This whole Main Street Plaza thing sure has done something

[smokymountainrain]

1) you've never seen married couples posing for pictures? I am sure you have, no?

2) Fair point. We don't. Or at least I don't. And nothing in what I have read thus far. But since they were arrested for trespassing and not public indecency, it is highly unlikely that they were doing anything "gross." It would have been in the Church's best interest to have them arrested for something indecent. It would be much harder for the media to attack the Church if these men were behaving crudely (by any public standards). Who is going to fault the Church if these men come onto Temple Square and start simulating sexual acts or engaging in L&L behavior?

If these men were engaging in crude behavior, then I would agree with the spokeswoman that security would ask any couple to cut it out.

I have been to many weddings at Temple Square. I've never seen those couples engaging in much more than quick kisses and I've never seen a security guard in the vicinity. Perhaps I haven't been observant enough, but until I do see a security guard watch a hetero couple being "gross" and ignore it, I will withold judgement.

[RobinFinderson]

I think you are basing your belief on what specific acts precipitated the request to leave on articles quoting the trespassers. I don't think there is any clear indication as to what was going on between the two homosexuals. Without that you can't determine whether she is lying or not.

Personally, I have seen very little in the way of outrageous heterosexual displays of affection that has not be censured. I prefer to believe that outrageous homoseuxal displays were the problem here and therefore, the Church spokeswoman wasn't lying. I have no reason to believe that she was.

Would two men kissing tenderly be 'outrageous?' You see, I actually agree with you, that the spokesperson may not be lying, in her own mind. The key word here is 'inappropriate' behavior. Homosexual affection, probably to the guards and the spokesperson, is by definition, 'inappropriate.' The same behavior, by heteros, would not be considered 'inappropriate.' If heteros were engaged in 'inappropriate' PDA, say homosexual kissing, they would be asked to leave the property in the exact same way this gay couple was asked to leave.

I really think the PR department plays with the meanings of words like this. Maybe this makes them a good PR department, but it just comes across as slick to me.

[smokymountainrain]

how do you propose that we "get all the facts?" where can we get them? let me know because I would love to see them.

At what point will we know when we have all the facts?

We likely won't ever get all the facts. Hence the reason it would seem wise to avoid some of the criticism toward the church that is found in this thread.

[cowboy]

I have been to many weddings at Temple Square. I've never seen those couples engaging in much more than quick kisses and I've never seen a security guard in the vicinity. Perhaps I haven't been observant enough, but until I do see a security guard watch a hetero couple being "gross" and ignore it, I will withold judgement.

If it had been two hot girls, they wouldn't have done a thing. It's not discrimination against gay, it's discrimination against ugly which, to my knowledge, is not a protected class.

[il Padrino Ute]

how do you propose that we "get all the facts?" where can we get them? let me know because I would love to see them.

At what point will we know when we have all the facts?

How about deposing all involved?

[All-American]

1) you've never seen married couples posing for pictures? I am sure you have, no?

2) Fair point. We don't. Or at least I don't. And nothing in what I have read thus far. But since they were arrested for trespassing and not public indecency, it is highly unlikely that they were doing anything "gross." It would have been in the Church's best interest to have them arrested for something indecent. It would be much harder for the media to attack the Church if these men were behaving crudely (by any public standards). Who is going to fault the Church if these men come onto Temple Square and start simulating sexual acts or engaging in L&L behavior?

If these men were engaging in crude behavior, then I would agree with the spokeswoman that security would ask any couple to cut it out.

I'm willing to bet that the two men were not engaged in any behavior that would have been considered illegal if it had happened on any public street in Salt Lake.

[il Padrino Ute]

I really think the PR department plays with the meanings of words like this. Maybe this makes them a good PR department, but it just comes across as slick to me.

So, you're saying that it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[Eddie]

I've had personal knowledge of too many incidents that ended up in the paper or on the news to believe that 1) the reporter got the story entirely correct or 2) that someone quoted by the reporter didn't lie.

That said - I'm not sure there is enough information here to determine what did or didn't happen and how security might have reacted if it had been a hetero couple.

So a gay couple takes a stroll on temple square, kisses, and is surprised when security reacts. And there are people here who truly believe this wasn't somewhat orchestrated? Seriously?

If I'm gay and have determined that the LDS church hates me, what the hell am I doing walking around temple square holding hands and kissing my man friend? Doesn't SLC have any other parks where I could walk and be in a more comfortable environment? Where I wasn't feeling hated?

I just can't imagine someone really believing that there was no element of orchestration to this situation.

Next - it is certain that the LDS PR person is lying. But gay guys lying about what they did and what happened isn't a possiblity? I'm referring to his description of what they were doing when asked to leave.

And I'm OK with them being asked to leave rather than asked to refrain from making out. Not because they are gay and gay men kissing is an afront to my sensibilities. But because when you reach the conclusion that there was an element of orchestration to the event and that these fellers wanted attention, then it is simply time to invite them to leave.

I don't know what happened. Maybe it happened just like the kissing buddies said it happened. Maybe it didn't. But I'm not beyond believing that kissing buddies looking for attention who have at least partially orchestrated how to get it could also be less than accurate in their description once the press arrives.

I'm also not beyond believing that the LDS PR person is focusing on the easier concept to sell, and attempting to look reasonable.

Having been to temple square a few times, I've honestly never seen folks there making out and I've never done it myself to see how security would react. Perhaps it should be tested out to see if all couples, both homo and hetero, would be treated the same.

I do find it humorous that some would give the benefit of the doubt to the offended parties, but not the property owner - as if one has an interest in appearing a certain way while the other does not.

[TripletDaddy]

We likely won't ever get all the facts. Hence the reason it would seem wise to avoid some of the criticism toward the church that is found in this thread.

Life is full of decisions. We make them with the information we have.

Like Bruce Red said, every day is a day of judgment. I base my decisions on known facts, track record, reasonable person standard, and a dash of intuition. My guess is that you do the same because I don't think you are advocating not coming to conclusions on social issues simply because we don't have all the facts. Did OJ do it? Did Clinton have all those affairs? Did Reagan supply the Contras? We don't have all the facts....

These homosexuality issues will continue to persist. It will become continually harder to defend them, which is why (as with the blacks), the Church's public stance will eventually change. People are going to get sick of trying to rationalize something that fundamentally can't be rationalized very well.

[SoonerCoug]

I just can't imagine someone really believing that there was no element of orchestration to this situation.

Since the LDS Church's own news organizations (KSL/desnews) have been reporting on this, perhaps they would be brave enough (or biased enough) to suggest the "orchestration" aspect of the story.

[Eddie]

Would two men kissing tenderly be 'outrageous?' You see, I actually agree with you, that the spokesperson may not be lying, in her own mind. The key word here is 'inappropriate' behavior. Homosexual affection, probably to the guards and the spokesperson, is by definition, 'inappropriate.' The same behavior, by heteros, would not be considered 'inappropriate.' If heteros were engaged in 'inappropriate' PDA, say homosexual kissing, they would be asked to leave the property in the exact same way this gay couple was asked to leave.

I really think the PR department plays with the meanings of words like this. Maybe this makes them a good PR department, but it just comes across as slick to me.

I can't discount what you say. It could be true.

However, have you considered some of the rules at BYU and worse, BYU-Idaho? Do you really think an organization that can come up with the rule that no one is permitted to wear shorts (even heterosexual people) isn't capable of also coming up with rules about how much PDA is too much (yes, even for hetersexual couples.)

I'm not saying what you describe is beyond the church. I am saying that the explanation you offer isn't the only potential explanation.

[All-American]

I've had personal knowledge of too many incidents that ended up in the paper or on the news to believe that 1) the reporter got the story entirely correct or 2) that someone quoted by the reporter didn't lie.

That said - I'm not sure there is enough information here to determine what did or didn't happen and how security might have reacted if it had been a hetero couple.

So a gay couple takes a stroll on temple square, kisses, and is surprised when security reacts. And there are people here who truly believe this wasn't somewhat orchestrated? Seriously?

If I'm gay and have determined that the LDS church hates me, what the hell am I doing walking around temple square holding hands and kissing my man friend? Doesn't SLC have any other parks where I could walk and be in a more comfortable environment? Where I wasn't feeling hated?

I just can't imagine someone really believing that there was no element of orchestration to this situation.

Next - it is certain that the LDS PR person is lying. But gay guys lying about what they did and what happened isn't a possiblity? I'm referring to his description of what they were doing when asked to leave.

And I'm OK with them being asked to leave rather than asked to refrain from making out. Not because they are gay and gay men kissing is an afront to my sensibilities. But because when you reach the conclusion that there was an element of orchestration to the event and that these fellers wanted attention, then it is simply time to invite them to leave.

I don't know what happened. Maybe it happened just like the kissing buddies said it happened. Maybe it didn't. But I'm not beyond believing that kissing buddies looking for attention who have at least partially orchestrated how to get it could also be less than accurate in their description once the press arrives.

I'm also not beyond believing that the LDS PR person is focusing on the easier concept to sell, and attempting to look reasonable.

Having been to temple square a few times, I've honestly never seen folks there making out and I've never done it myself to see how security would react. Perhaps it should be tested out to see if all couples, both homo and hetero, would be treated the same.

I do find it humorous that some would give the benefit of the doubt to the offended parties, but not the property owner - as if one has an interest in appearing a certain way while the other does not.

Good points.

1. Odd that a homosexual couple would think a nice stroll down the private property of an organization devoted to fighting against homosexual rights would make for a pleasant afternoon.

2. The presence of church security at the plaza isn't exactly suffocating. Of all the times I've been there, I can't particularly recall having seen somebody on the plaza that was from Church security. If Church security really detected something as small as a peck on the cheek, their gaydar technology is truly impressive.

Neither of these points is particularly relevant to the bottom line: they were asked to leave, and refused to peacefully comply. But in the end, nobody is complaining about the rights of an owner of private property to keep out those who they do not want present.

Who knows, maybe it really was just a peck on the cheek as they were passing through.

[byu71]

Since the LDS Church's own news organizations (KSL/desnews) have been reporting on this, perhaps they would be brave enough (or biased enough) to suggest the "orchestration" aspect of the story.

I came to the "orchestration" conclusion all on my own. Perhaps though it wasn't "orchestration", but an event that caused some vent up frustrations to come flowing out. How dare they tell me I can't be kissing here.

[Eddie]

Since the LDS Church's own news organizations (KSL/desnews) have been reporting on this, perhaps they would be brave enough (or biased enough) to suggest the "orchestration" aspect of the story.

Maybe they should. I don't know.

A couple of thoughts about this -

First, it wouldn't surprise me if they were more interested in disconnecting themselves from the LDS church. This seems like a fairly harmless story to use in order to do that - not great PR for the church, but fairly harmless. Perhaps they don't want to appear as being in the church's backpocket. How long ago was it that the D-News wanted to purchase the Tribune and one of the arguments against it was that the area needed a voice independent of the LDS church?

Second, knowing or believing something to be true doesn't mean it can be proven. These guys are never going to admit to orchestrating it, and neither are their friends they may have told. And OJ Simpson is still looking for whoever killed his ex-wife too.

[TripletDaddy]

I just can't imagine someone really believing that there was no element of orchestration to this situation.

I would be fine stipulating that the entire thing had been orchestrated. Not sure of the relevance to our discussion.

Reminds me of the people that were filmed to be in the Borat film. After they saw their wildly racist and embarrassing behavior on film, they sued SBC for being "duped," that the movie was orchestrated to cast them in a poor light. Not a single lawsuit was successful.

The more I think about it, the tresspass thing is the smoking gun. This way, nobody has to describe this alleged inappropriate behavior. If the security were forced to describe the inappropriate behavior and then offered up kissing and hand holding, then the Church looks homophobic. This tresspass thing is probably a blessing in disguise.