Whoa...drama...

[Cerise]

Like this:

 

[Cerise]

Or do they make movies about it?

 

[Inkara1]

http://www.exmormon.org/violence.htm

Judging the Muslims by their fundamentalists: bad. Judging the Mormons by their fundamentalists: good. Anti-Islam biased Web site: bad. Anti-LDS biased Web site: good. It's good to see that's settled now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_violence

You'll notice that when BYU did shock therapy, homosexuality was listed as a sociopathic personality disturbance in the DSM. I'm glad to see we're now singling out individual groups for what was the norm at the time. As for the Boyd K. Packer sermon, that's nothing more than semantics. If a gay man were to hit on me, I'd probably not take it too well. I probably wouldn't hit him, but in the sermon, he didn't tell people to hit gay dudes either.

 

[spike]

You said Mormons hate gays. That means Mormons the people.

Does it? Or is that just what you want it to mean for your straw man.

In the official position of the church they have conducted a war on allowing same sex couples to marry. A war on their civil rights. Homosexuals can be excommunicated as it is looked at as a grievous sin.

I'm only referring to the church positions on the issue. Just like if you said "catholics don't believe in pre-marital sex" doesn't mean all catholics. It's the churches position, but obviously a whole lot of catholics don't follow it or agree. Harry Reid is mormon and supports same sex marriage.

Judging the Muslims by their fundamentalists: bad. Judging the Mormons by their fundamentalists: good. Anti-Islam biased Web site: bad. Anti-LDS biased Web site: good. It's good to see that's settled now.

That's yet another straw man. People gotta learn that this tactic doesn't work. I don't judge religions by their fundies unlike Cerise. That would be dumb.

Cerise tried to say they don't have a history of violence and she was obviously wrong. That's all.

If a gay man were to hit on me, I'd probably not take it too well. I probably wouldn't hit him

What's up with that? You might hit him? WTF.

Would you punch an ugly chick if she hit on you? What if you accidently hit on a lesbian? Should she clock you?

Sounds like you got a bit of the hate going there.

 

[MrBishop]

You're jumping to the conclusion that the security guards arrested and handcuffed the pair. The story does not say that. In fact, it doesn't say who arrested and handcuffed them at all. You assumed it was the security guards. I assumed it was the police. If other guards had to come to get them off the property, then, at that point, they were being argumentative and verbally abusive. If that is the way it panned out, then you have the scenario I assumed... i.e. stopped by security then, later, arrested and handcuffed by the police. Nothing else makes any sense...

The article is quite specific..lemme quote it here and bolden the timeline events related to the handcuffing.

Aune, 28, said he gave Jones, 25, a hug and kiss and that the two were then approached by a security guard, who asked them to leave, telling them they were being inappropriate and that public displays of affection aren't allowed on the property. He said other guards arrived and the men were handcuffed.

"We asked what we were doing wrong," Aune told The Associated Press.

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in a statement Friday that the men were "politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior -- just as any other couple would have been."

"They became argumentative and used profanity and refused to leave the property," she said. The church did not immediately respond to a request for more comment.

Police later arrived and both men were cited with misdemeanor trespassing, Salt Lake City Police Sgt. Robin Snyder said.

"It doesn't matter what they were asked to leave for," Snyder said. "If they are asked to leave and don't they are ... trespassing."

Citizen's arrest speak of felonies and not misdemeanors. I still say that they went too far.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The article is quite specific..lemme quote it here and bolden the timeline events related to the handcuffing.

Ahh...

Citizen's arrest speak of felonies and not misdemeanors. I still say that they went too far.

Security guards in some states may detain an individual...try here for more info.

Here, too. Are we done with the rent-a-cops now? Can we go back to the main issue here of PDA not being permitted?

 

[MrBishop]

For me..the actions of the guards WAS the main issue...but if you'd prefer to focus on public acts of affection, so be it.

PDAs are not illegal...though they do make some people uncomfortable. "Get a room!" yelled in the general direction of the couple in question usually shames them into cutting it out. There are levels of PDAs.

Holding hands, hugging, pecks, close-mouthed kissing, french-kisses, minor petting, major petting etc etc..right up to knockin' boots.

Different things make different people uncomfortable. In others, I will generally turn away from couples frenching during the day, or petting at night. I'll do neither with my S.O. in public.

Mind you, if anyone had an issue with me holding her hand, hugging her or giving her a peck or a quick kiss, I'd think that they were being anal and over-zealous.

 

[2minkey]

PDAs are not illegal...though they do make some people uncomfortable.

it was on private property. in utah. on the grounds of an LDS church.

it's a stupid fucking rule, and most certainly they got extra attention for being all gay and shit, but come on, it's private property.

every time we go out of town, and my house/cat sitter shows up, i tell her "and remember, no buttfucking!!!" now, at this point, she understands that i'm joking, but still, if i wanted to make that rule...

 

[MrBishop]

It's a series of gardens (10 full acres of it) surrounding the 35 acre temple...in the middle of the city. We're not talking about a parking-lot sized garden butting up against the temple itself, eh.

Protests already happening

 

[2minkey]

and this somehow exempts it from consideration as private property?

 

[MrBishop]

Looks pretty damn public to me.

 

[Inkara1]

Does it? Or is that just what you want it to mean for your straw man.

Yes, it does. "The Mormon Church hates gays" would mean that the church is anti-gay. "Mormons hate gays" means that the people hate gays. It seems like a simple concept, really. You said that Mormons hate gays and I can round up quite a few who don't hate them, regardless of how they feel about homosexual behavior.

That's yet another straw man. People gotta learn that this tactic doesn't work. I don't judge religions by their fundies

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. You sure do appear to be judging the LDS faith on its fundies, but apparently the man who works with words every day for a living can't read English and knows so much less about it than the man with the mystery job.

What's up with that? You might hit him? WTF.

Would you punch an ugly chick if she hit on you? What if you accidently hit on a lesbian? Should she clock you?

Sounds like you got a bit of the hate going there.

For as much as you repeat "straw man" (despite your spotty grasp of what that really is, considering I pointed out the thing about you accusing people of judging Islam by its fundamentalists and posting things from biased anti-Islam Web sites yet you posted items about violence from Mormon fundamentalists and from a biased anti-Mormon Web site, and you called that a "straw man"), you sure do seem to use a lot of your own logical fallacies.

You might want to read up here on fallacies. Your favorite seems to be the false dilemma.

 

[randomJACKASS]

....If a gay man were to hit on me, I'd probably not take it too well. I probably wouldn't hit him....

Doesn't sound like hate to me. If a gay man hit on me somewhat politely I would definitely not hit him, just tell him I wasn't gay and be flattered I suppose. If a gay man rudely hit on me, like groped me inappropriately, well he might get decked and I am sure that would be true of most guys. I think if you go and touch a woman inappropriately in the course of hitting on her, you should not at all be surprised if she slaps you. Its not hate, its just not tolerating being rudely disrespected.

 

[spike]

Yes, it does. "The Mormon Church hates gays" would mean that the church is anti-gay. "Mormons hate gays" means that the people hate gays.

Nope, "catholics are against abortion" means that the catholic stance is against abortion. Not that all catholics are against abortion.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. You sure do appear to be judging the LDS faith on its fundies, but apparently the man who works with words every day for a living can't read English and knows so much less about it than the man with the mystery job.

Wow, you'd think the guy who works with words everyday would realize posting a couple links proving Cerise wrong about their history of violience is not the same as judging all mormons by their fundies. Maybe you're not very good. Their weren't even any of my own words in that post.

I call bullshit.

For as much as you repeat "straw man" (despite your spotty grasp of what that really is, considering I pointed out the thing about you accusing people of judging Islam by its fundamentalists and posting things from biased anti-Islam Web sites yet you posted items about violence from Mormon fundamentalists and from a biased anti-Mormon Web site, and you called that a "straw man"), you sure do seem to use a lot of your own logical fallacies.

Obviously you don't understand the straw man. A straw man is attributing something to someone they did not say in a discussion. Proving Cerise wrong by showing that mormons do have a history of violence does not fit that description in the least.

Do a little research here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You might want to read up here on fallacies. Your favorite seems to be the false dilemma.

Yeah, that doesn't fit at all. You said "I probably wouldn't hit him". That necessarily means that you're not sure if you'd hit him. Somebody that works with words should know this.

Also you clearly stated that you wouldn't take it very well. Why is it that you wouldn't take it very well and there's some possibility that you would hit him?

 

[2minkey]

Looks pretty damn public to me.

that's great.

but it isn't public. it's owned by the church. please review original post.

 

[MrBishop]

I went looking. Seems that the city sold the land to the Church about 10 years ago, with a LOT of protests.

Hmmm...it separates part of the city from another. It's not gated or fenced off. There are no signs indicating that you're entering or leaving the property. Not sure about in SLC, but what about 'rights of passage'?

 

[Gonz]

Private property is managed by the owner. If you wish to change private porperty laws then, go for it.

 

[Inkara1]

Nope, "catholics are against abortion" means that the catholic stance is against abortion. Not that all catholics are against abortion.

The Catholic Church is against abortion. When I say a church is for or against something, I say the church is against it, not that Catholics or Mormons or Muslims or whoever are against it. That makes things clear and it doesn't make it look like I'm falsely generalizing the entire population.

Wow, you'd think the guy who works with words everyday

"Every day" is two words, chief.

would realize posting a couple links proving Cerise wrong about their history of violience is not the same as judging all mormons by their fundies. Maybe you're not very good. Their weren't even any of my own words in that post.

Oh, how silly of me to have thought that you had read my prior post, in which I said something along the lines of:
"You said Mormons hate gays. That means Mormons the people. Don't try to lie your way out of that. You're simply not good enough at playing semantics. Then, you tried to rationalize it however you wanted, which was to say that the church said and did all these things (without even providing proof of any of it, let alone all of what you said). By your rationale, you approved of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and you approved of Guantanamo Bay. After all, if an organization doing something at the top level means that all the members are the exact same say, then how is it any different for a government and its citizens?

You accuse people pf making hasty generalizations and yet you're just as guilty. Why the hypocrisy?"
and provided "proof" of your claims as I had mentioned you hadn't done previously.

I call bullshit.

Was there a point to adding that sentence other than to try to use my own words in an argument against me?

Obviously you don't understand the straw man. A straw man is attributing something to someone they did not say in a discussion. Proving Cerise wrong by showing that mormons do have a history of violence does not fit that description in the least.

Do a little research here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Did you even read your own link? A straw man is when you take what someone said, distort it and attack the distorted position. That's different than attributing something to someone that they didn't say.

If you had said the Mormon Church is against gay marriage and I told you what an ass you were being for saying Mormons picket at funerals of gay men with "god hates fags" signs, that would be a straw man argument. But you said Mormons hate gays, and that's not true.

Yeah, that doesn't fit at all. You said "I probably wouldn't hit him". That necessarily means that you're not sure if you'd hit him. Somebody that works with words should know this.

Stop being stupid. Everyone but you knows exactly what I meant, and in fact, you know what I meant too but are just trying to -- hey, what do you know? -- set up a straw man by saying I said I'd deck any gay man that hit on me (even though I didn't when I actually was in that exact situation) when that's a distorted version of what I said.

Also, when did I say you were creating a false dilemma in that post? I only said that is high on your list of favorite fallacies to use, particularly in your asking Cerise if she's a white supremacist.

Also you clearly stated that you wouldn't take it very well. Why is it that you wouldn't take it very well and there's some possibility that you would hit him?

RandomJACKASS stated it pretty well in his post above.

 

[spike]

The Catholic Church is against abortion. When I say a church is for or against something, I say the church is against it, not that Catholics or Mormons or Muslims or whoever are against it. That makes things clear and it doesn't make it look like I'm falsely generalizing the entire population.

Ah but you're trying to play semantics and aren't good enough at it. "Catholics are against abortion" is a perfectly valid statement and most would know exactly what you mean by it, unless they were trying to make an argument that wasn't there.

"Every day" is two words, chief.

So your more of a spelling guy than a comprehension kinda thing huh?

Oh, how silly of me to have thought that you had read my prior post

Wait, so you thought when Cerise said something like "Mormons don't have a history of..." and the very next post was a "a history of mormons..." that I was responding to you?

Was there a point to adding that sentence other than to try to use my own words in an argument against me?

Because it was obvious bullshit?

Did you even read your own link? A straw man is when you take what someone said, distort it and attack the distorted position.]

Yes, exactly what you keep trying to do.

That's different than attributing something to someone that they didn't say.

Yeah, this is attributing something to someone that they didn't say "Judging the Muslims by their fundamentalists: bad. Judging the Mormons by their fundamentalists: good."

Stop being stupid. Everyone but you knows exactly what I meant

I know, you're being a moron by thinking everyone doesn't know exactly what you meant.

by saying I said I'd deck any gay man that hit on me

Holy shit! That's like your 3rd straw man in this one thread. It's like you have one pitch that keeps getting hit out of the park but you keep going back to it again and again.

I never said you'd deck any guy that hit on you (straw man). What I asked was why you said "probably" because you obviously left some doubt there on purpose.

Also, when did I say you were creating a false dilemma in that post? I only said that is high on your list of favorite fallacies to use, particularly in your asking Cerise if she's a white supremacist.

Well shit, then you don't understand false dilemmas either. Asking Cerise if she was a white supremacist was curiosity. If someone asked me I'd say "hell no". Where's the false dilemma exactly there Inkara?

 

[spike]

Doesn't sound like hate to me. If a gay man hit on me somewhat politely I would definitely not hit him, just tell him I wasn't gay and be flattered I suppose. If a gay man rudely hit on me, like groped me inappropriately, well he might get decked and I am sure that would be true of most guys. I think if you go and touch a woman inappropriately in the course of hitting on her, you should not at all be surprised if she slaps you. Its not hate, its just not tolerating being rudely disrespected.

Yep, "hit on" and "groped" are certainly two different things.