concepts like morality, right from wrong, respecting your fellow man, couth and common sense are foreign. Actually, I take that back. These concepts aren't foreign, they're considered the old way of thinking and have been replaced with self-importance, petulance, entitlement, narcissism and more. So-called adults are acting like spoiled little brats who throw tantrums when they don't get their way. It's sad to watch. It reminds me of that Star Trek episode where the kids didn't trust the "grups". We're dealing with children here. You don't argue with children, you discipline them.

They need to "ban" something, because of this. I'm not sure what needs "banning". But it needs to come from the right. Something they hold with natural law, them evil, leaning types/conservatives. Because that's the only way, two females, will ever get to "man"-handle, eachother in a grocery store and it not be a "crime". This was a dyke propagandist story out of the shute. It was like a cop being slapped in the face....just wrong. Off the line.

originally posted by: Freth
Seriously, have we fallen this far? If some people had their way, we'd all just have sex wherever we want, like animals. Drop trou where we want and leave a steaming pile. While we're at it, let's have weed lounges with snack machines. Maybe some heroin drips in the pharmacy section.

How ironic that you suggest that last bit. We already have that! The pharmaceutical industry makes pills like Oxy that are highly addictive and yield the same high as heroin, often leading to heroin addiction (since heroin is often cheaper than the pills themselves). "Heroin drip in the pharmacy section" - seriously, what an apt way of putting it! Oh, and about "weed lounges with snack machines" - yes, let's have them! I'm all for the tax revenue that legalized weed would bring in. We already have "alcohol lounges" - they're called "bars," FYI - and you'll have a hard time arguing that weed is more dangerous than alcohol, both to the user and to the people around them whether they're still at the bar or driving home from it.

Funny too how we're at the tail end of the thread and now the true hate mongers are showing up.

WeAreAWAKE says 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.

Are you equally arguing that all heterosexual people should keep their choices to themselves? When your friend tells you he'd like you to meet his new wife, do you say "Woah there! Keep your damn sexual preferences to yourself!"? Then you say that homosexuals will never be accepted... by you, I guess? Your choice is your choice, can't argue with that, but if you think that's a reflection of how society is moving, I apologize in advance for your disappointment. Your last line is especially funny, as it sounds like you're ultimately giving that advice to yourself.

thedigirati says Are YOU a Parent? then YOU don't know!!! (if you are a parent and gay then you lied somewhere cause "It's not a choice" remember.

and yes I have lived in Hawaii,and I have been sexually harassed by LGBT while living there. No I did not punch anyone, Even though I was a Marine at the time. However some of you "know the Cop and the eyewitness was a" "Homophobe" too funny..

Apparently people who adopt children are not real parents. First time I've heard this, gotta say.

"Even though" you were a Marine at the time? Basically, another man hit on you while you were in Hawaii, and you thought "I'm a Marine, and this gives me the right to physically attack this person, but nah, I'd better not." Huh?

Then we have murphy22, who (I have to hand it to you) isn't even attempting to put a vail on his bigotry: The "girls"? That don't know, they are "girls"? When will America stop coddling insane PEOPLE/people? These "progressives" used to be, "institutionalized". For not knowing they were women. This "Cop" deserves a medal!

Translation: "Women who are lesbians don't know that they're women! Gays and lesbians used to be rounded up and put in mental institutions, and we should start doing this again! Police officers who use unnecessary force should be rewarded for doing so." Am I seriously hearing this correctly? (side note: what's the difference between PEOPLE and people?) Surely I must not be. "This was a dyke propagandist story out of the shute." Ooooo... K, guess I am hearing you correctly.

originally posted by: mulder85

originally posted by: Freth
Seriously, have we fallen this far? If some people had their way, we'd all just have sex wherever we want, like animals. Drop trou where we want and leave a steaming pile. While we're at it, let's have weed lounges with snack machines. Maybe some heroin drips in the pharmacy section.

How ironic that you suggest that last bit. We already have that! The pharmaceutical industry makes pills like Oxy that are highly addictive and yield the same high as heroin, often leading to heroin addiction (since heroin is often cheaper than the pills themselves). "Heroin drip in the pharmacy section" - seriously, what an apt way of putting it! Oh, and about "weed lounges with snack machines" - yes, let's have them! I'm all for the tax revenue that legalized weed would bring in. We already have "alcohol lounges" - they're called "bars," FYI - and you'll have a hard time arguing that weed is more dangerous than alcohol, both to the user and to the people around them whether they're still at the bar or driving home from it.

I helped vote down marijuana in Ohio and I'll vote it down next year, if it comes back. That's all I have to say about that.

As for gays, I'm pretty sure the average person doesn't care about your sexual preferences, as long as you keep them private. I don't care to see heterosexual couples groping and making out in public, slobbering on each other. I have no problem with love and showing of affection, as long as it's brief. It comes down to respect for your fellow man and having enough consideration and common courtesy to not do those things in public. A certain level of decency is expected in public. Like I said before, if there is no standard by which people should act around each other, society breaks down, anarchy ensues.

Then there are those inconvenient things called laws, which prohibit public lewdness. Laws are in place to keep a certain standard of decency and respect (and safety) in society.

This couple didn't respect themselves or the people around them. If they had, this never would've happened. Instead, this was attention whoring/grandstanding and baiting to get a rise out of people. It had nothing to do with PDA or love.

Stop showboating and act normal, people might be more accepting. Keep your sexual exploits private, like most people do, people might respect you more. Stop baiting people into situations so you can call them bigots and homophobes.

I know what you're going to say... "Well if they weren't bigots and homophobes, they would accept us." Well gee, isn't that convenient. Back someone into a corner so you can justify your lifestyle vs their unwillingness to accept it. You can call people all the names you want, make up phobias and accuse people of being bigots. At the end of the day, you're still left with an empty cup, because people will never accept other people who deviate from societal norms and personal beliefs in what's normal. Flaunting it only pushes you farther into that realm. Calling people names and accusing them doesn't make them accept you. And it goes the same for heterosexual people. If you have to work to get people to accept you, you're doing it wrong.

If you treat others with respect and common courtesy, they tend to accept you as a person. They don't have to agree with your lifestyle. Be the person you should be, the rest comes naturally.

a reply to: ghostrager

Sensitive? I'm not sensitive about it. I just gave my opinion about this thread being a waste of space and left it at that. If I was sensitive about it I would have ranted on and on about it. Trust me.

As for your point. The prosecution STILL dropped the charges even with your star witness. So your point about giving credence to the witness is moot because it didn't make a difference.

As far as proving bigotry, impossible. Bigots are more clever these days and hide their intolerance around certain ideas, but you can see their intolerance shine through with actions like in the OP. I mean if a witness' story isn't compelling enough to side with the prosecution on this case then SOMETHING is fishy here. The fact that you refuse to even admit that this cop was in the wrong is just odd. Like why are you doing everything in your power to try to clear this asshole's name? Bigotry or no, at the end of the day HE was in the wrong.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
As far as proving bigotry, impossible. Bigots are more clever these days and hide their intolerance around certain ideas, but you can see their intolerance shine through with actions like in the OP. I mean if a witness' story isn't compelling enough to side with the prosecution on this case then SOMETHING is fishy here. The fact that you refuse to even admit that this cop was in the wrong is just odd. Like why are you doing everything in your power to try to clear this asshole's name? Bigotry or no, at the end of the day HE was in the wrong.

I'd like to touch on intolerance for a second. People tend to naturally gravitate toward like-minded individuals. I can't tolerate noise in restaurants. I take noise cancelling headphones to negate the noise around me. Does that make me intolerant for wanting some peace and quite while I eat? Maybe so. I see homosexuals all the time, on TV, in public (lesser so). I have no ill will toward any homosexual, but I don't agree with the lifestyle. I'm not intolerant. I don't leave when a gay person is nearby. However, if people are groping each other and swapping spit in a lewd manner, my normal inclination is to find it offensive and disgusting. Heterosexual or homosexual, doesn't matter. Not accepting lewdness in public (which again is against the law anyway), is not intolerance, it's being in sync with accepted societal norms. Putting your hand on someone and applying force is intolerance.

I won't defend what the off-duty police officer did. I won't defend the homosexual couple. However, there is an important distinction to be made between intolerance and not accepting behavior that goes against societal norms and possibly even laws and local ordinances.

My point - You can call me intolerant, if the shoe fits, but I feel words like bigoted, homophobic and intolerant are used to generalize behavior you don't necessarily agree with. It's a way to get the higher ground and belittle someone you perceive to be in the wrong. Just like the race card, there's fast coming a day when crying wolf will be dismissed.

You can't fight human nature. It wins out every time. People segregate naturally. People have beliefs and convictions that will go against yours. Society will always have standards, otherwise, there is no society at all, just chaos. This whole argument and the need to label people for a short-lived (perceived) victory--it's pointless.

a reply to: Freth

This argument can be taken in circles and circles. Now I can say "Stop being intolerant of my intolerance of your intolerance" - but we're not going to get that ridiculous, are we?

I will point out though that's it's pointless to argue with people who make so many assumptions (like how you obviously assume that I'm gay - I'm not - but I am standing up for what I think is right).

"This couple didn't respect themselves or the people around them. If they had, this never would've happened. Instead, this was attention whoring/grandstanding and baiting to get a rise out of people. It had nothing to do with PDA or love."

Where's your proof of this? Put on some clothes, Freth - your bias is showing, naked as can be.

originally posted by: mulder85
a reply to: Freth

This argument can be taken in circles and circles. Now I can say "Stop being intolerant of my intolerance of your intolerance" - but we're not going to get that ridiculous, are we?

I will point out though that's it's pointless to argue with people who make so many assumptions (like how you obviously assume that I'm gay - I'm not - but I am standing up for what I think is right).

"This couple didn't respect themselves or the people around them. If they had, this never would've happened. Instead, this was attention whoring/grandstanding and baiting to get a rise out of people. It had nothing to do with PDA or love."

Where's your proof of this? Put on some clothes, Freth - your bias is showing, naked as can be.

Given the lack of a video, we're left with descriptions by the witnesses. If groping and kissing occurred, that's pretty much a given that they were going beyond what is considered acceptable public display of affection. If they were homosexual, it stands to reason that, given past observations, they were making a public scene on purpose. Am I making wild assumptions? Possibly. Since we don't have enough information, the information we do have can paint a picture somewhat. Did I take creative license? Sure. Am I biased toward heterosexual vs homosexual? Well yeah, I'm heterosexual, it's natural to pick sides and make observations based on my own perspective. Isn't that what a forum is for?

ETA: I'm here to state an opinion. I don't care whether I win or not. Since I've said what I had to say, I'll let it stand as is. Bias or not, those are my thoughts on the subject.

originally posted by: Freth

Given the lack of a video, we're left with descriptions by the witnesses.

Witness. One, as in singular, who also happens to be anonymous.

I would think if Officer Anger-Issues had other witnesses the couple would have had additional charges made on them or the ones they were accused of would not have been tossed.

originally posted by: Freth
If they were homosexual, it stands to reason that, given past observations, they were making a public scene on purpose. Am I making wild assumptions? Possibly. Since we don't have enough information, the information we do have can paint a picture somewhat. Did I take creative license? Sure. Am I biased toward heterosexual vs homosexual? Well yeah, I'm heterosexual, it's natural to pick sides and make observations based on my own perspective. Isn't that what a forum is for?

Thanks for the laugh, Freth. The bolded part should honestly be the motto of bigots across this site, and the rest of your post is just comedy gravy. You feel like more of a man by "picking sides" and making these wild assumptions, I guess?

Forums are for debate, brains are for understanding that every issue in existence doesn't require you to "pick sides" and be openly biased against the "other side" without any good reason. Based on what you just wrote, I don't even think you have firm beliefs in what you're saying, and are instead just parroting Limbaugh or something. Again, thanks for the laughs!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Freth

Given the lack of a video, we're left with descriptions by the witnesses.

Witness. One, as in singular, who also happens to be anonymous.

I would think if Officer Anger-Issues had other witnesses the couple would have had additional charges made on them or the ones they were accused of would not have been tossed.

Eyes are eyes. If there was one witness, how does there not being two witnesses negate the one person's testimony? Two people can lie just as well as one. And why would they lie? Bias, right? *grin* At any rate, I'm off to other threads. Thanks for the discussion and replies.