Susan's Place Transgender Resources

QuoteIf we elevate an open homosexual to the Supreme Court, we will be elevating someone who freely admits that he (generic use) engages routinely in behavior that was still a felony in every state in the Union as recently as 1962 and a felony in the other 49 states until 1972.

Sodomy is still a felony in the criminal code of about a dozen states. The Lawrence decision of 2003, an egregious act of judicial activism, prohibited enforcement of these laws, but the fact remains that 25% of the states in the Union still regard it as criminal behavior.

We simply should not elevate to the highest court in the land people who are known for engaging in sexually abnormal behavior which would technically make them felons in a quarter of the states over which they will have jurisdiction.

Link (http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147493455)

You're right!  Instead let's appoint a narrow minded right wing bigot who is against civil rights for all.

You know what? We should kick Clarence Thomas out of the regular Supreme Court and force him to serve in a special "Colored" supreme court, because black people were legally segregated from white people under Jim Crow laws in many states as recently as the 1960s!

And, you know, equal treatment is bad. And stuff.
::)

I can't believe people still think like this. It makes me sick to my stomach.

I mean, I went to the anti-DOMA protests in Boston when I was in high school, and I actually saw a huge sign on the other side that said "homosexuals are demons". But I grew up in a pretty LGBT-positive environment, so I'm sheltered when it comes to this unabased hatred. It still boggles my mind to think that there are people who actually believe these things.

And good lord, maybe a homosexual judge would be swayed towards supporting homosexuals, but these people don't have a problem that white, heterosexual, cismale judges will have just as much bias towards their own groups?

Lets do this right:

Scalia - obviously connected to the Mafia
Alito - Same as Scalia
Thomas - As stated because he is Black
Ginsburg - needless to say, a woman
Sotomayor - a woman and Hispanic.

Let just have all Anglo-Saxon Protestant Males, who are married.

Give me a break.  Bigots talking out of their posteriors again.

Justice Kirby recently RETIRED from the Australian High Court. He was openly gay. I love living in backwater sometimes.  ;)

OH my GAWD! Did he get his icky homosexual agendacooties everywhere? Ewwwww!!!111groooossssss....

No, but some of his decisions were a bit strange, nothing to do with his gayness though, just strange.

Hum,.. "It used to be illegal! and still is in some places!" seems like a strange argument to me.
I mean, Women weren't allowed to legally vote until fairly recently, and they still can't in some countries, does that mean that women shouldn't be allowed on the bench?

Also, I thought sodomy referred to anal sex in general. Straight people have it too. Does that mean that straight people who've had anal sex are unfit to serve? Or does it only apply to gay people who "may or may not" have had it?

It's just such a stupid argument!

Quote from: PanoramaIsland on April 16, 2010, 03:17:18 PM
You know what? We should kick Clarence Thomas out of the regular Supreme Court and force him to serve in a special "Colored" supreme court, because black people were legally segregated from white people under Jim Crow laws in many states as recently as the 1960s!

And, you know, equal treatment is bad. And stuff.
::)

Touche'! Very good point!


Dawn

---

Post Merge: April 19, 2010, 11:31:39 AM

---

It's amazing to me that these Fundiephobic outlets seem to never give you an available method of commenting to their delusional idiocies within their website!

What are they afraid of?........................oh yeah, the truth!


Dawn

Sodomy is anything non missionary, or at least non vaginal penetration. Oral sex is sodomy. Let's throw every man who gets a ->-bleeped-<- and every woman who gives them in prison.

People are god damn stupid.

If we could just get their point of view classified as a "paraphilia" by the DSM, we could sure have a lot of fun!!  For many of them I personally suspect that it does satisfy a "pseudo-sexual need" just as the other "paraphilia's do which is to have some type of power over other people. I know of two people of this stripe who are on California's registry of sexual predators.  :D

Certainly I think that the limiting and debilitating exclusive compulsion for missionary, lights-off, monogamous heterosexual reproductive sex constitutes a paraphilia by any reasonable measure. ;D

HEY!  The RCC says the sole reason for having the missionary-lites off-compulsory foolin' around in the sack stuff is to make more catholics.  Or something like that.  But then again, the pope did say we shouldn't succumb to conformism. 

Guess we'll have to think for ourselves.