Is America ready for a openly gay Supreme Court justice?"

[Nik]

there you have it....nik proves yurt right

you're like a talking parrot

Incorrect. Yet again. Because thats not what you said before.

see post above....what strawman....and yes...you did prove me right....another...you're a homophobe because i say so...(yawn)

Oy. Ok, for the retarded.

There is a difference between saying you MUST like them because they are gay (regardless of opinions) and saying you should not dislike them solely because they are gay. We are saying leave the gayness out, its a nonissue. Those who want to prevent a justice from being on the court, solely because they are gay, are homophobic.

 

[Nik]

1. what strawman....until you identify that, there is no point in further discussing anything with you

I explained the strawman. Open your eyes.

LMAO....you don't even know what a strawman is....LMAO

dude, that argument HAS BEEN RAISED, thus it is no strawman, in fact it is the core of the debate....

No, it hasn't. The argument is what if you don't support a gay justice BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. You can dislike a gay justice because they write bad opinions, or are stupid, or for any number of reasons.

 

[Yurt]

Incorrect. Yet again. Because thats not what you said before.

see post above....what strawman....and yes...you did prove me right....another...you're a homophobe because i say so...(yawn)

Oy. Ok, for the retarded.

There is a difference between saying you MUST like them because they are gay (regardless of opinions) and saying you should not dislike them solely because they are gay. We are saying leave the gayness out, its a nonissue. Those who want to prevent a justice from being on the court, solely because they are gay, are homophobic.

you're so myopic you don't even see the irony in your stupidity....

you want the gayness left entirely out....its a non issue, well, for some it is not. maybe, JUST MAYBE it is part of the overall they do not approve. you still can't wrap your head around the fact that just because someone does not approve of homosexuality they are not a homophobe.

your words are but school yard taunts. you want to bash those who do not support your beliefs. you are familyphobe. you are against those who support hetrosexual marriage only. you're a hetrophobe you bigot.....

 

[Yurt]

I explained the strawman. Open your eyes.

LMAO....you don't even know what a strawman is....LMAO

dude, that argument HAS BEEN RAISED, thus it is no strawman, in fact it is the core of the debate....

No, it hasn't. The argument is what if you don't support a gay justice BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. You can dislike a gay justice because they write bad opinions, or are stupid, or for any number of reasons.

are you actually claiming that that argument has never been brought up in this thread?

 

[Yukon]

I see no problem with a homosexual Judge on the USSC. What the heck, there is a perverted Negro on the USSC now.

 

[Amanda]

Like I said, right or wrong his reasoning is sound. And for the record, he strikes me as quite a bit of a douche. But when it comes to blatantly faulty logic I don't play favorites.

Maybe you can explain what his reasoning is then, because I haven't seen it. Just a statement without any supporting evidence.

Perhaps this:


Or maybe this:

I can't think of any other reasons. Can you? If you can, feel free to try and prove me wrong. But try to avoid the asinine request of asking me to prove a negative. No, I haven't thought of every single reason anyone could ever think of ever for opposing gay judges. But I have dealt with homophobic assholes a lot and heard the same arguments over and over again. And I've never heard of one against gay judges. So if you can come up with one, kudos. But until you, or someone else, does, I am going to stick with my assertion.

Or maybe this

He said he could see no other reason. Neither can I.

Why don't you give it the old college try.

So. Gonna stop bullshitting anytime soon?

It would be nice if you learned how to attribute a quote. I recognize Mani and Jillian's quotes. I don't remember seeing the other 1 so I don't know where it comes from.

But at any rate thank for you admitting you can not and will not back up your assertion. I think it's ironic that if I were to make a similar claim I'd be jumped all over if I didn't provide my reasoning and when I did I'd likely be called stupid or homophobic for giving it. My guess is that you don't want to open your reasoning to critique because you know where that would lead. That's fine it's pretty much what I've come to expect. I agree with Yurt on the weakness of the "because I said so" nature of the responses I've been getting.

Here's 1 of my thoughts (I'll give you something to attack so you can ignore everything else ) on the subject: I don't have any problem with diversity on the supreme court, however I think it should be proportionate to the people they are presiding over. For example, I think roughly half should be women because women are roughly half of the population. According to 1 source I looked up the census bureau projected the black population at 12% for 2008, so clearly there should be at least 1 black justice. I think a criteria that represents the population of the people would be fair. Do we have enough homosexuals in this country to warrant representation? I don't know, but that is how I would begin to look at the question.

So I did.

The SCOTUS is comprised of 9 justices, thus if evenly divided each should represent about 11% of the people.

According to Gary Gates a Senior Research Fellow at The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, a think tank dedicated to the field of sexual orientation law and public policy the 1-in-10 number for LGBTs isn't entirely accurate. Here's what he says:

That's the single question that I'm asked the most. The answer is unfortunately not simple. I'll respond with a question. What do you mean when you use the word 'gay'? If you mean people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in a survey, then the answer is that it's likely not one in ten, but closer to one in twenty. A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.' A similar proportion of voters identify as GLB. If you define gay as having same-sex attractions or behaviors, you do get higher proportions that are a bit closer to the one in ten figure."

(Interview with Gary Gates of The Williams Institute)

There ya go, an expert doesn't think it's quite 1 in 10 that are gay. To meet my criteria they could have needed to have at least 11% to warrant inclusion.

See? That was easy. I don't know why you guys could pony up a decent response, that wasn't hard at all.

 

[Yurt]

I see no problem with a homosexual Judge on the USSC. What the heck, there is a perverted Negro on the USSC now.

holy crap, you're right, all those whiteys on the court are spotless, sinless, perfect, damn dude, i wish i would have heard your speeches earlier in life....

 

[Yukon]

Soon the USSC will be stacked with homosexuals and perverts. All they need now is a "junkie". Good luck trying to ban abortion.........

 

[Ravi]

Soon the USSC will be stacked with homosexuals and perverts. All they need now is a "junkie". Good luck trying to ban abortion.........

You plan on applying?

 

[Nik]

see post above....what strawman....and yes...you did prove me right....another...you're a homophobe because i say so...(yawn)

Oy. Ok, for the retarded.

There is a difference between saying you MUST like them because they are gay (regardless of opinions) and saying you should not dislike them solely because they are gay. We are saying leave the gayness out, its a nonissue. Those who want to prevent a justice from being on the court, solely because they are gay, are homophobic.

you're so myopic you don't even see the irony in your stupidity....

you want the gayness left entirely out....its a non issue, well, for some it is not. maybe, JUST MAYBE it is part of the overall they do not approve. you still can't wrap your head around the fact that just because someone does not approve of homosexuality they are not a homophobe.

your words are but school yard taunts. you want to bash those who do not support your beliefs. you are familyphobe. you are against those who support hetrosexual marriage only. you're a hetrophobe you bigot.....

If gayness is an issue, then you are a homophobe.

ho⋅mo⋅phobe
  /ˈhoʊməˌfoʊb/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hoh-muh-fohb] Show IPA
–noun
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

Its definitionally true. Jesus.

 

[Nik]

LMAO....you don't even know what a strawman is....LMAO

dude, that argument HAS BEEN RAISED, thus it is no strawman, in fact it is the core of the debate....

No, it hasn't. The argument is what if you don't support a gay justice BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. You can dislike a gay justice because they write bad opinions, or are stupid, or for any number of reasons.

are you actually claiming that that argument has never been brought up in this thread?

Wow. Just wow. I really don't know how to say it any simpler. How did you manage to pass the first grade? Of course I guess I shouldn't be that surprised, since your way of condeming Wanda Sykes behavior was to imitate her.

 

[Yurt]

Oy. Ok, for the retarded.

There is a difference between saying you MUST like them because they are gay (regardless of opinions) and saying you should not dislike them solely because they are gay. We are saying leave the gayness out, its a nonissue. Those who want to prevent a justice from being on the court, solely because they are gay, are homophobic.

you're so myopic you don't even see the irony in your stupidity....

you want the gayness left entirely out....its a non issue, well, for some it is not. maybe, JUST MAYBE it is part of the overall they do not approve. you still can't wrap your head around the fact that just because someone does not approve of homosexuality they are not a homophobe.

your words are but school yard taunts. you want to bash those who do not support your beliefs. you are familyphobe. you are against those who support hetrosexual marriage only. you're a hetrophobe you bigot.....

If gayness is an issue, then you are a homophobe.

ho⋅mo⋅phobe
  /ˈhoʊməˌfoʊb/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hoh-muh-fohb] Show IPA
–noun
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.

Its definitionally true. Jesus.

you just, again, proved my point....what strawman you moron

 

[Yurt]

Soon the USSC will be stacked with homosexuals and perverts. All they need now is a "junkie". Good luck trying to ban abortion.........

You plan on applying?

why...are you the chapter president?

why can't you answer the questions about what is really a homophobe? why do you run away from tough discussions?

do you support a father and daugher marrying? would you support a father who married his daughter and now has kids with her, for a justice position on the united states supreme court?

 

[Nik]

Maybe you can explain what his reasoning is then, because I haven't seen it. Just a statement without any supporting evidence.

Perhaps this:


Or maybe this:


Or maybe this



So. Gonna stop bullshitting anytime soon?

It would be nice if you learned how to attribute a quote. I recognize Mani and Jillian's quotes. I don't remember seeing the other 1 so I don't know where it comes from.

I had already stated that Manifold and Jillian had stated support. Its not my fault if you have memory issues.

But at any rate thank for you admitting you can not and will not back up your assertion. I think it's ironic that if I were to make a similar claim I'd be jumped all over if I didn't provide my reasoning and when I did I'd likely be called stupid or homophobic for giving it. My guess is that you don't want to open your reasoning to critique because you know where that would lead. That's fine it's pretty much what I've come to expect. I agree with Yurt on the weakness of the "because I said so" nature of the responses I've been getting.

You another moron who can't differentiate subtle differences?

Here's 1 of my thoughts (I'll give you something to attack so you can ignore everything else ) on the subject: I don't have any problem with diversity on the supreme court, however I think it should be proportionate to the people they are presiding over. For example, I think roughly half should be women because women are roughly half of the population. According to 1 source I looked up the census bureau projected the black population at 12% for 2008, so clearly there should be at least 1 black justice. I think a criteria that represents the population of the people would be fair. Do we have enough homosexuals in this country to warrant representation? I don't know, but that is how I would begin to look at the question.

So I did.

The SCOTUS is comprised of 9 justices, thus if evenly divided each should represent about 11% of the people.

According to Gary Gates a Senior Research Fellow at The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, a think tank dedicated to the field of sexual orientation law and public policy the 1-in-10 number for LGBTs isn't entirely accurate. Here's what he says:

That's the single question that I'm asked the most. The answer is unfortunately not simple. I'll respond with a question. What do you mean when you use the word 'gay'? If you mean people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in a survey, then the answer is that it's likely not one in ten, but closer to one in twenty. A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.' A similar proportion of voters identify as GLB. If you define gay as having same-sex attractions or behaviors, you do get higher proportions that are a bit closer to the one in ten figure."

(Interview with Gary Gates of The Williams Institute)

There ya go, an expert doesn't think it's quite 1 in 10 that are gay. To meet my criteria they could have needed to have at least 11% to warrant inclusion.

See? That was easy. I don't know why you guys could pony up a decent response, that wasn't hard at all.

Congratulations. You managed to find a reason thats not homophobic. Of course its so incredibly stupid that nobody would actually believe that, but you did find one. Kudos on a job poorly done.

 

[Nik]

Soon the USSC will be stacked with homosexuals and perverts. All they need now is a "junkie". Good luck trying to ban abortion.........

You plan on applying?

why...are you the chapter president?

why can't you answer the questions about what is really a homophobe? why do you run away from tough discussions?

do you support a father and daugher marrying? would you support a father who married his daughter and now has kids with her, for a justice position on the united states supreme court?

Daughters grow up with their father always having power over them. Consent is too much of an issue. Same reason we don't let adults fuck 14 year olds.

Next?

 

[Yurt]

You plan on applying?

why...are you the chapter president?

why can't you answer the questions about what is really a homophobe? why do you run away from tough discussions?

do you support a father and daugher marrying? would you support a father who married his daughter and now has kids with her, for a justice position on the united states supreme court?

Daughters grow up with their father always having power over them. Consent is too much of an issue. Same reason we don't let adults fuck 14 year olds.

Next?

so that is all that matters is consent? if anyone grows up with someone having power over them, then there can be no consent....is that what you are saying?

 

[Article 15]

Let's try this:

If you have two Supreme Court Justice nominees with all things being constant between them save one is a homosexual and the other is a heterosexual would you support one of the other? If so, why?

 

[Yurt]

Let's try this:

If you have two Supreme Court Justice nominees with all things being constant between them save one is a homosexual and the other is a heterosexual would you support one of the other? If so, why?

let me ask you this...

if someone supports the homosexual over the hetrosexual, are they hetrophobe?

 

[Article 15]

Let's try this:

If you have two Supreme Court Justice nominees with all things being constant between them save one is a homosexual and the other is a heterosexual would you support one of the other? If so, why?

let me ask you this...

if someone supports the homosexual over the hetrosexual, are they hetrophobe?

It's a possibility.

Do you have a response to the question(s) I asked?

 

[Yurt]

Let's try this:

If you have two Supreme Court Justice nominees with all things being constant between them save one is a homosexual and the other is a heterosexual would you support one of the other? If so, why?

let me ask you this...

if someone supports the homosexual over the hetrosexual, are they hetrophobe?

It's a possibility.

Do you have a response to the question(s) I asked?

fair enough....

Let's try this:

If you have two Supreme Court Justice nominees with all things being constant between them save one is a homosexual and the other is a heterosexual would you support one of (sic) the other? If so, why?

the homosexual.

this country is about man made laws. there is a struggle between those who believe that since the founding fathers were christian (mostly) and the foundations of this country are in fact rooted in christianity (some say christo-judiasm or whatever, same thing) that when america speaks in a christian voice, it is not "establishing" christianity becuase christianity establisthed this country,.

they have a strong point. then there is the first amendment. what to make of that....oh boy. on its face, it says that america shall not establish a religion....or establish a religion over another. you and i could probably write reviews back and forth on this....but you get the point.

i'm for the homosexual because there is no reason that a homosexual should be outlawed from serving on the bench, according to our constitution. black people have been put on the bench solely for being black, women are NOW still being talked about being put on the bench for merely being women....i disagree with that train of thought. it is illogical. the constitution does not mandate that the scotus be a cross section of any community.

why i would like to see a "open" homosexual on the bench, because it has not been done. because if this country truly stands on "no establishment" of religion, then it should not matter if you are gay. as if anyone knows the "closet" activities of all our justices....

with that said, so far, in this country, the gay issue is a religious issue. once upon a time in the early part of last century, it was MORE than a religious issue...but that is another thread