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

[Nik]

Could you explain this a little more, I don't see the connection.

Give me another plausible reason that one would have a problem with a gay justice.

Um...no. You made an assertion, it's your point to prove or not.

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.

 

[Amanda]

Amanda,

Please stop trying to pull a Ravi. You suck at it.

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.

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?

 

[Nik]

How many gay republicans do you know. Maybe republicans/conservatives just dont want another "liberal" interpretation in the Supreme court? The question isn't is America ready for it the question is does America want it.

Ever heard of Clarence Thomas?

 

[manifold]

Amanda,

Please stop trying to pull a Ravi. You suck at it.

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.

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.

 

[Mr. President]

With shit like this, conservatives can no longer claim that their opposition to hate crime laws and gay marriage are based on "tradition" or other bullshit. Its simply because they don't like gays, and opposition to appointing a gay supreme court justice is bigotry, clear and simple.

You didn't answer the question.

Oy. You are a stupid one, aren't you?

Did you answer the question or not?

 

[Mr. President]

How many gay republicans do you know. Maybe republicans/conservatives just dont want another "liberal" interpretation in the Supreme court? The question isn't is America ready for it the question is does America want it.

Ever heard of Clarence Thomas?

Yes I have.

 

[Amanda]

Amanda,

Please stop trying to pull a Ravi. You suck at it.

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.

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.

 

[Nik]

You didn't answer the question.

Oy. You are a stupid one, aren't you?

Did you answer the question or not?

I did.

 

[Nik]

How many gay republicans do you know. Maybe republicans/conservatives just dont want another "liberal" interpretation in the Supreme court? The question isn't is America ready for it the question is does America want it.

Ever heard of Clarence Thomas?

Yes I have.

Well use some of those critical reasoning skills I'm sure you have buried somewhere deep inside your mind to figure out what relevance he has to this discussion.

 

[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.

Manifold did, I believe Jillian did, and I did. If you haven't seen it, its because you haven't read the thread.

 

[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.

Manifold did, I believe Jillian did, and I did. If you haven't seen it, its because you haven't read the thread.

I saw a statement but no explanation of how the conclusion was reached. Could you do that for me?

 

[manifold]

The only good thing about banging one's head repeatedly against the wall is that it feels good when you stop.

 

[Nik]

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

Manifold did, I believe Jillian did, and I did. If you haven't seen it, its because you haven't read the thread.

I saw a statement but no explanation of how the conclusion was reached. Could you do that for me?

Then you need to re-read it. It was explained. Repeatedly. I'm not going to draw you a fucking picture.

 

[jillian]

Manifold did, I believe Jillian did, and I did. If you haven't seen it, its because you haven't read the thread.

I saw a statement but no explanation of how the conclusion was reached. Could you do that for me?

Then you need to re-read it. It was explained. Repeatedly. I'm not going to draw you a fucking picture.

this is her usual game.... don't take it personally.

 

[Amanda]

Manifold did, I believe Jillian did, and I did. If you haven't seen it, its because you haven't read the thread.

I saw a statement but no explanation of how the conclusion was reached. Could you do that for me?

Then you need to re-read it. It was explained. Repeatedly. I'm not going to draw you a fucking picture.

Hmmm... ok, I understand. I don't think I'd want to have tried to explain it either.

 

[Amanda]

I saw a statement but no explanation of how the conclusion was reached. Could you do that for me?

Then you need to re-read it. It was explained. Repeatedly. I'm not going to draw you a fucking picture.

this is her usual game.... don't take it personally.

Yeah, I'm fierce. You can catch me at this "game" all the time, being calm and polite. Never calling people names or other unnecessary rudeness. I'm definitely 1 to watch out for.

 

[Yurt]

i don't know about "america"....but i don't care, as long as the person fits the constitutional requirements and of course rule as impartially as possible, go for it. how do we know we have not had a "hidden" gay serve?

 

[jillian]

Then you need to re-read it. It was explained. Repeatedly. I'm not going to draw you a fucking picture.

this is her usual game.... don't take it personally.

Yeah, I'm fierce. You can catch me at this "game" all the time, being calm and polite. Never calling people names or other unnecessary rudeness. I'm definitely 1 to watch out for.

who said anything about fierce?

being intentionally obtuse isn't fierce.

 

[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?

 

[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?

I agree. They're acting as if the answer is self-evident but it's not. Explaining the reasoning would likely show their own intolerance so they're avoiding even going there. Like I said, I understand because I wouldn't want to have to own that kind of thinking either.