Jump to content
Motor City Sonics

The Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

I am surrounded by liberal policy people at work and even I didn't recognize it as a problem.  I usually refer to it as "sexual identity", but I don't see Barrett's use of the term "sexual preference" to be an egregious offense, at least not yet. 

The issue with using "sexual preference" is that it implies being gay is a choice, versus being oriented toward the same sex by nature, which through extensive research has become the prevailing view.

The problem is, if the right can position being gay as a choice, they can justify withholding equality under the law for gay people as being an unearned privilege based on a lifestyle of their choosing, as well as justifying the use of "therapy" to "correct" being gay, especially among minors who have no legal agency in the matter.

The continuing use of "preference" by the right is an aggressive tactic designed to both undermine communities organized to support gay people, and to embolden conservatives to withhold recognition and respect of those communities and ultimately of the individuals themselves.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FanDuel Michigan Sports Betting

FanDuel Michigan $100 Launch Offer

Michigan online sports betting is launching shortly ( December 2020 or January 2021). Pre-register at FanDuel Sportsbook and get $50 free sports bets + $50 free online casino bets with no deposit necessary. Claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan Now

it's just one of those things that takes time to make it's way through to becoming known to be offensive... like "Oriental" for "Asian".   Not everyone becomes aware at the same time.  

I get why.... just never gave it any thought until today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, chasfh said:

The issue with using "sexual preference" is that it implies being gay is a choice, versus being oriented toward the same sex by nature, which through extensive research has become the prevailing view.

The problem is, if the right can position being gay as a choice, they can justify withholding equality under the law for gay people as being an unearned privilege based on a lifestyle of their choosing, as well as justifying the use of "therapy" to "correct" being gay, especially among minors who have no legal agency in the matter.

The continuing use of "preference" by the right is an aggressive tactic designed to both undermine communities organized to support gay people, and to embolden conservatives to withhold recognition and respect of those communities and ultimately of the individuals themselves.

Yes, I understand the problem.  I don't think it is necessarily the prevailing view yet though.  I know people who don't see it as something biological and others who do understand the problem but just haven't thought of the terminology

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, pfife said:

I hadn't considered it but when I think about it, I can see why that wouldn't be a favorable term so I'll stop using it.    

I'm in the same boat as you. Never considered it, not even sure if I completely agree, but see that point too so I'll try and stop saying it as well.

43 minutes ago, pfife said:

I didn't read about why they didn't like it but I can see "preference" as being similar to "choice" or "choosing to be gay", like I prefer Coke over Pepsi.

I mean, I know people that will only drink Coke and will even avoid certain restaurants that serve Pepsi instead, that said, if no other choice will take Pepsi.  Substitute Coke for women, Pepsi for men, and think prison.... I mean....i've heard people say....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

To be fair, I think Lindsey Graham is being sarcastic but I don't necessarily give him the benefit of the doubt. 

I agree.  It was certainly irony.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I'm in the same boat as you. Never considered it, not even sure if I completely agree, but see that point too so I'll try and stop saying it as well.

I mean, I know people that will only drink Coke and will even avoid certain restaurants that serve Pepsi instead, that said, if no other choice will take Pepsi.  Substitute Coke for women, Pepsi for men, and think prison.... I mean....i've heard people say....

I’m guessing all of these people that prefer coke to Pepsi have had both. So, I think that’s kind of a poor illustration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 1:48 PM, Buddha said:

i think it would help them politically.  i think it would be a terrible thing for the country.

Yeah, it would be terrible if my health insurance premiums don't continue to skyrocket as they have ever since the Obamonstrosity was created by a political party that I despise.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

Yeah, it would be terrible if my health insurance premiums don't continue to skyrocket as they have ever since the Obamonstrosity was created by a political party that I despise.  

Mine improved.... and I had a great plan before.  So I guess we cancel each other out then.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, six-hopper said:

Yeah, it would be terrible if my health insurance premiums don't continue to skyrocket as they have ever since the Obamonstrosity was created by a political party that I despise.  

Your boy has had 4 years to come up with a plan of his own, a Trumpcare plan.

whythesummer.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most amusing survey results are the ones that show that there are people who approve of the Affordable Care Act, but disapprove of Obamacare.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shelton said:

I’m guessing all of these people that prefer coke to Pepsi have had both. So, I think that’s kind of a poor illustration. 

I was merely joking about the thought of how men in prison have had both, but prefer one to the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Oblong said:

Mine improved.... and I had a great plan before.  So I guess we cancel each other out then.

 

 

Mine did too. It's funny how Trumpers have their insurance go up and can't manage a 401k when Obama is president. They also always have that one friend from Canada who comes to the US for health care or otherwise they would be dead. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My life has been unaffected by Obamacare.  We already had RomneyCare in Massachusetts though, so that may be why.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chasfh said:

The issue with using "sexual preference" is that it implies being gay is a choice, versus being oriented toward the same sex by nature, which through extensive research has become the prevailing view.

The problem is, if the right can position being gay as a choice, they can justify withholding equality under the law for gay people as being an unearned privilege based on a lifestyle of their choosing, as well as justifying the use of "therapy" to "correct" being gay, especially among minors who have no legal agency in the matter.

The continuing use of "preference" by the right is an aggressive tactic designed to both undermine communities organized to support gay people, and to embolden conservatives to withhold recognition and respect of those communities and ultimately of the individuals themselves.

Conservatives on twitter are currently passing around video clips and transcripts showing various people using, "sexual preference."  Including Biden in May and RBG in 2017.  So far.   If Joe got called out, I'm not aware of it.   So evidently it became an offensive term after May 2020.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I've seen those too....  so I feel less bad about not knowing about it.  Maybe it's a thing now but let's not pretend like it's something obvious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tiger337 said:

Yes, I understand the problem.  I don't think it is necessarily the prevailing view yet though.  I know people who don't see it as something biological and others who do understand the problem but just haven't thought of the terminology

It's been pretty well established that sexual attraction has biological and genetic components. It's not the same as making the choice to have sex or not have sex I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Melody said:

Conservatives on twitter are currently passing around video clips and transcripts showing various people using, "sexual preference."  Including Biden in May and RBG in 2017.  So far.   If Joe got called out, I'm not aware of it.   So evidently it became an offensive term after May 2020.

Twenty seventeen was a long time ago on a lot of measures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this conversation is kind of missing the point. 
 

It’s not so much that using the incorrect term makes someone a bigot. People do make mistakes or simply may be ignorant of the preferred terminology, but people’s actions in the context of which words were used matter. Joe Biden and RBG are allies of the LGBT community, so it’s kind of irrelevant if they used the wrong term. There isn’t possibly anything nefarious about them using it. 
 

Opponents of LGBT rights, however, make a point to use terms like preference. 
 

It could have been an honest mistake, but coming from a person of her political background, it’s hard to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that’s unfair, but it’s unfair that she is even in this position right now, so she can go **** herself. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shelton said:

It could have been an honest mistake, but coming from a person of her political background, it’s hard to give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that’s unfair, but it’s unfair that she is even in this position right now, so she can go **** herself. 

Yeah  - Intent and context matters. Using 'preference' language is not necessarily exclusive of believing that homosexuality is something more than a choice of moralities, even if it's no longer informed usage. However, if the reason you use the terminology of choice is to explicitly cast homosexuality into a religious morality framework, then that usage becomes an important signifier. There is about zero question that Barrett is not in that latter camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Twenty seventeen was a long time ago on a lot of measures.

Was May 2020?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In these times? Maybe.

I wouldn't expect a 78-year-old man to be on the leading edge of language usage changes, but as Shelton pointed out, intent means a lot. And I would bet you this: if someone explained to Joe Biden the problematic nature of using "sexual preference" and asked him to use "sexual orientation" in its place, he would apologize and agree to do so. If the same explanation were made to ACB, she would smile politely, answer in a unapologetic non-committal way, and keep right on using the term "sexual preference". Because she knows what she's doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chasfh said:

In these times? Maybe.

I wouldn't expect a 78-year-old man to be on the leading edge of language usage changes, but as Shelton pointed out, intent means a lot. And I would bet you this: if someone explained to Joe Biden the problematic nature of using "sexual preference" and asked him to use "sexual orientation" in its place, he would apologize and agree to do so. If the same explanation were made to ACB, she would smile politely, answer in a unapologetic non-committal way, and keep right on using the term "sexual preference". Because she knows what she's doing.

Sigh.  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/live-updates-amy-coney-barrett-faces-questions-supreme-court-confirmation-n1243016/ncrd1243241#blogHeader

Quote

Barrett replied, "I certainly didn't mean and would never mean to use a term that would" offend LGBTQ Americans. 

"If I did, I greatly apologize for that," she added.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, six-hopper said:

Yeah, it would be terrible if my health insurance premiums don't continue to skyrocket as they have ever since the Obamonstrosity was created by a political party that I despise.  

So Trump skyrocketed your premiums huh 
he said they'd decrease, I knew he was lying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

FanDuel Sportsbook Michigan - Sports Betting is launching in Michigan shortly (December 2020 or January 2021). If you register before it launches you will recieve $50 dollars at their online sportsbook and online casino!

Click Here to claim the FanDuel Michigan for $50 at Online Sportsbook & Casino Pre-registration Bonus Now

Motown Sports Blog



  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,838
    • Total Posts
      3,031,776
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...