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

[Sky Dancer]

Let's see if I get this right. We have two candidates qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and you folks don't want either of them confirmed because they're openly lesbian? So you imagine the lesbians would have a gay bias in hearing the cases.

Do the existing Supreme Court Justices have heterosexual bias?

 

[jillian]

amanda is right...from what i have read.

just because you would not support a gay justice does not mean you're a homophobe. this kind of thinking is typical for intolerant people. i've been having this discussion with KK concerning censorship....to her, if you don't approve of a joke, you're somehow for censorship. same logic here, if you don't approve of something homosexual, somehow you're a homophobe.

i've asked this before and of course it never gets answered:

i am against a brother marrying his sister....does this make me anti family?

silly analogy... if you want a response, you might want to avoid silliness like that.

again, what OTHER reason than homophobia would make someone concerned about a gay justice?

 

[Amanda]

Let's see if I get this right. We have two candidates qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and you folks don't want either of them confirmed because they're openly lesbian? So you imagine the lesbians would have a gay bias in hearing the cases.

Do the existing Supreme Court Justices have heterosexual bias?

Who are you addressing, Sky? Has anyone said anything remotely like what you're talking about? I haven't seen it.

 

[Amanda]

amanda is right...from what i have read.

just because you would not support a gay justice does not mean you're a homophobe. this kind of thinking is typical for intolerant people. i've been having this discussion with KK concerning censorship....to her, if you don't approve of a joke, you're somehow for censorship. same logic here, if you don't approve of something homosexual, somehow you're a homophobe.

i've asked this before and of course it never gets answered:

i am against a brother marrying his sister....does this make me anti family?

silly analogy... if you want a response, you might want to avoid silliness like that.

again, what OTHER reason than homophobia would make someone concerned about a gay justice?

Again, that's not how debate works. You make an assertion you're supposed to back it up, it's no one else's job to refute it until you've given your reasoning. There's nothing for anyone to rebut at this point.

 

[Yurt]

amanda is right...from what i have read.

just because you would not support a gay justice does not mean you're a homophobe. this kind of thinking is typical for intolerant people. i've been having this discussion with KK concerning censorship....to her, if you don't approve of a joke, you're somehow for censorship. same logic here, if you don't approve of something homosexual, somehow you're a homophobe.

i've asked this before and of course it never gets answered:

i am against a brother marrying his sister....does this make me anti family?

silly analogy... if you want a response, you might want to avoid silliness like that.

again, what OTHER reason than homophobia would make someone concerned about a gay justice?

more of jillians....i'm right because i say so....

very effective jillian, you got me, i lay down, i concede the point, ladies and gentleman, she is right....care to actually explain why it is silly?

your second sentence shows you did not even remotely consider my argument, which is why you gave a weak retort. jillian must believe that if one does not support homosexuality, one is a homophobe....cause i said so.

your logic is biased and bigotted. you assume because someone does not want a homosexual on the court that they must be homophobic. what you fail to realize is that people don't want people on the court who hold different opinions than theirs. that is the way is works, look at the libs and cons who rip this justice and that justice because they rule a way they don't agree with.

carry your argument to its logical conclusion and you're really saying:

i'm for america and you're not

if you want a response, why don't you actually give one instead of giving lame one liners like.....nah, nah, nah, nah...i'm right and you're wrong.

fair enough?

edit:

LMAO....of course jillian did not answer the last question....why are libs so afraid that qestion

 

[Sky Dancer]

Let's see if I get this right. We have two candidates qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and you folks don't want either of them confirmed because they're openly lesbian? So you imagine the lesbians would have a gay bias in hearing the cases.

Do the existing Supreme Court Justices have heterosexual bias?

Who are you addressing, Sky? Has anyone said anything remotely like what you're talking about? I haven't seen it.

Numerous posters have stated they are not ready for an openly lesbian Supreme Court Justice.

I'd like to know what difference the sexual orientation of the candidate makes. I know of no other hiring practice that would legally consider this factor relevant in employment.

Substitute black, latino, disabled, asian, jewish for lesbian and you'll see what I mean. The first black, the first jew, the first woman, the first lesbian, etc etc etc.

 

[Nik]

Wow, I'm only asking for the reasoning behind the conclusion. I know it's not polite to question the Left, but I thought it was a fair thing to ask.

I agree that if someone is a homophobe they would oppose a gay justice, that's fine. But the going the other way it isn't a given. I'm kinda amused at you and Jillian jumping in on this, don't you think Nik can handle this 1 on his own?

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:

If someone is indeed a homophobe, then logically they would oppose a homosexual SC Justice. This should be obvious even to you. So therefore it is ONE reason why a person might object. Nik's position is that it's the ONLY reason since he cannot fathom another. Right or wrong it's sound reasoning. If you disagree, it's actually up to you to offer a second reason why someone would object. It's not up to him to prove that homophobes would object.

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?

 

[xotoxi]

I see no problem with it.

 

[Nik]

amanda is right...from what i have read.

just because you would not support a gay justice does not mean you're a homophobe. this kind of thinking is typical for intolerant people. i've been having this discussion with KK concerning censorship....to her, if you don't approve of a joke, you're somehow for censorship. same logic here, if you don't approve of something homosexual, somehow you're a homophobe.

i've asked this before and of course it never gets answered:

i am against a brother marrying his sister....does this make me anti family?

silly analogy... if you want a response, you might want to avoid silliness like that.

again, what OTHER reason than homophobia would make someone concerned about a gay justice?

Again, that's not how debate works. You make an assertion you're supposed to back it up, it's no one else's job to refute it until you've given your reasoning. There's nothing for anyone to rebut at this point.

I did. But your asking for proof, which I can't provide. No way I can prove a negative, sorry. Ask for something realistic why don't you.

 

[Nik]

amanda is right...from what i have read.

just because you would not support a gay justice does not mean you're a homophobe. this kind of thinking is typical for intolerant people. i've been having this discussion with KK concerning censorship....to her, if you don't approve of a joke, you're somehow for censorship. same logic here, if you don't approve of something homosexual, somehow you're a homophobe.

i've asked this before and of course it never gets answered:

i am against a brother marrying his sister....does this make me anti family?

If you are against a gay justice for the sole reason that they are gay, yes, you are a homophobe.

 

[Nik]

amanda is right...from what i have read.

just because you would not support a gay justice does not mean you're a homophobe. this kind of thinking is typical for intolerant people. i've been having this discussion with KK concerning censorship....to her, if you don't approve of a joke, you're somehow for censorship. same logic here, if you don't approve of something homosexual, somehow you're a homophobe.

i've asked this before and of course it never gets answered:

i am against a brother marrying his sister....does this make me anti family?

silly analogy... if you want a response, you might want to avoid silliness like that.

again, what OTHER reason than homophobia would make someone concerned about a gay justice?

more of jillians....i'm right because i say so....

very effective jillian, you got me, i lay down, i concede the point, ladies and gentleman, she is right....care to actually explain why it is silly?

your second sentence shows you did not even remotely consider my argument, which is why you gave a weak retort. jillian must believe that if one does not support homosexuality, one is a homophobe....cause i said so.

your logic is biased and bigotted. you assume because someone does not want a homosexual on the court that they must be homophobic. what you fail to realize is that people don't want people on the court who hold different opinions than theirs. that is the way is works, look at the libs and cons who rip this justice and that justice because they rule a way they don't agree with.

carry your argument to its logical conclusion and you're really saying:

i'm for america and you're not

if you want a response, why don't you actually give one instead of giving lame one liners like.....nah, nah, nah, nah...i'm right and you're wrong.

fair enough?

edit:

LMAO....of course jillian did not answer the last question....why are libs so afraid that qestion

Try devising an argument not built on strawman if you want an answer. You are saying what happens if one does not support a gay justice. You don't need to support them because they are gay, but if you don't support them because they are gay, yes, you are homophobic.

 

[Yurt]

Let's see if I get this right. We have two candidates qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and you folks don't want either of them confirmed because they're openly lesbian? So you imagine the lesbians would have a gay bias in hearing the cases.

Do the existing Supreme Court Justices have heterosexual bias?

Who are you addressing, Sky? Has anyone said anything remotely like what you're talking about? I haven't seen it.

Numerous posters have stated they are not ready for an openly lesbian Supreme Court Justice.

I'd like to know what difference the sexual orientation of the candidate makes. I know of no other hiring practice that would legally consider this factor relevant in employment.

Substitute black, latino, disabled, asian, jewish for lesbian and you'll see what I mean. The first black, the first jew, the first woman, the first lesbian, etc etc etc.

while i support a homosexual on the court....i don't think there is enough evidence to compare gayness with the color of your skin, gender, heritage....

the "court" is still out on that one....

 

[Yurt]

amanda is right...from what i have read.

just because you would not support a gay justice does not mean you're a homophobe. this kind of thinking is typical for intolerant people. i've been having this discussion with KK concerning censorship....to her, if you don't approve of a joke, you're somehow for censorship. same logic here, if you don't approve of something homosexual, somehow you're a homophobe.

i've asked this before and of course it never gets answered:

i am against a brother marrying his sister....does this make me anti family?

If you are against a gay justice for the sole reason that they are gay, yes, you are a homophobe.

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

you're like a talking parrot

 

[Yurt]

silly analogy... if you want a response, you might want to avoid silliness like that.

again, what OTHER reason than homophobia would make someone concerned about a gay justice?

more of jillians....i'm right because i say so....

very effective jillian, you got me, i lay down, i concede the point, ladies and gentleman, she is right....care to actually explain why it is silly?

your second sentence shows you did not even remotely consider my argument, which is why you gave a weak retort. jillian must believe that if one does not support homosexuality, one is a homophobe....cause i said so.

your logic is biased and bigotted. you assume because someone does not want a homosexual on the court that they must be homophobic. what you fail to realize is that people don't want people on the court who hold different opinions than theirs. that is the way is works, look at the libs and cons who rip this justice and that justice because they rule a way they don't agree with.

carry your argument to its logical conclusion and you're really saying:

i'm for america and you're not

if you want a response, why don't you actually give one instead of giving lame one liners like.....nah, nah, nah, nah...i'm right and you're wrong.

fair enough?

edit:

LMAO....of course jillian did not answer the last question....why are libs so afraid that qestion

Try devising an argument not built on strawman if you want an answer. You are saying what happens if one does not support a gay justice. You don't need to support them because they are gay, but if you don't support them because they are gay, yes, you are homophobic.

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

 

[Nik]

amanda is right...from what i have read.

just because you would not support a gay justice does not mean you're a homophobe. this kind of thinking is typical for intolerant people. i've been having this discussion with KK concerning censorship....to her, if you don't approve of a joke, you're somehow for censorship. same logic here, if you don't approve of something homosexual, somehow you're a homophobe.

i've asked this before and of course it never gets answered:

i am against a brother marrying his sister....does this make me anti family?

If you are against a gay justice for the sole reason that they are gay, yes, you are a homophobe.

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

you're like a talking parrot

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

 

[Nik]

more of jillians....i'm right because i say so....

very effective jillian, you got me, i lay down, i concede the point, ladies and gentleman, she is right....care to actually explain why it is silly?

your second sentence shows you did not even remotely consider my argument, which is why you gave a weak retort. jillian must believe that if one does not support homosexuality, one is a homophobe....cause i said so.

your logic is biased and bigotted. you assume because someone does not want a homosexual on the court that they must be homophobic. what you fail to realize is that people don't want people on the court who hold different opinions than theirs. that is the way is works, look at the libs and cons who rip this justice and that justice because they rule a way they don't agree with.

carry your argument to its logical conclusion and you're really saying:

i'm for america and you're not

if you want a response, why don't you actually give one instead of giving lame one liners like.....nah, nah, nah, nah...i'm right and you're wrong.

fair enough?

edit:

LMAO....of course jillian did not answer the last question....why are libs so afraid that qestion

Try devising an argument not built on strawman if you want an answer. You are saying what happens if one does not support a gay justice. You don't need to support them because they are gay, but if you don't support them because they are gay, yes, you are homophobic.

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

I explained the strawman. Open your eyes.

 

[Yurt]

If you are against a gay justice for the sole reason that they are gay, yes, you are a homophobe.

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)

 

[Yurt]

Try devising an argument not built on strawman if you want an answer. You are saying what happens if one does not support a gay justice. You don't need to support them because they are gay, but if you don't support them because they are gay, yes, you are homophobic.

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....

 

[Ravi]

just because you would not support a gay justice does not mean you're a homophobe. this kind of thinking is typical for intolerant people. i've been having this discussion with KK concerning censorship....to her, if you don't approve of a joke, you're somehow for censorship. same logic here, if you don't approve of something homosexual, somehow you're a homophobe.

i've asked this before and of course it never gets answered:

i am against a brother marrying his sister....does this make me anti family?

I disagree.

Supporting justice should have no blinders. People that aren't doing anything illegal should have the same justice as everyone else that is engaged in legal activity.

Being gay isn't illegal, therefore it isn't comparable to incest.

The only credible and believable excuse I've ever heard to justify not allowing gays to marry is that it is icky.

And while anyone is welcome to that opinion it isn't an opinion you should weigh justice on.

 

[Ravi]

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?

Sexual orientation shouldn't be a consideration anymore than race or gender. I'd think anyone against a black (or white) scotus simply because of skin color was racist and anyone against a woman (or man) scotus simply because of gender was sexist.

There is really NO other reason.