xanathemax

Of course they shouldn't hold to stare decisis in every instance, but it certainly is an important guiding principle. And I was wrong, he attends oral arguments, he just never asks questions or says anything substantive during them, which indicates to me that he's probably already made up his mind beforehand.

And I know you think it's cute to reply to the things I have to say with "silly" and it corresponds nicely to your love for Thomas, who'd probably say those same things rather than provide a substantive counterpoint.

xanathemax

Did you really just compare homosexuality to murder and cannibalism?

Pickle

No, I compared it to natural occurances found in the animal kingdom. If one thing is natural it should follow they all are. I was a bit sarcastic but that was my point.

__________________

leejo

Or he's one of those people who listens.

I'm sorry I'm not trying to be cute. I'm trying to be accurate. And I don't care about Thomas one way or the other, just so you know. Finally, what on earth could I say that would be a substantive counterpoint to your assertion that Thomas is "not a conservative, he's a radical fascist with no concern for judicial procedure"? Is not? I know you are but what is Thomas? Come on.

Provide a substantive POINT and I'll try to respond in kind, maybe. Why don't you give that a shot, mkay?

Steeler

Who's claiming that? And stop stealing my copyright.

__________________

leejo

I see. But I don't think anyone has suggested that all things natural be permitted. They are refuting the claim that since homosexuality is "unnatural" we shouldn't allow it by showing how homosexuality occurs in nature a-plenty. Besides, I'm an "animal" and I live in "nature" so if I do it it must be natural, right? Same thing with Ted and Brent.

The whole natural/unnatural thing is immaterial, IMO.

leejo

Cing, El Gringo, TheFenix, Amosely, et al, have implied that being against redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is "against" homosexuals, that Republicans are "against" homosexuals, and you yourself asked me, somewhat disingenuously, "Would you prefer rights legislation that is meek and ineffectual?"

Am I still clutching my pearls and that was a serious question without a trace of sarcasm?

xanathemax

I would, but you're just too god damn irritating for it to be worthwhile. Why can't you type and discuss like a normal person instead of being so obnoxious about it?

Being against gay marriage IS being against homosexuals, or homosexuality. That you would try to frame it as anything else is patently absurd. Saying to someone that you aren't allowed the same priveleges I am because of your sexual orientation is about as plain as prejudice gets. Trying to mask it as something else (which you haven't even come out and defined) is ridiculous.

I know you as a white heterosexual christian middle class male think you know what's better for minorities than they do, but trust me, you don't.

leejo

I think you need to read what you type and simmer WAY down.

You hurl invective in every sentence, and I'm too irritating? You were wrong about Clarence Thomas's attendance, and you are wrong about me. I have dear dear friends who are gay. My daughter calls one such friend "uncle Ted". I will be staying with another and his "husband" for a long weekend in Florida next month.

You know nothing about me, so take your insults and stick 'em. You just make yourself look like an ass.

xanathemax

The whole "I have gay/black friends" is the most classic defense of a bigot, so sorry if I'm not convinced.

leejo

Of course not. Why let facts interfere with your right to slander me? I'm done talking to you.

CingularDuality

You are correct. And we have laws that prohibit natural things. I don't have a problem with that. I was just pointing out that the "unnatural" argument about homosexuality is false.

If you want to argue that homosexuality should be outlawed, then that's an entirely different argument.

To a certain extent, yes. But just because I think that Republicans (in general) aren't trying to help protect gay people's rights doesn't mean that I think Democrats are any better for attacking them for it. Even if attitudes shifted, gays had civil unions available nationwide, and the Log Cabin Republicans became a significant force in their party, I bet the Dems would still try to paint the Republicans as being anti-gay.

Personally, I blame the Republican Party's reluctance to be reasonable on gay issues on the religious fringe that still seems to have a horrible influence on the party.

Is there any chance we could continue this discussion without the personal attacks? If not, the "close thread" button is close at hand...

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Lucky Shot

Jeffery Toobin wrote a book about Clarence Thomas calling him one of the "angriest people" out there. He was then interviewed on the Laura Ingraham show (She clerked for Thomas years ago) and asked Toobin if he ever met or interviewed Thomas. Toobin would not say answer except to say "ask him."

So 10/4's show, Thomas is interviewed for an hour. When asked about Toobin, he confirmed that no interview happened and he would not recognize Toobin if he saw him on the street. In other words, Toobin has an axe to grind. Heck, on NPR's Diane Rehm show, Toobin called Thomas a "Nut" while also saying this...

Toobin has an axe to grind, IMO.

In regards to whether he asks questions or not, he was asked about that in the interview also and his response was that along with the case lawyers file extremely detailed briefs which answer pretty much everything. Any followup questions are generally asked by the others but the written brief answers most questions.

I think the Anita Hill episode is really overshadowing the rest of the book including the tale of how a black kid out of a broken family in the 60's was able to find his way through life to eventually the become a Supreme Court Judge. He had a difficult route and certainly there are several things mentioned in the interview that can be considered inspirational.

The interview is available here...

Lucky Shot

xanathemax

Note that his ascent was aided in a large part by affirmative action programs, which he has since denounced.

Lucky Shot

And? He is still found to be perfectly competent for the position.

Lucky Shot