Originally posted by dadudemon
This is good.She's got the right perspective for the Supreme Court. As a liberal, I have no problem with her positions and previous rulings. They are the positions a Justice should have.
Yeah, but she used the phrase "sexual preference" tho.
Get your f*cking priorities straight, this matters.
Originally posted by Newjak
Like are people so concerned about Biden vs ACB using the same term that they're removing the context of why LGBTQ people would be concerned about a religious conservative Supreme Court nominee using the term?It was a long standing argument against homosexuals to say their desired partner was a choice therefore they can choose to be in a 'nonsinful' relationship with hetero partners instead.
This is a well documented standard that got applied to whether homosexual marriage or even homosexuality should be legal.
To be serious though, this is not really about the sexual preference thing specifically. Yes there are bigger problems, but what we saw here is a phrase suddenly become offensive overnight. We then saw websters dictionary altering the definition of it in response.
It's not a monumental deal now, but on the other hand if we just ignore it, will we ignore it the next time too? And the time after that?
Originally posted by SurturI don't particularly care whether you think it flies or not.
This excuse just doesn't fly. Either it's offensive or it is not.For me personally I do not find it offensive, but I feel anyone who only finds it offensive from ACB is a hypocrite.
That was the reality of how homosexual lifestyles were undermined by conservative religious groups in this country :/
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeThere's subjective reality and objective reality.
You have a warped sense of reality.
Subjective only exists in the mind: The supernatural.
Objective reality exists outside of consciousness and cannot be disputed.
Unless you're a dumbass who can't read further than a high school level.
Originally posted by Newjak
Like are people so concerned about Biden vs ACB using the same term that they're removing the context of why LGBTQ people would be concerned about a religious conservative Supreme Court nominee using the term?It was a long standing argument against homosexuals to say their desired partner was a choice therefore they can choose to be in a 'nonsinful' relationship with hetero partners instead.
This is a well documented standard that got applied to whether homosexual marriage or even homosexuality should be legal.
The question then becomes on whether ACB’s intent was clearly to portray the word “preference” within that context.
What do you think?