New SCOTUS nominee

[RU OX Alum]

I agree about Williams but she doesn't fit with Obama's regime so she wasn't selected.

[AGDee]

I find it interesting that many of the same people who will say that someone "looks" gay also believe that being gay is a choice. If there was a "look" to gay, then wouldn't that point to a genetic reason for homosexuality? And, just what is a person who "looks gay" supposed to do? Plastic surgery? And, since when is attractiveness a qualification for SCOTUS?


Tell me which among them is attractive. Quite honestly, I don't think any of them are.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Though we don't know Kagan's opinions, Obama likely does since he taught with her and interacted with her, it appears, as friends and colleagues and later in her role as SG. Even if her pre-nomination interview didn't address any of these "litmus tests" it is a safe bet that Obama didn't go in blind.

I like the sound of Williams. However I'm fairly unfamiliar with her. If she is that prominent then odds are she's on a list for future consideration (whether for SC Justice or other higher level positions).

Your last paragraph though, *sigh.* There is no "looks gay." It's weird how you felt like you had to punctuate every sentence with lol. Because it isn't funny. It's stereotyping, and depending on where it comes from it is prejudicial. To say that a woman should look a certain way, generally in a way that is attractive to men, or she'll be called 'lesbo' or 'that's a man' is both buying into the sexist view of women existing for men's pleasure and treating sexual orientation/gender identity as a punishment.

Also, lesbian =/= transgender.

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!

Originally Posted by AGDee

I find it interesting that many of the same people who will say that someone "looks" gay also believe that being gay is a choice. If there was a "look" to gay, then wouldn't that point to a genetic reason for homosexuality? And, just what is a person who "looks gay" supposed to do? Plastic surgery? And, since when is attractiveness a qualification for SCOTUS?


Tell me which among them is attractive. Quite honestly, I don't think any of them are.

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

...that the person making the comment has encountered.

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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

Your combination of the "lesbo" comment and the "she's a man" one implied that you might have difficulty with the concept.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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.

And AGDee, isn't it exhausting?

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Your combination of the "lesbo" comment and the "she's a man" one implied that you might have difficulty with the concept.
I dont.
The concept of looking gay is funny to you but you believe it? You laugh at your own jokes a lot?
I laugh when the mood strikes me. The concept of looking gay does amuse me from time to time for reasons I didnt list here.
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.
I never said anyhting of the like. It'd just be much more difficult to equate them with being gay than it would with someone who is male and very feminine or female and very masculine. If I were playing guess the sexuality (I guess Im the only one who sees the humor in actually playing the game as it relates to the nom of a potential SCOTUS) I'd go with lesbo. Its just my guess. Doesnt make her gay or not.


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."
Its simply not sexisist to say that she looks gay to me and if we're placing bets on her sexuality im going with gay. I could see if I said she's gay because she's ugly or 50 and single or childless. I think she appears gay because she has many similarities to gay women I've experienced in her age group, gender, and race now that I think about it.
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.
Um, I definitely didnt use either gay or lesbo as a slur. Are they slurs now because I definitely didnt get the memo? I know homosexual is the PC term, but I've never viewed gay or lesbo as a slur. I never claimed to know. Im just saying that given just her looks and mannerisms etc. I'd vote gay. It saw RuPaul for the first time and thought he looked gay. I thought Ricky Martin and Clay Aiken looked gay (turned out they were. *gasp* shocking lol.) Maybe There's a new definition of sexism but Im not saying she's less than or not equal to a man because she's a woman nor am I saying she should be at home tending to her husband. Im saying she looks gay to me. Her social role and her sexuality arent the same thing.


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


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.

I meant what I said. To say that gay people can choose to be celibate imo is to trivialize gay relationships as they are about more than sex. I believe that gay people can choose not to practice a gay lifestyle (ie: not date same sex, have relationships, or have sex) and that choice is different than the choice to actually be attracted to the same sex.

[Drolefille]

I never said anyhting of the like. It'd just be much more difficult to equate them with being gay than it would with someone who is male and very feminine or female and very masculine. If I were playing guess the sexuality (I guess Im the only one who sees the humor in actually playing the game as it relates to the nom of a potential SCOTUS) I'd go with lesbo. Its just my guess. Doesnt make her gay or not.

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.

Its simply not sexisist to say that she looks gay to me and if we're placing bets on her sexuality im going with gay. I could see if I said she's gay because she's ugly or 50 and single or childless. I think she appears gay because she has many similarities to gay women I've experienced in her age group, gender, and race now that I think about it.

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.

Um, I definitely didnt use either gay or lesbo as a slur. Are they slurs now because I definitely didnt get the memo? I know homosexual is the PC term, but I've never viewed gay or lesbo as a slur.

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"

I never claimed to know. Im just saying that given just her looks and mannerisms etc. I'd vote gay. It saw RuPaul for the first time and thought he looked gay. I thought Ricky Martin and Clay Aiken looked gay (turned out they were. *gasp* shocking lol.)

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.

Maybe There's a new definition of sexism but Im not saying she's less than or not equal to a man because she's a woman nor am I saying she should be at home tending to her husband. Im saying she looks gay to me. Her social role and her sexuality arent the same thing.

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.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

I meant what I said. To say that gay people can choose to be celibate imo is to trivialize gay relationships as they are about more than sex. I believe that gay people can choose not to practice a gay lifestyle (ie: not date same sex, have relationships, or have sex) and that choice is different than the choice to actually be attracted to the same sex.

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

These statements in no way attempt to equate sexuality with being transgender.

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

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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?

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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?

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

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.

[starang21]

kagan looks like john lovitz in a dress.

[starang21]

qualified doesn't mean best.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

kagan looks like john lovitz in a dress.

*yawn* old.

Originally Posted by starang21

qualified doesn't mean best.

Nope, but good luck finding someone everyone agrees is the best.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

*yawn* old

actually it's not. i did a search to see if anyone else said it in this thread.

you're right. best is subjective. but we're not choosing, so our opinions don't really count.