ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Coney Barrett , People of Praise , Supreme Court nominees

Reply
Old 14th October 2020, 06:59 AM   #81
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,314
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
None of your business
You posted a policy prescription in a public place. It's everybody's business, now.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 07:01 AM   #82
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,803
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You posted a policy prescription in a public place. It's everybody's business, now.
I don't care.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 07:11 AM   #83
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 21,425
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You posted a policy prescription in a public place. It's everybody's business, now.
It's not my business. It is never my business.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 07:28 AM   #84
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,753
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Really? Is that a controversial term?

I think that even if we are talking about something as a preference, then:

a) it would not mean that the preference is not determined (or even strongly influenced) by biological factors

and

b) why should there even be a moral distinction between someone being born with a sexual orientation or a "freely chosen" (to the extent that any concept of "free choice" is even coherent) one?

Oh, I forget.... America and Jesus F Christ!

HironO, right? My mistake.

It's a new development, but my impression is that saying "sexual preference" implies that someone can choose to adopt a different orientation whenever he feels like it, which in turn implies that he can be judged by the behavior he "chooses." Read the links.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...arrett-hirono/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 08:18 AM   #85
Lennart Hyland
Muse
 
Lennart Hyland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 603
In case someone missed Sen. Whitehouse speech abouth how dark money is connected to the courts and this nomination:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcMPTNmq2ns
__________________
L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P

Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman
Lennart Hyland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 08:26 AM   #86
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,314
Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland View Post
In case someone missed Sen. Whitehouse speech abouth how dark money is connected to the courts and this nomination:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcMPTNmq2ns
Is there a transcript? I'd be interested in the references and the verifiable claims. It's a lot easier to get those from a written transcript. I'm not so interested that I'm going to stare at a half-hour video clip waiting for keywords to drop.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 09:20 AM   #87
carlosy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Is there a transcript? I'd be interested in the references and the verifiable claims. It's a lot easier to get those from a written transcript. I'm not so interested that I'm going to stare at a half-hour video clip waiting for keywords to drop.
I watched it, and I really recommend it. It's not just some keywords!
carlosy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 09:33 AM   #88
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,314
Originally Posted by carlosy View Post
I watched it, and I really recommend it. It's not just some keywords!
Yeah, but all I'm really interested in is the keywords. "Study X shows that... Rate Y has increased n times in m years, according to research published by DepartmentZ... "

Etc. I don't really care about the speech. I do care a little bit about whatever facts the speech contains.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 12:17 PM   #89
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
https://readersupportednews.org/news...in-philippines

Bergoglio is a PR man, and he will say what his audience wants him to hear. But he is still at heart the junta's best friend in the church and still the man as cardinal in Buenos Aires viciously opposed to gay rights.

Do not be fooled by what his lying mouth says, look at his actions. And like his actions with respect to spiriting paedophile priests from justice, his actions on LGBT+ rights betray his lying mouth.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 03:28 PM   #90
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,321
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
HironO, right? My mistake.

It's a new development, but my impression is that saying "sexual preference" implies that someone can choose to adopt a different orientation whenever he feels like it, which in turn implies that he can be judged by the behavior he "chooses." Read the links.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...arrett-hirono/
Sexual orientations are things like homosexual, asexual, heterosexual, etc.

Sexual preferences are things like, 'handcuffs but no rope', or 'I like big butts'.

When people say they 'respect/won't discriminate based on people's sexual preferences' it either means they still think orientation is a choice and could be legislated around, but what it SOUNDS like is that they won't judge people for being a passive bottom or lazy top.

Which, I mean, they are more forgiving than I am if the latter, but it pretty much never is.

EDIT: It isn't really new. It's been that way even in writing guides for more than twenty years.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 04:24 PM   #91
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,419
Barett would make a great judge in the Republic of GIlead.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 05:01 PM   #92
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,101
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
HironO, right? My mistake.

It's a new development, but my impression is that saying "sexual preference" implies that someone can choose to adopt a different orientation whenever he feels like it, which in turn implies that he can be judged by the behavior he "chooses." Read the links.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...arrett-hirono/
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Sexual orientations are things like homosexual, asexual, heterosexual, etc.

Sexual preferences are things like, 'handcuffs but no rope', or 'I like big butts'.

When people say they 'respect/won't discriminate based on people's sexual preferences' it either means they still think orientation is a choice and could be legislated around, but what it SOUNDS like is that they won't judge people for being a passive bottom or lazy top.

Which, I mean, they are more forgiving than I am if the latter, but it pretty much never is.

EDIT: It isn't really new. It's been that way even in writing guides for more than twenty years.
Okay, fair enough. Also, to be fair to her, if we must, she did actually apologize for using the term, FWIW.

Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Barett would make a great judge in the Republic of GIlead.
She is dressed like a handmaid after all.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 05:09 PM   #93
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,803
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Sexual orientations are things like homosexual, asexual, heterosexual, etc.

Sexual preferences are things like, 'handcuffs but no rope', or 'I like big butts'.

When people say they 'respect/won't discriminate based on people's sexual preferences' it either means they still think orientation is a choice and could be legislated around, but what it SOUNDS like is that they won't judge people for being a passive bottom or lazy top.

Which, I mean, they are more forgiving than I am if the latter, but it pretty much never is.

EDIT: It isn't really new. It's been that way even in writing guides for more than twenty years.
Both things you describe are aspects of brain chemistry, completely unchangeable except for a change in that chemistry.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 05:17 PM   #94
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,005
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Sen. Hirona is challenging Barrett on her use of the term "sexual preference," as if it's casual choice, rather than biological "sexual orientation," and sees it as worrisome for gay marriage and other LGBTQ rights.
No doubt people are expressing the same concern about Joe Biden, who used the term "sexual preference" a few months ago.

Quote:
During a roundtable discussion in May, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate promised to "rebuild the backbone of this country, the middle class, but this time bring everybody along regardless of color, sexual preference, their backgrounds."
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 05:27 PM   #95
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,314
The more I think about it, the more I doubt anyone ever actually thought sexual preference was a voluntary thing. I think this controversy is entirely artificial.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 06:40 PM   #96
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,555
Imagine if Barrett were to utter something like this...

"I realize that the majority of Americans feel a new SCOTUS appointment should await the next Presidential term. And it's apparent that to continue this process of confirmation now would most likely only further inflame passions and entrench partisanship. For these reasons I must decline to accept a nomination to the Supreme Court at this time. I would be happy to resume the process after the commencement of the next Presidential term."

I think this would be the honorable course. Courts of law must never be political, for the entwining of the two debauches the law. A justice who appreciates this and acts accordingly should never permit himself to be compromised so.

The eager applicant who forges ahead in this kind of politicization of the process of nomination and confirmation, where the results are *known* to be essentially strictly along party lines, participates in a corrupted system. The more strenuous the desire to be installed, the more suspect the motives. Power, or Service?

This is reinforced when convenient 'oversight' in disclosure of past activities and opinions comes to light. A justice who is dishonest about potentially compromising or 3embarrassing aspects of his life, in order to better secure the position sought, must be held to the most stringent standards and face disqualification at a low threshold.

For positions of great power, it should almost be axiomatic that those who most strongly desire such ought to be deemed ineligible out of hand. Power tends to attract the power hungry. I feel that a lottery drawing from a large pool of candidates selected by a 3rd party committee applying established qualifications would be more likely to result in a more widely acceptable and accepted office holder. (Naturally, the new danger would be the corruption of the selection committee.

As Beau of the Fifth Column always closes, "It's just a thought."
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 06:50 PM   #97
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,212
Oh, you dreamer you.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 07:02 PM   #98
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,952
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The more I think about it, the more I doubt anyone ever actually thought sexual preference was a voluntary thing.

Then you'd be wrong. The belief that homosexuality is a voluntary choice is a common belief among people in anti-gay groups and communities. That's why they believe in and support gay conversion programs, and why they oppose having gays be one of the groups covered by anti-discrimination laws and policies. A common refrain among people in such groups is that being Black is a way some people are born, something that can't be changed, so it's fair to have anti-discrimination laws that prevent discrimination against Blacks, but being gay is a choice and something people can change if they choose to so it's wrong to include gays in anti-discrimination laws.

Now you can say that those people say such things but don't really believe it if you want, but I'm not aware of any evidence that they're lying about believing that. There are parents who forced gay children to undergo gay conversion therapy -- which has been an unpleasant and emotionally harmful program for many of the people who have been forced to undergo it -- because the parents apparently held a genuine belief their children could be helped to renounce homosexuality and choose to be heterosexual by undergoing such treatment.

If those parents really did not believe homosexuality was voluntary and could be changed, as you are asserting when you say "I doubt anyone ever actually thought sexual preference was a voluntary thing", then those parents were deliberately inflicting pain and harm on their children. Do you believe that?

That would be a criminal offense for them to force their children to undergo such treatment if they knew it could not help and knew that it would inflict pain and suffering. So do you believe that parents who put their children in gay conversion programs should be prosecuted for that crime? I don't recall you ever having expressed that opinion, and it doesn't sound like an opinion I'd expect you to hold.

I don't believe those parents were deliberately torturing their children. I think they honestly believed they were helping their children, based on the opinion they had heard repeatedly from speakers in the anti-gay movement that homosexuality is a choice. They honestly believe being gay is simply a choice, a lifestyle, which is why many people in anti-gay groups resist using the term "sexual orientation" and continue to use the phrase "sexual preference" instead.

Quote:
I think this controversy is entirely artificial.

Then I think you're wrong again. There are many people who have been speaking out about this issue over the past decade, and they appear to me to be sincere. And since this issue about homosexuality being a sexual orientation rather than a sexual preference is something which arose long before Amy Coney Barrett became a supreme court nominee, the current controversy is not simply something people created in order to oppose her confirmation -- it's about an important underlying issue, the use of the phrase "sexual preference" by people who oppose gay rights as part of their effort to keep gay women and men from being covered by anti-discrimination laws.

There have been a number of good articles written about this over the past decade or so. Here's a link for you to one of these, a Slate article by Jesse Bering from 2013:

Quote:

Stop Saying “Sexual Preference”
You may mean well, but it makes you sound ignorant.

There are some phrases that should just be done away with, but over time they are used and heard so routinely that we develop a sort of soft spot for them and can’t bear the thought of chopping off their heads. The term “sexual preference”—at least when it’s used interchangeably with “sexual orientation”—is one of these seemingly harmless phrases whose cultural execution, I’d say in this month of pride, is long overdue.

This is more than a matter of pedantics, and it’s definitely not one of political correctness. You’re more than entitled to continue using “sexual preference” right alongside “the gay lifestyle” or “avowed homosexual” or whatever term you’d like to broadcast just how dense you really are. Just know that it’s simply flat-out incorrect to refer to a person’s sexual orientation as a “preference.” More than that, it’s dangerous.

Having said that, sexual preference is unlike other terms in this particular social arena in that most people use it without any bad intentions. Naivetť is their only offense, and that’s far easier to fix than willful ignorance...

That last bit I quoted is especially relevant to the current controversy, so I'd like to talk about that a little. But since this comment is probably already a bit long for some people, I'll do that in a separate comment.

Last edited by Nova Land; 14th October 2020 at 07:04 PM.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 07:15 PM   #99
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,212
Parents wanted to believe it was a choice because it gave them hope that their children could change and become 'normal'. To believe otherwise meant they either had to accept their homosexuality or condemn them/ exclude them from their lives according to their religious teachings.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 07:26 PM   #100
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,803
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
Then you'd be wrong. The belief that homosexuality is a voluntary choice is a common belief among people in anti-gay groups and communities. That's why they believe in and support gay conversion programs, and why they oppose having gays be one of the groups covered by anti-discrimination laws and policies. A common refrain among people in such groups is that being Black is a way some people are born, something that can't be changed, so it's fair to have anti-discrimination laws that prevent discrimination against Blacks, but being gay is a choice and something people can change if they choose to so it's wrong to include gays in anti-discrimination laws.

Now you can say that those people say such things but don't really believe it if you want, but I'm not aware of any evidence that they're lying about believing that. There are parents who forced gay children to undergo gay conversion therapy -- which has been an unpleasant and emotionally harmful program for many of the people who have been forced to undergo it -- because the parents apparently held a genuine belief their children could be helped to renounce homosexuality and choose to be heterosexual by undergoing such treatment.

If those parents really did not believe homosexuality was voluntary and could be changed, as you are asserting when you say "I doubt anyone ever actually thought sexual preference was a voluntary thing", then those parents were deliberately inflicting pain and harm on their children. Do you believe that?

That would be a criminal offense for them to force their children to undergo such treatment if they knew it could not help and knew that it would inflict pain and suffering. So do you believe that parents who put their children in gay conversion programs should be prosecuted for that crime? I don't recall you ever having expressed that opinion, and it doesn't sound like an opinion I'd expect you to hold.

I don't believe those parents were deliberately torturing their children. I think they honestly believed they were helping their children, based on the opinion they had heard repeatedly from speakers in the anti-gay movement that homosexuality is a choice. They honestly believe being gay is simply a choice, a lifestyle, which is why many people in anti-gay groups resist using the term "sexual orientation" and continue to use the phrase "sexual preference" instead.




Then I think you're wrong again. There are many people who have been speaking out about this issue over the past decade, and they appear to me to be sincere. And since this issue about homosexuality being a sexual orientation rather than a sexual preference is something which arose long before Amy Coney Barrett became a supreme court nominee, the current controversy is not simply something people created in order to oppose her confirmation -- it's about an important underlying issue, the use of the phrase "sexual preference" by people who oppose gay rights as part of their effort to keep gay women and men from being covered by anti-discrimination laws.

There have been a number of good articles written about this over the past decade or so. Here's a link for you to one of these, a Slate article by Jesse Bering from 2013:




That last bit I quoted is especially relevant to the current controversy, so I'd like to talk about that a little. But since this comment is probably already a bit long for some people, I'll do that in a separate comment.
I'm not clear on what makes sexual orientation different from any other preference.

We dont have free will in preferences.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 08:08 PM   #101
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,952
Originally Posted by Jesse Bering on Slate
... itís simply flat-out incorrect to refer to a personís sexual orientation as a ďpreference.Ē More than that, itís dangerous.

Having said that, sexual preference is unlike other terms in this particular social arena in that most people use it without any bad intentions. Naivetť is their only offense, and thatís far easier to fix than willful ignorance...

This is something which people pressing for the use of the phrase sexual orientation rather than sexual preference have said many times, and it's very important in examining the current controversy. As Bering points out, most people using the phrase are simply using a familiar phrase with no intent of saying that homosexuals have simply chosen to be homosexual and could choose to be heterosexual if they put their mind to it.

People who oppose gay rights deliberately avoid using the phrase sexual orientation and deliberately use the phrase sexual preference instead; but there are many people (I would guess many more people) who use the phrase sexual preference simply because that used to be a common phrase in talking about gays, just as Negroes and colored people used to be common ways of referring to Blacks.

So when someone uses the phrase sexual preference in referring to homosexuality, a key question that people who support the use of the phrase sexual orientation need to ask themselves is whether the speaker is doing so deliberately (as anti-gay activists do) or unwittingly (the way many people who use the phrase do). If it's being done deliberately, people who support gay rights may feel a need to speak out against what the speaker has said; if it's being done unwittingly, it may seem better simply to let the matter pass for the moment if it's not a convenient time to get into such a discussion (and perhaps try to explain the problem to the speaker at another time).

As those who've gone to Google to find examples of people opposed to Barrett's nomination who have used the phrase have found, there are plenty of examples to choose from -- including Joe Biden. I suspect it's especially common among older people (just as years after it was no longer considered polite to refer to Blacks as colored people or Negroes there were older people who'd used those terms for many years of their lives and might unthinkingly slip into using one of those terms again). Most of us don't take time to plan out carefully the exact wording of everything we're going to say when we're engaged in casual conversation, or take time to write out and examine the wording of things we'll say in answer to questions people may ask us before we start answering, and many of us realize that other people don't do that either.

In the case of Joe Biden, and many others who have been found to have used the phrase "sexual preference" on some occasion, I think the assumption (conscious or unconscious) of people familiar with the preference/orientation matter, is that he didn't mean it as a way of saying that being gay is a choice, so they felt no strong need to interrupt him at the time or to write a strong blog post denouncing him for it later.

It would be different, however, if the person using the phrase were an anti-gay activist making a public speech, a member of the anti-gay community, or a person who appeared to have significant connections to the anti-gay community. If a politician who appeared to be courting anti-gay voters were to use that phrase in campaign speeches, for example, it would be reasonable to suspect it was a way of communicating they believed that being gay was something people chose and that therefore gays should not be covered by anti-discrimination laws.

And that's why people are reacting quite differently to Barrett's use of the phrase than to Biden's. Barrett does have strong connections to the anti-gay community. She has met with people in that community over the years, seems sympathetic to many of their views, and appears to be appealing for their support in the current question of whether she should be confirmed as a supreme court justice. So it's reasonable for politicians who support gay rights, such as some of the Democratic senators at the judiciary committee hearing, to question her about her use of that particular wording and see what she meant by it. Was she truly unaware of the controversy over the use of that particular phrase (even though it has come up in many discussions about anti-discrimation laws)? Was she aware of the controversy about that phrase, but simply a little careless with her words, using a once-fashionable phrase without thinking it's now heard differently than in the past (the way Joe Biden likely was when he used the phrase). Or is that her preferred phrase for describing homosexuality and does it reflect an underlying belief that homosexuality is a choice people make?

That's something which is worth clearing up before the hearing is over. And the apology she made doesn't really do that. From NPR:

Quote:
"I certainly didn't mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community," Barrett said. "If I did, I greatly apologize for that. I simply meant to be referring to Obergefell's holding with regard to same-sex marriage."

That's an example of the classic nopology: I'm sorry if you took offense at what I said. But the important question isn't whether she intended to offend gays with her wording; it's whether she believes that homosexuality is a choice people make, which is what that phrase means to a lot of people she has been closely associated with believe. And that's a question she continues to refuse to address in the hearings -- which makes it quite likely that is indeed what she believes and why she used that phrase.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 08:26 PM   #102
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 57,548
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Parents wanted to believe it was a choice because it gave them hope that their children could change and become 'normal'. To believe otherwise meant they either had to accept their homosexuality or condemn them/ exclude them from their lives according to their religious teachings.
Or, in the less charitable view, some people want to believe it's a choice because only then can it be a sin, and be punishable.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 08:30 PM   #103
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 11,753
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
No doubt people are expressing the same concern about Joe Biden, who used the term "sexual preference" a few months ago.

The issue isn't the term itself. The issue is what it means to someone who will hold the power to invalidate same-sex marriages, and who has expressed reservations about the Obergefell decision and other decisions that protect LGBTQ rights. That person is not Biden.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 09:09 PM   #104
Nova Land
/
Tagger
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Whitleyville, TN, surrounded by cats
Posts: 5,952
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm not clear on what makes sexual orientation different from any other preference.

My father was something of a salt addict. He put extra salt on almost everything he ate. (He even put salt on slices of bread before eating them.) So I grew up with a preference for salt on most things I ate. But later in life, with many people being told to cut down on salt consumption and salt-free foods becoming more common, I was able to eat and enjoy low-salt or no-salt foods on the occasions those were what was available and grew to quite enjoy them. My preference for salt was not genetic, so it was not difficult to develop a liking for unsalted foods.

My mother liked her coffee black, so when I was old enough to start drinking coffee with her I also drank my coffee black and that became my preference. But in later years I came to quite enjoy drinking sugared (and even, on occasions, heavily-sugared) coffee. My preference for black coffee was not genetic, so it was easy for me to change my coffee preferences.

I'm a cat person. We almost always had a cat in the family when I was growing up, so I grew up loving to be around cats. (Even though, in those years, I was allergic to the fur on some cats and being around them caused my eyeballs to do push-ups.) I didn't dislike dogs, but I had no particular liking for them either. But in later years I've occasionally taken care of dogs while their people were away or had other social interactions with dogs and I've grown quite fond of some. My preference for cats and indifference to dogs was not genetic, so again it was easy for me to change my preferences.

There are many preferences we all have which are not difficult for us to change if we want to.

In contrast, there are some things we can't change simply because we want to. I'm right-handed for instance. I can't become left-handed or ambidextrous simply by wanting to be. You may think my being right-handed is simply a matter of free will and something I could change if I wanted to badly enough, but it's not. It's genetic, so will-power alone isn't going to change it.

Sexual orientation is similar. Some people feel sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex but don't feel attraction to people of the same sex. Some people feel sexual attraction to people of the same sex but don't feel attraction to people of the opposite sex. Some people feel sexual attraction to people of the same sex and to people of the opposite sex. And that's not something any of those groups of people are able to change simply because they might want to.

That's why it's more accurate to label heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality as sexual orientations than as sexual preferences. These are not simply preferences which people can change even if they want to badly enough, they are integral parts of who those people are.

And -- getting back to the thread topic -- some people, such as the senators questioning Barrett about her beliefs and about where she stands on certain issues -- think it's important that supreme court justices understand that. It's not clear yet whether Barrett does or doesn't, but her use of the phrase sexual preference during the hearing increases the likelihood (already pretty strong even before she publicly used that phrase) that she doesn't.
Nova Land is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2020, 09:55 PM   #105
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,803
Originally Posted by Nova Land View Post
There are many preferences we all have which are not difficult for us to change if we want to.
But every preference, every thought you have, as far as we know, is simply physics and chemistry. And any effort to change it is also one of those chemical processes. There is no magical will that can be exerted on that.

Preferences/orientation are all just chemical processes kicked off long ago that is some combination of fixed and random variables
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 02:37 AM   #106
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
But not making definitive, final decisions on the spur of the moment without listening to the arguments on both sides. Judges are supposed to be impartial and judge each case on the merits, not their personal views.
Problem is, we're talking about three well known and constitutionally settled issues here (well ok not the water is wet bit, that's scientifically settled). There should be no need for any judge or applicant judge to say "I dunno, I'll have to research it". The correct answer should be almost instantaneous.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I mean, in terms of evolutionary biology...
No, in terms of patriarchical misogyny.

Last edited by Gulliver Foyle; 15th October 2020 at 02:41 AM.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 02:42 AM   #107
Gulliver Foyle
Critical Thinker
 
Gulliver Foyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cork baaaiii
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by gypsyjackson View Post
Itís putting it strongly, for sure!

National Catholic Reporter reviews papal visit to the Philippines




Some groups have noted that he also had the chance to speak out against killings but didnít:

Outright Internationalís take
Yes, groups and people set out to do evil tend to euphamise they evil that they're about to do.
Gulliver Foyle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 05:31 AM   #108
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,082
This whole discussion about homosexuality being or not being choice is silly.

Since I do not see being gay as anything wrong, it does not, in fact, matter if this is "lifestyle choice" or something that person in question cannot influence.

Though I do recognize value of "this is not choice" argument against beliefs of homophobes.
__________________
Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Trump is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 05:33 AM   #109
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,191
I prefer Supreme Court Judges who think that there should be a peaceful transition of power.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 07:08 AM   #110
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,314
The real question is whether the justice thinks there should be an unconstitutional transfer of power, as long as it's peaceful.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 07:15 AM   #111
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,218
I've seen it suggested that the existence of heterosexual women proves that homosexuality is not a choice.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 07:25 AM   #112
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,218
https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/st...37870178553856

Quote:
Amy Coney Barrett won’t say climate change is real
Footage embedded in tweet.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 07:34 AM   #113
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,803
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Mark in her favor. The founders didn't believe in climate change. More evidence she will arrive at the correct conclusion on cases.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 07:35 AM   #114
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,191
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The real question is whether the justice thinks there should be an unconstitutional transfer of power, as long as it's peaceful.
Candidates in the past thought so.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 07:37 AM   #115
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,902
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Or, in the less charitable view, some people want to believe it's a choice because only then can it be a sin, and be punishable.
This. The whole "Is homosexuality a choice" hijack the gay rights movement went through was just a red herring because it's easier to hate people (or to justify hating people) for choices they make than it is to hate them for things they are just born with.

But there's nothing wrong with being gay either way, so the questions of it being a personal choice or not is, at most, just a minor psychological curiosity.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 08:04 AM   #116
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,191
Given how many kids ACB has, I am hoping for a "Mary Cheney" moment for her to become less fundamentalist.
__________________
Prediction
https://xkcd.com/2370/
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 08:06 AM   #117
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,300
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
No doubt people are expressing the same concern about Joe Biden, who used the term "sexual preference" a few months ago.
That's different because reasons.

Webster recently stealth edited their definition of "preference" in order to claim that "sexual preference" is offensive. It didn't say that as recently as the end of September of this year. That's some Orwellian **** right there.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 08:07 AM   #118
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 47,314
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Candidates in the past thought so.
I mean, the job of the Court is to rule on whether something is constitutional, not whether it's peaceful or moral or desirable. If something lacks a constitutional basis or a legal precedent, they should say so, not keep their mouths shut or lie about their jurisprudence.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 08:12 AM   #119
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 47,300
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Seems like someone doesn't understand the role of the courts. The reality of climate change is an issue policymakers have to deal with, and the courts aren't supposed to make policy. It's almost never relevant to the courts, and in the few situations in which it might be, then it's still better for the court to not have voiced an opinion before hearing such a case.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2020, 08:13 AM   #120
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,803
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Seems like someone doesn't understand the role of the courts. The reality of climate change is an issue policymakers have to deal with, and the courts aren't supposed to make policy. It's almost never relevant to the courts, and in the few situations in which it might be, then it's still better for the court to not have voiced an opinion before hearing such a case.
The fact she thinks it is controversial brings into question her mental fitness for the job in the first place.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.