View Single Post
  #164  
Old 05-16-2010, 07:11 PM
AGDee AGDee is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K. View Post
These statements in no way attempt to equate sexuality with being transgender.
Have you read all the posts in this thread? Many did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K. View Post
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.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K. View Post
Gay is not a slur.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K. View Post
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!
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K. View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K. View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K. View Post
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 you're gay.
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.
Reply With Quote