Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

Sneaking a lesbian onto the Supreme Court

Discussion in 'The Soapbox' started by aristotle, Apr 17, 2010.

  1. aristotle

    aristotle Expert Expediter

    If The Obama administration wants to nominate a homosexual to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, why not be open about such a move? There is a news story today at Politics, Political News - by Josh Gerstein entitled " WH riled by CBS web post on Kagan."

    Apparently, Elena Kagan is a leading candidate to be nominated by Obama to the Supreme Court and the Obama administration is trying to squelch any questions about her sexual orientation. Wonder why? Let's have an open debate about whether this is a good direction for our country.

    Obama promised to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America. In his quest to transform America, why not go all the way and nominate a pedophile from NAMBLA? That's diversity.
  2. layoutshooter

    layoutshooter New Recruit

    Nambla is a sick bunch of puppies. Being a lesbian, male or female, makes little difference to me if they adhere to the Constitution and only rule on the law in question and don't try to legislate from the bench.
  3. Rhodes101

    Rhodes101 Banned

    I would like to come out and confirm that I am a male lesbian.
  4. letzrockexpress

    letzrockexpress New Recruit

    Aristotle, I am sure you were trying to make an intelligent point by bringing NAMBLA into this discussion. Please clarify. Only an insecure homophobe would try to relate Homosexuality to men having sex with little boys.
  5. layoutshooter

    layoutshooter New Recruit

    I don't think that "homophobe" is the correct medical term. I thought I heard the term once, slips my mind now.
  6. aristotle

    aristotle Expert Expediter

    Someone who is morally confused about the fundamental relationship between men and women might not be suitable to interpret law for the nation as a whole. Such a person, being far outside the mainstream of traditional values, might be objectionable to a majority of Americans. Such a person might have a radical agenda objectionable to most Americans.

    Let's have an open discussion. Obama doesn't want the topic broached at all. Bringing this into the light helps everyone. If a majority of the Senate vote to confirm, she's in. Very simple.
  7. layoutshooter

    layoutshooter New Recruit

    Really? I thought you were from the Detroit area. :p
  8. letzrockexpress

    letzrockexpress New Recruit

    An open discussion is fine. Do you have an issue with the sexuality of all the justices of the Supreme Court, or do you just assume that because this woman may be gay that she automatically has a leftward leaning agenda?
    I find myself these days leaning toward Libertarianism. As such, I believe that what one does with their body and what one feels in their heart toward another is their business, not mine. I do not believe that one's sexuality clouds their ability to make a balanced decision, whether that person is homosexual, heterosexual, or Asexual for that matter...As far as a being morally confused, well, that depends on your definition of morality. It may be a moral issue for you, but it is not for me. It is not a moral issue for a lot of people.
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2010
  9. RLENT

    RLENT Seasoned Expediter

    Oh, I really don't think so .....

    Both are sexual perversions ....

    Pervert (verb) definition: 1. change the inherent purpose or function of something; 2. To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse, 3. To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort (culled from various sources on the web)

    The purpose and function of sex in any species is procreation, in furtherance of the survival of the species. It is a means to an end. This ought to be something that is largely self-evident, and for most it is.

    Sex is (or can be) an intensely pleasurable activity - it was designed that way, in order to accomplish it's purpose.

    The above is intended to be a common sense and rational explanation on the subject of sex at it's most fundamental and basic level - and an explanation of what is sexual perversion - and it does not delve into ethical, moral, or religious condemnation of those who, for whatever reasons, feel attracted to those of the same sex.

    Clearly, some people do feel that attraction (or at least claim to) - that issue is beyond the scope of what I'm trying address, and is an area which is subject to much disagreement and divisiveness, along ethical, moral, and religious lines.
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2010
  10. RLENT

    RLENT Seasoned Expediter

    And I would agree ..... to a point.

    In one's private life and conduct, the above sentiments are entirely reasonable, assuming two consenting adults - no matter how I might personally view such conduct.

    However, at the point where anyone would aspire to public office and have the ability to affect others with their decisions, many matters which are normally private and outside the business of anyone else but the individuals involved, become a valid topic for consideration and debate.

    Really ?

    You surely aren't serious are you ?

    I can imagine few other subjects that have the potential to cloud a person's judgement as much as the subject of sex ...... :p :rolleyes:

    Certainly true ...... and it is also certainly true that for many people it is.
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2010
  11. letzrockexpress

    letzrockexpress New Recruit

    I am indeed serious.. while I agree the subject of sex can cloud someone's judgement, it is beside the point. One's sexuality only determines toward whom they might be clouded, hetero, ****, male, female, etc.... Being that we are all susceptible to it, how a Supreme Court nominee is sexually oriented is unimportant.
  12. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Seasoned Expediter

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the only men that are sexually attracted to little boys are homosexual men.

    Over the years, I've come to believe that homosexuality is a form of mental illness brought on by a genetic abmormality. Keep in mind that the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a mental disorder until it was removed from that classification in 1973. With that background in mind, would we want someone on the Supreme Court with for instance, bipolar disorder? Remember that Thomas Eagleton was forced out as Geo. McGovern's VP candidate due to his treatment for depression. Haven't we recently seen senators and congressmen forced out of office for homosexual activity? Wonder if Slick Willie would have survived his impeachment if he had been caught getting serviced in the Oval Office by a 20-year old MALE intern?

    That said, it's probably a pretty astute move to nominate her. Even if she has a horrible record, anyone voting against her would be labeled by the left and the MSM as bigot and homophobe.

    For a little light reading, here's an interesting article on homosexuality and its relation to mental disorders:

    Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems
  13. letzrockexpress

    letzrockexpress New Recruit

    Pediphilia, the type NAMBLA is involved in, pertains to men who enjoy the smooth, soft bodies of pre pubescent boys. They are not homosexual in the general sense. When a victim begins to mature, this type of pediphile usually moves on to a new conquest.
  14. RLENT

    RLENT Seasoned Expediter

    So - would the smooth, soft bodies of pre pubescent girls do it for 'em as well ?

    Clearly, it's not just about smooth, soft pre pubescent bodies .... but also ones that are male .....

    Correct - they are homosexual in the specific sense, in that they prefer young males, as opposed to older males.

    The effort to focus on age (on the part of those advancing the homosexual agenda generally, not NAMBLA types) is a red herring .... and is an attempt to divert attention, and sanction and gain approval for perverted behavior (their own) - by contrasting it with a similar, but somewhat different, type of behavior which is clearly indefensible generally, as far as society is concerned.

    It's sort of a case of a "Look, what I'm doing is not as bad as _____" justification .... by minimizing the conduct against something considered to be far worse.

    And the point of this statement is what, exactly ?

    That the individual is still a homosexual in a specific sense, and still has a specific desire or compulsion for having sex with young males ? :confused:
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2010
  15. aristotle

    aristotle Expert Expediter

    Look, if you got a toe-tapper in the stall next to yourself, just run.
  16. RLENT

    RLENT Seasoned Expediter

    For those which are unfamiliar with the process of how so-called "mental illness" is actually "discovered", defined, and adjudicated in the field of psychiatry, and included in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - the "bible" of psychiatry), the above decision (to reclassify) was an entirely political decision ..... which is entirely appropriate I suppose, since, by and large, psychiatry is largely a political subject, and not a scientific, or even a medical, one.

    Members of the APA (American Psychiatric Association) get together regularly and vote on what does, and does not, constitute mental illness - and consequently what should be included in the DSM.

    As such, what constitutes so-called mental illness is largely a matter of opinion, and not empirical scientific evidence.

    This is pretty much entirely unlike anything else in the rest of the medical profession, which is mostly based on scientific methods and principals, and usually involves discovery and observation of some physical thing (a bacteria, virus, physical condition, etc)

    When was the last time you heard of a group of normal medical doctors getting together and voting on whether a bacteria or virus was "real" and did indeed exist, or was the cause of a illness or disease ?

    Or vote on some other physical condition, such as diabetes, which has clearly observable physical phenomena ?

    These are things which are actually subject to the scientific method and experimental proofs.

    I view it slightly differently:

    Homosexuality is a matter of confusion :D

    Further, I believe it is a spiritual matter, and not a physical (medical or genetic) one.
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2010
  17. RLENT

    RLENT Seasoned Expediter

    One further point that I wanted to mention, which should be somewhat evident, but wasn't clearly stated:

    If the above explanation with regard to sexual perversion seems reasonable and logical to one, there is something else that follows as an extension of it .....

    But first, I want to address the matter the words pervert (a verb, as in "to pervert") and perversion a little further.

    Unfortunately, due to their association with matters of a sexual nature, these words have acquired a lot of baggage as a consequence of various ethical, moral, or religious beliefs or positions that people hold, and perhaps conduct they have engaged in (or not)

    Indeed, the use of both words today, outside of a sexual context, is fairly rare - which is somewhat of an odd thing - because the words themselves express a concept which isn't necessarily exclusively sexual.

    That this is so (acquisition of baggage), is, perhaps, a testament to the degree which the subject of sex engenders a large amount of emotion and "think" (some of it sane, some of it much less so) for many. For most, particularly in the US, sex itself is a fairly taboo subject - something one doesn't generally discuss trivially in polite company - this is because of it's highly personal and intimate nature, and other social factors.

    At any rate ....... the words pervert and perversion at their basic, imply things which the definitions I cited above illustrate (distortion, alteration, misuse, etc.)

    Since we are talking about the selection of a Supreme Court Justice (or any judge for that matter), the issues of fidelity and adherence to the law as written and intended, the Framer's original intent and strict construction with regard to the Constitution, and the like are indeed very relevant ..... because the inclination and resulting conduct on the part of any nominee with regard to these things potentially affects the rights and liberties of many.

    Any individual's inclination, propensity, and proclivity to adhere to such things without interpreting incorrectly, misconstruing, distorting, or altering them, is a bonafide and entirely valid issue for discussion.

    And I would submit that someone who is inclined to pervert things in one area of Life, might well be prone to do it in another (although that isn't necessarily a given, by any means)

    Of course, if one subscribes to the view that a person's sexual orientation is a genetic matter (a premise that is by no means scientifically proven), and that such conduct is not a matter of choosing of one's own volition and free will (regardless of whether there might be certain factors that do indeed incline a person in a certain direction), then the premise immediately above will not have much merit, or carry much weight, for you personally.

    Understand, that the above sentiments are not targeted specifically at homosexuals (or bisexuals .... or whatever sexuals ....) to the exclusion of heterosexuals - I would just as easily have similar concerns about a heterosexual who was inclined to some other form of sexual perversion (and there are, most assuredly, many)
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2010
  18. Humble2drive

    Humble2drive New Recruit

    You are wrong. This is well researched and documented. Below is one example out of many on this subject.

    Your assumption on this can be dangerous thinking because parents could easily let down their guard when letting heterosexual males have exclusive close contact with young boys.

    "Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons.
    Groth AN, Birnbaum HJ.
    A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."

    You still believe it to be a mental illness; eventhough, the APA removed it from that classification back in the 70s?

    Yes, that is very light reading, considering you provided a link to NARTH.
    NARTH is a group of therapists who's very existence is depedent on the conclusion that homosexuality is a mental disorder that needs treatment.
    They are "An international referral service of licensed therapists offering sexual reorientation treatment in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia"
    Hardly an un biased group.

    Also, the mental disorders mentioned in the article are more the result of being gay than the cause.

    Current research regarding biological factors in the fields of epigenetics and neurobiology are very compelling and make scientific sense. We can agree on the genetic aspect but the mental disorder angle is just soo 70s.:D
  19. aristotle

    aristotle Expert Expediter

    In the 1970's we called sexual deviancy by its real name: sexual deviancy. Unnatural acts remain unnatural despite revisionist labeling efforts.
  20. Humble2drive

    Humble2drive New Recruit

    Homosexuality was and still is NOT the norm; therefore, sexual deviancy remains a correct term regardless of the reason for a person's sexual orientation.
    Revisionism cannot change that label; however, political correctness can make it an unpopular term. ;)

Share This Page