Bill O'Reilly on gays and kids at the baseball game

[Fifty]

Oh come on. The "Padres" not having a gay agenda? Are you guys really that naive?

 

[Japanrocks12]

hey as long as it isn't NAMBLA trying to proselytize, I'm fine with it.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Careful, Skad. We're not talking about a government sponsered event here. We're talking about a private business trying to increase revenue through promotional events. Nothing wrong with that.

So does that mean the Padres could or should have "blue eyes night" or "Indian descent night" or the like?

I find it rather strange that the Padres had two promotions on the same night, whether related in some strange way or not. This double promtion seems especially strange, since trying to get as many families and homosexual couples in the same place is almost asking for something to go wrong.

Unless nobody ever goes to Padres games?

 

[Goonie]

Seeing gay couples is hardly going to hurt anyone. I could care less.

At Jay's games on the Jumbotron they used to play romantic music and show a couple on the screen in an attempt to get them to kiss. That did not scar me. Having kids realise that gay couples exist, and by treating them like all couples in the world will help fight narrow-minded intolerance.

 

[The Yankee]

Oh come on. The "Padres" not having a gay agenda? Are you guys really that naive?

I suppose that's why they had to get rid of this logo:



Bill O'Reilly making America safe for children's dreams once again.

 

[Che Guava]

They're going to learn about it sometime, and what better time than to have a chat with the kids then the seventh inning stretch...?

 

[Phlegmak]

You can not turn people into homosexuals.

I completely disagree, but that's a discussion for another thread.

 

[Atlas14]

Sure. That doesn't give anyone a license to display overtly sexual behavior in public. If, during a promotionless night, a male-female couple were caught having sex in the stands, would it be accepted as normal, and in line with what one could expect on "straight couple night"? No, the exhibitionism is inappropriate, no matter who it is, and the people responsible for it should be singled out and considered separately from any group they might identify with. What I mean is that it's dishonest to use "gay night" to mean to "public sex night", as though it's somehow explained or excused that way.

I don't think I quite understand what you're saying, or what you support/don't support as far as this goes.

But if you're saying that such behavior shouldn't be accepted on any night, promotion night or not, then I agree. But it is odd that they chose to bring in more kids the very night that they knew there would be greater numbers of people kissing than a promotionless night. TBH, if they had a heterosexual night, I'd feel more in the mood for kissing whichever female I brought to the game. But kids shouldn't be asked to come in greater numbers on such nights, and to suggest that is "reality" is a bit off. In my everyday routine, I don't see 40,000 homosexuals or heterosexuals kissing and such in the spirit of a Padres promotion.

 

[JollyRoger]

Baseball is gay anyway. 4 balls gets you to first base.

 

[The Yankee]

Probably a scheduling goof on their part. You know how it is with sports teams, there's a promotion of one kind or another every other game.

 

[Atlas14]

Probably a scheduling goof on their part. You know how it is with sports teams, there's a promotion of one kind or another every other game.

Are the Padres having a tough time selling wieners and buns?

 

[Phlegmak]

By the way, this is from the Onion, but it's probably the most nonfictional article they've ever written, and I find it humorously appropriate to this thread.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.

"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."

The parade, organized by the Los Angeles Gay And Lesbian And Bisexual And Transvestite And Transgender Alliance (LAGALABATATA), was intended to "promote acceptance, tolerance, and equality for the city's gay community." Just the opposite, however, was accomplished, as the event confirmed the worst fears of thousands of non-gay spectators, cementing in their minds a debauched and distorted image of gay life straight out of the most virulent right-wing hate literature.

Among the parade sights and sounds that did inestimable harm to the gay-rights cause: a group of obese women in leather biker outfits passing out clitoris-shaped lollipops to horrified onlookers; a man in military uniform leading a submissive masochist, clad in diapers and a baby bonnet, around on a dog leash; several Hispanic dancers in rainbow wigs and miniskirts performing "humping" motions on a mannequin dressed as the Pope; and a dozen gyrating drag queens in see-through dresses holding penis-shaped beer bottles that appeared to spurt ejaculation-like foam when shaken and poured onto passersby.

Timothy Orosco, 51, a local Walgreens manager whose store is on the parade route, changed his attitude toward gays as a result of the event.

"They kept chanting things like, 'We're here, we're queer, get used to it!' and 'Hey, hey, we're gay, we're not going to go away!'" Orosco said. "All I can say is, I was used to it, but now, although I'd never felt this way before, I wish they would go away."

Allison Weber, 43, an El Segundo marketing consultant, also had her perceptions and assumptions about gays challenged by the parade.

"My understanding was that gay people are just like everybody else–decent, hard-working people who care about their communities and have loving, committed relationships," Weber said. "But, after this terrifying spectacle, I don't want them teaching my kids or living in my neighborhood."

The parade's influence extended beyond L.A.'s borders, altering the attitudes of straight people across America. Footage of the event was featured on telecasts of The 700 Club as "proof of the sin-steeped world of homosexuality." A photo spread in Monday's USA Today chronicled many of the event's vulgar displays–understood by gays to be tongue-in-cheek "high camp"–which horrified previously tolerant people from coast to coast.

Dr. Henry Thorne, a New York University history professor who has written several books about the gay-rights movement, explained the misunderstanding.

"After centuries of oppression as an 'invisible' segment of society, gays, emboldened by the 1969 Stonewall uprising, took to the streets in the early '70s with an 'in-your-face' attitude. Confronting the worst prejudices of a world that didn't accept them, they fought back against these prejudices with exaggeration and parody, reclaiming their enemies' worst stereotypes about them and turning them into symbols of gay pride," Thorne said. "Thirty years later, gays have won far greater acceptance in the world at large, but they keep doing this stuff anyway."

"Mostly, I think, because it's really fun," Thorne added.

The Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade, Thorne noted, is part of a decades-old gay-rights tradition. But, for mainstream heterosexuals unfamiliar with irony and the reclamation of stereotypes for the purpose of exploding them, the parade resembled an invasion of grotesque outer-space mutants, bent on the destruction of the human race.

"I have a cousin who's a gay, and he seemed like a decent enough guy to me," said Iowa City, IA, resident Russ Linder, in Los Angeles for a weekend sales seminar. "Now, thanks to this parade, I realize what a freak he's been all along. Gays are all sick, immoral perverts."

Parade organizers vowed to make changes in the wake of the negative reaction among heterosexuals.

"I knew it. I said we needed 100 dancers on the 'Show Us Your Ass' float, but everybody insisted that 50 would be enough," said Lady Labia, spokesperson for LAGALABATATA. "Next year, we're really going to give those breeders something to look at."

 

[Ecofarm]

So does that mean the Padres could or should have "blue eyes night" or "Indian descent night" or the like?

I often edit after the post to clarify. I should use word and cut/paste, but I'm lazy.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5845661&postcount=15


Posted by atlas:

But if you're saying that such behavior shouldn't be accepted on any night, promotion night or not, then I agree.

The behavior being sex. As long as it is clearly advertised, and warning banners adorn the entryways, and no sex is allowed outside stadium, and they clean up, why not?

 

[Atlas14]

Posted by atlas:


The behavior being sex. As long as it is clearly advertised, and warning banners adorn the entryways, and no sex is allowed outside stadium, and they clean up, why not?

Yes. Though, the two promotions should not have been scheduled together on the same night.

 

[LucyDuke]

I don't think I quite understand what you're saying, or what you support/don't support as far as this goes.

But if you're saying that such behavior shouldn't be accepted on any night, promotion night or not, then I agree. But it is odd that they chose to bring in more kids the very night that they knew there would be greater numbers of people kissing than a promotionless night. TBH, if they had a heterosexual night, I'd feel more in the mood for kissing whichever female I brought to the game. But kids shouldn't be asked to come in greater numbers on such nights, and to suggest that is "reality" is a bit off. In my everyday routine, I don't see 40,000 homosexuals or heterosexuals kissing and such in the spirit of a Padres promotion.

What I'm saying about the gay angle is "why do you care?". Then I'm saying that no matter how people are matched up, they should be respectful of whereever it is that they are. That it doesn't matter what group you identify with, that you need to behave yourself in public. I don't like how the scorn for exhibitionism is expressed as scorn for homosexuality.

If they had heterosexual night at a baseball game, you wouldn't start undressing your lady, would you? The average homosexual wouldn't push that line, either, at a baseball game. It's not a nightclub, it's a sporting event. Even if it's "gay night", it's still a baseball game.

I might just not understand the nature of the promotion. If there were a heterosexual night, and it were co-incident with a kids' night, would you bring your children then? Is it reasonable to expect all the couples to be kissing? Why does it matter whether a bunch of women are kissing men in front of the kids or a bunch of women are kissing women in front of the kids?

One thing I know I don't understand is the desire to hide homosexuality from children. Homosexuality is reality, whether you like it or not. It's there, and it's not going away because you don't want to look. Kids aren't stupid, and they can see that it's there. The only time people feel the need to "explain" it is when they see it as something different from heterosexuality - do you feel any need to "explain" to your child why you kiss your wife? The people who don't like it certainly see it as different, but still, why hide it from the children? If you think it's wrong, tell that to your child. Don't pretend it's not there. (This veered off-track a little bit, and isn't directed at you, Atlas, unless you think it ought to be.)

It is a little odd that they'd run two promotions of any kind on the same night. I just don't see a problem with mixing gays and kids.

 

[Japanrocks12]

What I'm saying about the gay angle is "why do you care?". Then I'm saying that no matter how people are matched up, they should be respectful of whereever it is that they are. That it doesn't matter what group you identify with, that you need to behave yourself in public. I don't like how the scorn for exhibitionism is expressed as scorn for homosexuality.

If they had heterosexual night at a baseball game, you wouldn't start undressing your lady, would you? The average homosexual wouldn't push that line, either, at a baseball game. It's not a nightclub, it's a sporting event. Even if it's "gay night", it's still a baseball game.

I might just not understand the nature of the promotion. If there were a heterosexual night, and it were co-incident with a kids' night, would you bring your children then? Is it reasonable to expect all the couples to be kissing? Why does it matter whether a bunch of women are kissing men in front of the kids or a bunch of women are kissing women in front of the kids?

One thing I know I don't understand is the desire to hide homosexuality from children. Homosexuality is reality, whether you like it or not. It's there, and it's not going away because you don't want to look. Kids aren't stupid, and they can see that it's there. The only time people feel the need to "explain" it is when they see it as something different from heterosexuality - do you feel any need to "explain" to your child why you kiss your wife? The people who don't like it certainly see it as different, but still, why hide it from the children? If you think it's wrong, tell that to your child. Don't pretend it's not there. (This veered off-track a little bit, and isn't directed at you, Atlas, unless you think it ought to be.)

It is a little odd that they'd run two promotions of any kind on the same night. I just don't see a problem with mixing gays and kids.

all of this quoted for truth. we finally agree on something.

 

[LightFang]

Just having a gay night is wrong. Can I have man night? white people night? Blue eyed people night? Or how about fat people night? And much as I am for gay rights they only hurt them selves by throwing it in the face of every one else. Why can't gays just be like every one else and go do normal things with out the giant " Hey I'm gay!" banner. Most people don't care.

As for bill and the crazy lady they are of course over the top.

QFT. Yes, I came into this thread a page behind, but still, QFT.

 

[Leonel]

Just to be sure, what would this "gays night" constitute? Would it just be a get together to talk about things in a civil manner or would it render radical right-wing literature a gross understatement as Phlegmak mentioned in his article?

 

[fishlore]

All I know is that I wouldn't go to a "gay night" anything. I wouldn't bring my kid, wouldn't bring my dog, wouldn't bring myself. Just let me know ahead of time when "gay night" is and I'm all good. Even if "gay night" fell on "free money night" I would avoid it at all costs. Nothing personal, I have no problems with people doing their thing, I just don't ever, ever, ever want to see it.

 

[LucyDuke]

all of this quoted for truth. we finally agree on something.

I hadn't realized we were disagreeing.

All I know is that I wouldn't go to a "gay night" anything. I wouldn't bring my kid, wouldn't bring my dog, wouldn't bring myself. Just let me know ahead of time when "gay night" is and I'm all good. Even if "gay night" fell on "free money night" I would avoid it at all costs. Nothing personal, I have no problems with people doing their thing, I just don't ever, ever, ever want to see it.

Are you sure about that? If I were standing in front of you in line at the bank, and I kissed a girl, you would have no problems with it? (I know banks aren't the best place to be kissing, when I think about it, but who begrudges spouses pecking each other in public?) "I don't want to see it" is a pretty good indicator of some kind of problem. Not that there's anything wrong with that.