To the point in red...what does that have to do with my post? I never equated the two. I said if I was guessing her sexuality Id say shes gay. I also said I could see the people on the Maury show (when deciding if a man or woman) could mistake her for a man (because she does look like at least one man in particular). These statements in no way attempt to equate sexuality with being transgener.

The orange point....Some people do look like they could be homosexual. Very effiminate males look like they could be homosexuals as do very masculine women. It isnt funny to you. I was actually lol as I was typing because the concept of "looks gay" is rather funny to me and because seeing a SCOUS nominee on Maury is a funny thought. Could you imagine what she'd wear during the swimsuit portion?

To the green point....That'd probably make some sense if I said that or if I was a man. Since Im a woman that kind of falls little flat as I pick attractiveness based on what I think and not on what I think men think is attractive. And its not her being ugly that makes me think she's gay. See below for that info. Gabby (who played Precious) is not incredibly attractive to me, but she doesnt look gay either. Hell Sotomayor isnt cute either but I dont think she's gay. Its not a bad thing to be homosexual or to be mistaken for being homosexual. I think some of y'all have your diapers in a wad because YOURE the ones with the issue. Gay is not a slur.


To the blue point....Kagan doesnt even sound good. And you're probably as familiar with Kagan as you are with Williams if you read the Wiki article (thats how little we know about Kagan). Realistically she has no judicial eperience (beyond academia and studying something and applying it in the real world are two very different things) and we have no idea where she stands on most issues and what kind of choices she would make as a justice. While I love Obama there aint that much Kool-Aid in the world that I'd just go along with his pick for a lifetime position on the supreme court because he knows her and he likes her. That is NOT qualified. If you make a choice you have to justify that choice and there is no supporting evidence for Kagan at all. To say that we shouldnt oppose her because Obama probably knows her beliefs well is total Bull. If this were a Bush nominee (liberals and Dems)people would be giving way more push back on this choice. I know Id be questioning her selection more if it came from Bush b/c he's not the brightest person ever. As a independent voter I question every president's decisions that arent supported by evidence. She does not have the necessary qualifications and experience and we do not know nearly enough about her to appoint her to the highest court in the land for the rest of her life!


I dont think that looking gay points to a genetic reason for homosexuals. It points to someone's mannerisms, looks, and general image being similar to that of homosexuals that the person making the comment has encountered. A person who looks gay shouldnt worry about looking gay its not a crime. They should expect that people are going to ask the question. Again Im not against her as nominee because she looks gay. Im against her because of her lack of experience and a better choice (who is a black woman) being available.

I didnt mention that she's unattractive (though she is to me) as the reason she shouldnt be nominee. Also, there are some very attractive gay people. Being gay doesnt mean youre automatically unattractive. I said she isnt well qualified, we've got NO idea how she'd actually vote (that she is a liberal doesnt say much or enough), and there is a better qualified black woman who I'd rather see/have seen selected.

Now, personally I beileve that being gay isn't a choice but that leading a gay lifestyle is. You can hide being gay or you can choose to deny your sexual orientation and lead a "hetero" lifestyle if you wish. None of that changes that youre gay.

Excellent after-the-fact qualifier. People shouldn't make such comments.

Your combination of the "lesbo" comment and the "she's a man" one implied that you might have difficulty with the concept.
The concept of looking gay is funny to you but you believe it? You laugh at your own jokes a lot?

So masculine gay males and feminine lesbian women don't exist? Or they're just not fitting the "funny" sterotype in your head? It's not funny to me because it's outright wrong.


Your argument is the sexist equivalent of "You have a problem because you see the racism in what I'm saying, not because I'm saying something racist."

I'm complaining about the use of "gay" or go help us "Lesbo" (SERIOUSLY?) because it is being used AS a slur. That is wrong. So is assuming you know someone's sexual orientation based on their looks.
Also, women can buy into sexism, gay people can buy into heterosexism, and so on. Either you're doing it intentionally or you're unaware, either way it's still coming from your fingers.


I never said that you should support her or not, I just said that Obama probably knows her views even though we don't. It's ok to have legit complaints. I know more about Kagan now because there's been so much discussion about her. I think she's qualified based on her experience, even though she hasn't been a judge.


No one 'looks gay' unless they're making out with someone of the same sex right in front of you. That's looking gay.

the only thing "gay" about a "gay lifestyle" is the "loving/engaging in sexual acts with someone of the same sex." Everything else is "a lifestyle." So, you believe that people who are gay can choose to be celibate, not "choose not to live a gay lifestyle." I don't think that should be forced or expected of anyone who doesn't freely choose it.

Have you read all the posts in this thread? Many did.

Nobody yet has been able to explain what a "gay" woman looks like. She looks masculine? Again I ask the question.. what is she supposed to do about that? Plastic surgery? Go for the Michael Jackson nose and jawline?

Tell that to the millions who clearly think that gays are sub-human (and, therefore shouldn't be allowed to be married and have children) and sinners who will burn in hell.

You don't know enough about her. It seems to me that people who actually follow the legal world do know quite a bit about her. Which Justice had most of us heard of before they were nominated to the Supreme Court?

Any Christian Conservative is going to raise a ruckus if a gay is nominated to the Supreme Court because they will fear that homosexuals might actually gain the right to make a lifelong legal commitment to their significant others.

In my opinion, a justice on the Supreme Court should only be voting as to the Constitutionality of something, not their personal opinion. Sticking with the gay marriage topic, it shouldn't matter whether someone personally believes in gay marriage when they are deciding whether it is Constitutional or not. Something can be Constitutional and against a person's belief system. The ideal SCOTUS is one who can differentiate that and NOT vote based on personal beliefs. The fact that we don't know how someone stands on some of these issues is a plus because it means they aren't just into spouting off their personal agenda.

Seriously? So, you could also choose to have sexual relations with a woman and enjoy it if you were heterosexual? Really? I can't even pretend to be attracted to a man who I don't have chemistry with. I'm not that good of an actor and I think most other people aren't either.

You don't need judicial experience to know if something is against the Constitution or not. And I honestly think the SG is a better choice then a lower court judge for SCOTUS anyway. And people consider this. Obama probably based his decision for her for both SG and SCOTUS on his first hand knowledge of her. So are you telling me that the opinion of a legitimate Constitutional scholar isn't good enough for you? Not aimed at you Drolefille BTW.

It's cool. :D

And AGDee, isn't it exhausting?

I'm not sure why I bother...lol. Oh yeah, it beats writing a paper for my cryptography class.

Hehe. I note that our original "she's obviously gay" person can't defend herself either.

It's like their assumptions are being challenged and they're finding out they're baseless!

Because this is when people claim they are above the argumentative, childish, and snarky antics of the GC regulars. :)

Followed by the ~*Flounce*~

It would only be difficult for someone to view a feminine woman or a masculine man as gay if they base their views off of stereotypes. Yes, you're the only one who finds it funny to play "guess the orientation." And the fact that you think you can guess is the problem.

And finally, and I feel the need to shout here: "LESBO" IS INAPPROPRIATE.



You're making judgments about how a straight woman looks/how a gay woman looks and much of it is based on whether or not she is making herself look in a certain way. That is at the least, heterosexist, and probably sexist.


Homosexual is disfavored outside of clinical usage. Gay or LESBIAN is the appropriate term, queer can be acceptable if the individual self-identifies that way, but I'd recommend against using it while telling people you expect them not to live their lifestyle.

You seem to be incapable of grasping the following concept: When people say she looks gay, it is 99 times out of 100 implied that gay = bad/abnormal/weird. Imagine if "gay" were replaced with your race or religion with the same implications. "Stop dressing like that, are you trying to look X"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a_de_Rossi.jpg http://i39.tinypic.com/dvmtdd.jpg
Do they "look gay?" Are they? Can your magic gaydar tell?

You have no idea what Kagan's mannerisms ARE because you have NEVER MET HER.

Sexism is more nuanced than "get back into the kitchen."



the only thing "gay" about a "gay lifestyle" is the "loving/engaging in sexual acts with someone of the same sex." Everything else is "a lifestyle." So, you believe that people who are gay can choose to be celibate, not "choose not to live a gay lifestyle." I don't think that should be forced or expected of anyone who doesn't freely choose it.



Priests are allowed to date and have relationships? Celibacy is being and remaining unmarried as well as typically encompassing avoiding sex, that involves not engaging in relationships. So you not only think people should deprive themselves of their sexual satisfaction, but that they should also deprive themselves of their emotional fulfillment and attachment and security that comes with having a partner. All to satisfy your sense of morality? Yeah I'm sure they'll get right on that.

I love how you picked two of the more famous none stereotypical gay celebrities.

Very off topic, but some are.

Shh it was on purpose. We'll see if she pays attention. That and I really don't pay attention to the sexual orientation of actors, unlike certain Newsweek writers. So half laziness, half on purpose. ;)


And yes, but it falls under chastity not celibacy. And many priests don't take celibacy oaths, but chastity oaths which are more practically celibacy anyway even though they didn't used to be.

I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible for the sake of her actually getting it. Because I really hope she can get it.

I think it all comes down to what does her 'looking gay' have anything to do with her work performance. What she does on her own time should have no bearing on what she does on the government's time. Now if somebody here offering to do a make over, knock it out.

I don't believe that I.A.S.K. didn't know that "lesbo" is considered a slur and the context of her post could be perceived as bigoted and offensive. I believe she was being expressive and thought she was humorous to the point where nothing else mattered.

People go on these rants and try to save face when called out. As I said in the beginning of the thread, get out of the house more and you will learn some things. Then you will KNOW if and when you are being offensive to groups, versus claiming apathy and cluelessness. If you still choose to go on a rant, that's fine if you insist, just don't attempt to explain it away after-the-fact.

Well IIRC Latin Rite Roman Catholic priests, as well as a couple of Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome do require oaths of celibacy.

Yeah I was just thinking about it and i had it backwards. Most priests take vows of celibacy unless they're ordained through an order and then it's typically the poverty/chastity/obedience trifecta.

Thats what I get for being up late. Regardless, my original comment was simplistic intentionally.

I agree neither her looks nor her sexual orientation affect her ability and qualifications. However I object to the concept of "looking gay" in the first place.


I cannot tell what is ignorance and what isn't, considering she kept using the term after her initial 'lol' post.

And accepting being told that you ARE being offensive instead of saying "oh no YOU have a problem since you're seeing it as offensive." It's ok to learn that way too as long as you are trying.

Or unless they're Episcopal or Orthodox priests. ;)

Goddamn it! I'm being simplistic on purpose!


Also, we all know they don't really count. ;)

She used God's name in vain when discussing priests. Uh oh!

Just step away from your computer when the lightning strikes.;)

HEY!! lol.

Nah, if lightning were going to strike me it would have by now.
*whistles innocently*

Lesbo is as much a slur to me as gay (again gay isnt a slur).

LOL at you saying that I think people should deprive themselves of relationships of any kind. (Where'd you get that from? Or was it that you assumed that because I made the distinction that I am one of those nuts who thinks gay people dont choose to be gay, but that they can fight their gayness like the preacher who took his gay boy toy to europe [And im not even being sarcastic I actually really just want to know]) That is not my sense of morality. Far from it. I think that if you're gay you have every right to love, sex, Marry and do as you damn well please with who you'd like. And anyone who feels like you dont you should promptly tell to kiss your ass. I make the distinction between the two because I do not believe being gay is a choice but I do recognize that there are choices that exist for gay people that dont exist for others. Can you choose to hide your sexuality? Yes. Can you choose to ignore it? Yes. Does that make the fact that hiding who you are will make you better off in society right? Hell no. But it does give you an option that others dont have. My sense of morality is pretty basic treat people with humanity and love.

Being a slur to you isn't really the point. That's not really an acceptable term in the LGBT community.

And I'm not sure how you figure that "lesbian" is not a widely used term?

SuuuuUuuuuuuure....

This is where your common "my head isn't in my ass" sense should kick in.

As well as, it does not matter what it means to you. Your lack of knowledge on this matter has been demonstrated freely throughout your posts, so stop relying on what things are "to you."

You get gay vibes from a picture? Why can't you even begin to say what you base this on? Also, you're the one who decided that you could/should play "guess the sexuality" in the first place. None of us compelled you to do so.

You do not understand that playing guess the sexuality of a public figure is something typically done to degrade someone. When you participate in typically discriminatory behavior, you will be viewed as discriminatory EVEN IF your intentions are innocent.

Then use those terms among friends where you know they know what you mean.

Obviously Kagan hasn't changed who she is either, that's not the point. The point is the implied criticism of race/religion/orientation in the statement.

But she looks nothing like Kagan! How ever could you tell! She looks gay because she is. He looks gay because he is. Adam Lambert looks gay because he is. Unless you've been hooking up with Elena Kagan, or she has come out to you, she doesn't look gay. Do you get the concept? There IS NO "looking gay." Your definition so far has been looking masculine as a woman or feminine as a man. And that's outright bullshit. Portia looks masculine? Sir Ian McKellen looks feminine?

We're not talking about hanging out with friends and getting the impression that someone might be gay. I'll give you "vibes" with people you know. I call bullshit on you being able to tell by Kagan's "mannerisms" that she likes women.

How exactly is celibacy/chastity/choosing to "ignore" your sexuality a choice that only gay people have? Anyone can not be in a relationship if they so desire. Anyone can pretend not to have romantic or sexual feelings.

In fact, far more often gay people are still forced, pressured, or expected to hide those feelings or be ostracized, fired, excommunicated, etc. That's not much of a choice.

If you expect people to "fight their gayness" and yet not expect people to "fight their straightness" then you're discriminating. I assume that because you make some false distinction that gay people have a choice that straight people do not that yes, you expect them to make that choice for some moral/ethical/religious/other reason.

Lesbian is the least widely used term to self ID among the homosexual women I know. But my point here was that the goal wasnt to be offensive (there's way better ways to do that) its simply a word that I don't (or rather didnt) identify as unacceptable (and that those who are LGBT around me dont either). Its simply a case of saying how I feel in mixed company and not using a censor.
Or maybe your Im not that sensitive and dont cater to the feelings of a message board name sense? I dont mind using lesbian though.

Good. End of discussion.

You clearly missed a lot of my points here!
LOL at you saying that I think people should deprive themselves of relationships of any kind. (Where'd you get that from? Or was it that you assumed that because I made the distinction that I am one of those nuts (by nut i meant crazy illogical person) who thinks gay people dont choose to be gay, but that they can fight their gayness like the preacher who took his gay boy toy to europe [And im not even being sarcastic I actually really just want to know]) That is not my sense of morality. Far from it. I think that if you're gay you have every right to love, sex, Marry and do as you damn well please with who you'd like. And anyone who feels like you dont you should promptly tell to kiss your ass. I make the distinction between the two because I do not believe being gay is a choice but I do recognize that there are choices that exist for gay people that dont exist for others. Can you choose to hide your sexuality? Yes. Can you choose to ignore it? Yes. Does that make the fact that hiding who you are will make you better off in society right? Hell no. But it does give you an option that others dont have. My sense of morality is pretty basic treat people with humanity and love.
I said Gay people have a choice OTHERS do not have. I did not say they have a choice that straight people dont. Gay and straight people have pretty much the same choices. I was making a distinction between other groups who are discriminated agains that dont have the ability to hide their ism. So, black/latino/ethnic people, women, etc. These oppressed groups do not have the option to hide or cover up who they are to get equal treatment. A gay white male can choose not to diclose to avoid discrimination at work whereas a black/latino person or a woman would not have that option.

I did not miss any of your points, you've only now made an attempt to clarify to where your points are actually understandable. In addition you continually used language that is discriminatory and predominately used by anti-gay groups. For example, there still is no "gay lifestyle" just as there is no "gay look." I'm glad you've been willing to listen during this conversation.

Now I understand what you were trying to say, although I hope you understand why it was so difficult to understand what you meant when you didn't actually provide detail. Yes, gay people can sometimes hide their orientation for a variety of reasons, however it isn't easy and as I said before it's not really fair to call it a choice when it isn't freely chosen. There are few people who would choose not to talk about their primary relationships, or avoid having relationships altogether if society wasn't pressuring them to. But their visibility isn't different from most religions, barring individuals or sects that promote a specifically identifiable type of dress. (Orthodox Jews for example)

And many pro LGBTQ organizations encourage people to come out to increase visibility of the population because being a more hidden minority tends to increase prejudice.

However, I don't do a lot of comparison between how hard it is for one group vs another because this isn't the Oppression Olympics.

That's literally the dumbest thing I've ever read. Next people will just expect women to have sex change operations, people of color to do the whole MJ thing...we can all make choices, but none of us should be expected to.

I think she's trying to point out that they're a hidden minority and can hide it whereas women or PoC cannot. Which is true. But that gets too close to the next step which is, "therefore women/PoC have it harder than gay people" or alternatively "therefore they should hide it." I'm not sure she's trying to make either of those points though because she kind of has a tendency to suggest heterosexist things without necessarily meaning them.

If that's the point she's making, she's not making it well.

Whomever brought race and ethnicity into this discussion sucks hairy rat balls. I hope it wasn't me. If so, booooooooo. It annoys the hell outta me that the prejudice and/or discrimination of ONE GROUP can't be discussed without attempting to compare and rank oppressions and discriminations.

With that said, it is true that sexual orientation is more easily hidden than race and ethnicity. Discrimination and -isms are about power dynamics and identifiability. If groups are not identifiable as a power minority, they are not easily targeted for bigotry and discrimination. This doesn't mean that people should hide their homosexuality. It means that they CAN do so if they choose to in many (definitely not all) settings. And there are plenty of instances of people who are "in the closet" discriminating on the basis of race. It often does not work the other way around except in the lesser contexts where heterosexual power trumps the oppressed status of their racial and/or ethnic group membership.

Now...that discussion sucked hairy rat balls.

Politics would be a good example. I don't like this topic either.

I agree, and I am perhaps giving too much of the benefit of the doubt.
How would you know what sucking hairy rat balls was like?

And I'd modify the statement I left in your quote slightly. They are no easy individual targets for bigotry, but lack of visibility can also increase the prejudice against the group itself. If only because there's no one visible to contradict the stereotypes. I'm not sure I'm making my point clear, so do let me know if you think I'm just being more confusing.

I'm trying to get at the idea of "GAY PEOPLE ARE LIKE X Y Z. Oh wait, my best friend Bob is gay? Well, he's ok... and so is that singer I like, and my neighbor.. well I guess they're not so bad." i just don't know what word I'm looking for.

Politics are a loose example. It is ultimately all about what can be accomplished and under whose political label.

A white female Senator, a Black male Senator, and a gay white male Senator walk into a bar....